TLP has a two-parter you should read. Not as well written as others and a bit confusing at times. It must be the rum ruining his prose, but not his mind.
Randi Zuckerberg Think We Should Untangle Our Wired Lives
Who Can Know How Much Randi Zuckerberg Is Worth?
Randi Zuckerberg is Mark Zuckerberg's sister.
![[Image: charlize_theron.jpg]](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/images/charlize_theron.jpg)
Before I delve into part of his second post, consider this post by Kathy Shaidle: "The Anonymous Misogynist Online Army." Shaidle takes the eminently reasonable - but conservative - approach that the Internet isn't for everybody and if you can't handle the dark, rageful underpinnings of America, Twitter or whatever isn't for you.
She links to a mind-numbingly long post by Amanda Hess, in which Hess makes the broad claim that women are not welcome on the Internet and this is evidenced by the fact men make sexually explicit and explicitly violent messages towards women. They ignore male on male aggression, ignore female aggression to men (the majority of my Twitter haters have been female) and confuse violence with expression of sexuality. As with issues of rape and sexual harassment, women like Hess fold expressions of sexuality under violence statistics: simultaneously bloating "expressions of male on female violence" on a ridiculous scale while also them seeing male sexuality as fundamentally violent.
This segues nicely into to an important point of TLP's:
The problem for feminists is that they ignore the messages women send to men. Take TLP's article on Amy Schumer and how men and women deal with men expressing sexual interest in women and how women interpret and deal with it. Feminists might cheer parts of that but miss 50% of the equation: how women train men to be reflexively fearful of their own male sexuality, simply because women have been trained to see men as a class and sexual enemy.
Society wants women to be better producers and consumers and certainly can't have that if women have positive, healthy relationships with men (usually, a man). Women tend to define their lives in opposition to men (I'm independent....of men). They don't see rigidly hierarchical female relationships as bad, sexist or whatever. That is why any red-pill ideas -- or whatever the Hell that means now -- need to come from women. Sure, many women may enjoy ROK, but for the ideas to truly stick to those women who are not predisposed to agree with our message - they have to come from women. As per TLP above, any media as branded for men will result in women reflexively recoiling as they see it as impermissibly giving us more power than we deserve.
I have discussed before about how women use the fiction that all men are beasts here on the forum and on ROK. The disappointment that 2nd wave feminists and women found in male arms was passed onto their daughters and into the minds of today's young women. These women fell back into stereotypical approaches to American life: using fictions that all non-mainstream men are drunks and abusers of their women, see: the Irish, Italians, blacks, etc.
![[Image: time-is-god-dead.jpg]](http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/time-is-god-dead.jpg)
God is dead in American society, religion is nothing but a wisp of a laughing ghost. Highly religious societies displace certain parts of their member's psychology. Much like the who alcoholic broods alone in their apartment -- with no friends or family to love -- he bonds with the liquid substitute. While alcohol tends to drown out personal connections and real life success, religion helps certain people cope with internal strife and -- oftenly -- obsessive compulsive personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder. The unholy union of feminists and Christian conservatives over pornography in the Reagan administration didn't happen randomly. They were and are highly similar psychological profiles.
I was watching a Rick & Morty episode tonight. In it, Rick smugly kept thinking he had solved the problems he wrought on the world. His decisions resulted into a world that was getting worse, not better. Much like the triumphant atheist who thinks the world is becoming more rational, Rick assumes his solutions to the world's issues will necessarily make the world a better place. Snatching the bottle of rum from a life-long alcoholic's hands might feel the right thing to do (People shouldn't be drunks!) but you be would a fool. You can't take something so important to a person without providing a viable alternative or altering their life in a way that most likely will lead to psychological crisis.
The same applies to destroying religion in a deeply religious society. It was there for a fucking reason - what reasonable person would think destroying Christianity is the correct course of action? "Well, it's the right thing to do!" Yeah, way to convert your personal ideology into unassailable fact - are you advancing a religion?
Still, the problem for America is that narcissism has displaced the deeply religious, puritanical roots of America. You can't deny the alcoholic their booze without first grasping why they are drunks. You can't destroy God in a society without first understanding why they need religion. Christianity -- as practiced by the Puritans -- was a way of papering over anti-social impulses. The religious guilt over sin has devolved into sheer anxiety, the once revered father figures have been replaced by other entities.
In the present age, paternalism of the church and the father/husband figure has been destroyed. God might be dead, but he was resurrected by progressives and radicals in the forum of government and experts in the media. The public school system -- designed to save the child from the backwards ways of the parents and into the tender care of the state -- is the shining example of this. Media outlets regularly debate what is and is not good parenting. Women are trapped in a swirling matrix of conflicting opinions of what is and is not right for themselves and their children. Father isn't here and certainly isn't always right.
Without stable relationships with a husband, women seek affirmation from which displaces that: a career. The workplace becomes a de-facto home, a place for her individual personality to shine. Seeking approval over love from a man, a woman places great emphasis on her identity being affirmed by her new paternal figure: her corporation or governmental entity.
![[Image: leanin.jpg]](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/images/leanin.jpg)
This is a white woman's fantasy, which is why you have mindless bitching about black people (not Asian or Indian women, as those women are mopping the floor with them) and is necessarily middle-class. Any disruptions: political dissension, out of the mainstream opinions and anything that punctures the contours of the fantasy are verboten.
Men, as a class, are secondary actors in their personal fantasy. The milquetoast co-partner they wed in equality becomes their tormentor, as they need escape hatches into a reality they get to define: social media. While employer approval is a necessary variable in this feminine equation, what is of a supreme order is the persona created by a woman online.
We all know how many women are simply replaceable from a personality standpoint: cuddling, naps on rainy afternoons and Magic Mike. Yawn. However, these postures are incredibly important to the modern woman. Their narcissism informs them that they are incredibly unique. However, the same cloying insecurity prevents them from actually developing unique identities. The fiction they weave online is of supreme importance, much like a case of Bud Light to an alcoholic.
Just like an alcoholic -- if you follow their wishes -- they lead you around by the nose, ignoring what needs to be done. Their fantasies and fictions are drowned in a shallow pool of their self-perception. These women are desperate for omnipotent figures (notice the ratcheting up from paternalism to omnipotence) to affirm their fictions of their life.
Instead of truly questioning the effects and need for social media, women like Randi Zuckerberg want their gods to accept and affirm their social media presence. Instead of questioning the power of employers to police increasingly expendable workers by their opinions, online doings and the like, they just accept it as fact and demand that they approve of their baby photos. What 1%'er could say no to such no to such a blind, one-sided exchange of "power?"
TLP finishes with this:
She is using "science" to explain away her own shame over her parenting of her daughter.
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTw1ZNkWX0cf4P2C_F7v2...yYdSVQIPi3]](https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTw1ZNkWX0cf4P2C_F7v2yLZlVzILeLO2XmQPs8_yYdSVQIPi3)
In sum, women aren't mindlessly tapping away on their iPhones because they are dumb, X or Y. It is because social media represents the easiest way to pretend they are something else than an average, white woman in a society descending into psychological chaos.
I recall old feminist doctrines that asserted that women had to be much more competent or whatever than the equivalent male to be considered in the same conversation. Women who thought that birthed this generation of women - women who built these false constructions of who they were in their head. They thought they would roll into male institutions and revolutionize them for the better got completely gobsmacked in the mouth by reality.
They sulked away, but only to socialize their daughters using their existential and ideological failures as a springboard to launch a real and successful female revolution - using their daughters.
To this day, it hasn't worked. Women still eagerly search out for authority figures. From women, it's healthiest when it is calling Mom; the unhealthiest is calling Rachel Maddow. From men, it is their father or husband; the unhealthiest is some faggot in Cosmo. Women haven't gotten more independent, but more dependent in their lives on authority figures. They have cast off the men who would love them for faceless, genderless figures in wider society.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there is social media.
Randi Zuckerberg Think We Should Untangle Our Wired Lives
Who Can Know How Much Randi Zuckerberg Is Worth?
Randi Zuckerberg is Mark Zuckerberg's sister.
Before I delve into part of his second post, consider this post by Kathy Shaidle: "The Anonymous Misogynist Online Army." Shaidle takes the eminently reasonable - but conservative - approach that the Internet isn't for everybody and if you can't handle the dark, rageful underpinnings of America, Twitter or whatever isn't for you.
She links to a mind-numbingly long post by Amanda Hess, in which Hess makes the broad claim that women are not welcome on the Internet and this is evidenced by the fact men make sexually explicit and explicitly violent messages towards women. They ignore male on male aggression, ignore female aggression to men (the majority of my Twitter haters have been female) and confuse violence with expression of sexuality. As with issues of rape and sexual harassment, women like Hess fold expressions of sexuality under violence statistics: simultaneously bloating "expressions of male on female violence" on a ridiculous scale while also them seeing male sexuality as fundamentally violent.
This segues nicely into to an important point of TLP's:
Quote:Quote:
When social media is branded to men as a positive, the gimmick is that it magnifies their power, e.g. "the hive mind." This brand is reinforced even when it is depicted as bad, e.g. men's increased power to stalk, harass, or bully people. On the other hand, when social media is branded to women with interests and passions but no math skills it's for "finding support" or "community"; nothing powerful is expected to occur there, it's a place to feel safe, "connect" and "have a conversation." Those are not accidents, and they have nothing to do with biology, they are the result of market research and 50 years of very, very bad parenting.
The problem for feminists is that they ignore the messages women send to men. Take TLP's article on Amy Schumer and how men and women deal with men expressing sexual interest in women and how women interpret and deal with it. Feminists might cheer parts of that but miss 50% of the equation: how women train men to be reflexively fearful of their own male sexuality, simply because women have been trained to see men as a class and sexual enemy.
Society wants women to be better producers and consumers and certainly can't have that if women have positive, healthy relationships with men (usually, a man). Women tend to define their lives in opposition to men (I'm independent....of men). They don't see rigidly hierarchical female relationships as bad, sexist or whatever. That is why any red-pill ideas -- or whatever the Hell that means now -- need to come from women. Sure, many women may enjoy ROK, but for the ideas to truly stick to those women who are not predisposed to agree with our message - they have to come from women. As per TLP above, any media as branded for men will result in women reflexively recoiling as they see it as impermissibly giving us more power than we deserve.
I have discussed before about how women use the fiction that all men are beasts here on the forum and on ROK. The disappointment that 2nd wave feminists and women found in male arms was passed onto their daughters and into the minds of today's young women. These women fell back into stereotypical approaches to American life: using fictions that all non-mainstream men are drunks and abusers of their women, see: the Irish, Italians, blacks, etc.
God is dead in American society, religion is nothing but a wisp of a laughing ghost. Highly religious societies displace certain parts of their member's psychology. Much like the who alcoholic broods alone in their apartment -- with no friends or family to love -- he bonds with the liquid substitute. While alcohol tends to drown out personal connections and real life success, religion helps certain people cope with internal strife and -- oftenly -- obsessive compulsive personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder. The unholy union of feminists and Christian conservatives over pornography in the Reagan administration didn't happen randomly. They were and are highly similar psychological profiles.
I was watching a Rick & Morty episode tonight. In it, Rick smugly kept thinking he had solved the problems he wrought on the world. His decisions resulted into a world that was getting worse, not better. Much like the triumphant atheist who thinks the world is becoming more rational, Rick assumes his solutions to the world's issues will necessarily make the world a better place. Snatching the bottle of rum from a life-long alcoholic's hands might feel the right thing to do (People shouldn't be drunks!) but you be would a fool. You can't take something so important to a person without providing a viable alternative or altering their life in a way that most likely will lead to psychological crisis.
The same applies to destroying religion in a deeply religious society. It was there for a fucking reason - what reasonable person would think destroying Christianity is the correct course of action? "Well, it's the right thing to do!" Yeah, way to convert your personal ideology into unassailable fact - are you advancing a religion?
Still, the problem for America is that narcissism has displaced the deeply religious, puritanical roots of America. You can't deny the alcoholic their booze without first grasping why they are drunks. You can't destroy God in a society without first understanding why they need religion. Christianity -- as practiced by the Puritans -- was a way of papering over anti-social impulses. The religious guilt over sin has devolved into sheer anxiety, the once revered father figures have been replaced by other entities.
In the present age, paternalism of the church and the father/husband figure has been destroyed. God might be dead, but he was resurrected by progressives and radicals in the forum of government and experts in the media. The public school system -- designed to save the child from the backwards ways of the parents and into the tender care of the state -- is the shining example of this. Media outlets regularly debate what is and is not good parenting. Women are trapped in a swirling matrix of conflicting opinions of what is and is not right for themselves and their children. Father isn't here and certainly isn't always right.
Quote:Quote:
See how close to the edge you can get before Facebook itself censors you. It is tempting to see this as a "war on men" because Randi tests as a genetic female, or a war on conservatives because Randi sounds like a "capitalism with a human face"-progressive who ran pass interference for the DNC in 2008, but I hope you can see that the force would equally oppose anything that was slightly outside of the mainstream. Randi needs the job to tell her she is valuable, and the job wants frictionless employees. The war isn't on men or women, it is on individual freedom, it is regression to the mean by suppressing the mean, where mean is defined by its deviation from SFW, according to W.
Without stable relationships with a husband, women seek affirmation from which displaces that: a career. The workplace becomes a de-facto home, a place for her individual personality to shine. Seeking approval over love from a man, a woman places great emphasis on her identity being affirmed by her new paternal figure: her corporation or governmental entity.
This is a white woman's fantasy, which is why you have mindless bitching about black people (not Asian or Indian women, as those women are mopping the floor with them) and is necessarily middle-class. Any disruptions: political dissension, out of the mainstream opinions and anything that punctures the contours of the fantasy are verboten.
Men, as a class, are secondary actors in their personal fantasy. The milquetoast co-partner they wed in equality becomes their tormentor, as they need escape hatches into a reality they get to define: social media. While employer approval is a necessary variable in this feminine equation, what is of a supreme order is the persona created by a woman online.
We all know how many women are simply replaceable from a personality standpoint: cuddling, naps on rainy afternoons and Magic Mike. Yawn. However, these postures are incredibly important to the modern woman. Their narcissism informs them that they are incredibly unique. However, the same cloying insecurity prevents them from actually developing unique identities. The fiction they weave online is of supreme importance, much like a case of Bud Light to an alcoholic.
Just like an alcoholic -- if you follow their wishes -- they lead you around by the nose, ignoring what needs to be done. Their fantasies and fictions are drowned in a shallow pool of their self-perception. These women are desperate for omnipotent figures (notice the ratcheting up from paternalism to omnipotence) to affirm their fictions of their life.
Instead of truly questioning the effects and need for social media, women like Randi Zuckerberg want their gods to accept and affirm their social media presence. Instead of questioning the power of employers to police increasingly expendable workers by their opinions, online doings and the like, they just accept it as fact and demand that they approve of their baby photos. What 1%'er could say no to such no to such a blind, one-sided exchange of "power?"
TLP finishes with this:
Quote:Quote:
My face is in my hands and I wonder how anyone could be asked to raise a girl in such a world? Recently a female cardiologist with a "difficult" 10 year old daughter who had been well trained to want things but not control things asked me if I had read "the study in the New York Times"-- !?!?!?!?!?-- that said that people with the same surname, over generations, continued to achieve the same level of wealth, showing "therefore" that genetic factors were more important than the home environment in determining social mobility, isn't that probably true? Having to do this sober I asked her, "But didn't you change your surname 11 years ago? Or are you betting she can just upgrade hers?" What else could I say? If you read it, it's for you?
She is using "science" to explain away her own shame over her parenting of her daughter.
In sum, women aren't mindlessly tapping away on their iPhones because they are dumb, X or Y. It is because social media represents the easiest way to pretend they are something else than an average, white woman in a society descending into psychological chaos.
I recall old feminist doctrines that asserted that women had to be much more competent or whatever than the equivalent male to be considered in the same conversation. Women who thought that birthed this generation of women - women who built these false constructions of who they were in their head. They thought they would roll into male institutions and revolutionize them for the better got completely gobsmacked in the mouth by reality.
They sulked away, but only to socialize their daughters using their existential and ideological failures as a springboard to launch a real and successful female revolution - using their daughters.
To this day, it hasn't worked. Women still eagerly search out for authority figures. From women, it's healthiest when it is calling Mom; the unhealthiest is calling Rachel Maddow. From men, it is their father or husband; the unhealthiest is some faggot in Cosmo. Women haven't gotten more independent, but more dependent in their lives on authority figures. They have cast off the men who would love them for faceless, genderless figures in wider society.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there is social media.