[iknowexactly]

This whole post is based on two assumptions, which I can maintain only hold true from my point of view:

1) that unreailstic expectations of and resulting anger at women reduces my game quality ( playfulness, assumption of success) and is therefore self-defeating. Your hate mileage may vary.

2) Modern society places pressure on women to work out-of-the home more, which has been correlated with increased GNP, which has been correlated with increased wealth concentration in the upper classes. Please start another thread if you want to debate economics.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/..._feed.html

======================================

I almost got thrown out of grad school. I was in a class called Gender Studies with 80% women and you can imagine what the subject matter was: How awful men are.

The women vented, and vented, and vented, and being as naive as I was, i eventually asked something like " I understand you're angry about X, Y, and Z, but shouldn't you at some point move beyond anger; since it hurts only the person who's angry?"

This was probably the dumbest thing I said, and although I was right I had to do some serious backpedaling to prevent my plans from getting blown up. I was forced into therapy in order to remain in school, because I was the one labelled as being angry. Therapy helped me deal with the issue of women; and why -- from their point of view-- they are angry.
It bears repeating that their minds are working based on their point of view.

They don't have, and will never have, the objectivity most men, if they are not in frightening male primal rage, have.

A huge help is Freud's great explanation, that explains almost all of the less pleasant aspects of women's hypergamy, selfishness, and lack of loyalty:

"Man's main love object is woman, woman's main love object is her children."

That's why most players usually feels more positive about his mother than about any of his "whores."-- he knows she really cared.

For most men, no woman can ever, ever, ever love you with the loyalty your mother did.

So you are dealing with someone who is biologically, irreversibly programmed to always consider her potential children first-- before you and before anything else.

This explains their dedication to:

1) Wealth at any moral cost.
2) Having to be on the side that's winning.
3) Divorce rape.
4) Violently turning against men who separate ( deprive them of their resources) from them ( see #3. )
5) Seeking super alphas for flings while asking for help from Betas.

If you understand that a healthy woman is a machine designed to create children with the highest survivability regardless of the cost to men, it seems less bitter. We're machines designed to seek out the most fertile women and impregnate them.

NOW-- if you take that capitalism has dictated (The Two Income Trap) that both parents must work to support a "family" ( with no mother home it's a pretty flimsy family), by brainwashing the women with "empowerment" crap ( a sizeable minority of women-- including Elizabeth Warren who wrote the "two-income trap" are really talented and deserve to be professionals)
this creates a massive conflict between the genetic programming of the woman and the brainwashing she has received so that she "wants to work" and serve the interests of the ruling class. To take the parents of Athlone's classmates and make their fortunes go from 5-10 million to 70-80; so NO depression or recession can send them back to the middle class.

And there you have the conflicted, impossible-to-satisfy modern woman. She is conflicted from the inside out, and nothing you could possibly do could satisfy her.

There's another wise saying I've heard:
"There are two things that cannot be satisfied: The world of the dead and a woman without children."

I don't know who said it. I'd add to it" ... a woman without children who is working so hard she couldn't take care of them if she had them, or, if she does have them can't take adequate care of them."

So the modern, anxious, overstuffed Murkabeest ( please note I want to maintain spelling coherence with "Wildebeest") is essentially sick. Sick with an externally implanted propaganda induced desire to be something she is completely unequipped to be, and which conflicts with her deepest primal programming.

[WestIndianArchie]

(02-15-2012 02:32 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I was in a class called Gender Studies with 80% women and you can imagine what the subject matter was: How awful men are.

Stopped reading after this.

[iknowexactly]

(02-15-2012 03:15 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 02:32 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

I was in a class called Gender Studies with 80% women and you can imagine what the subject matter was: How awful men are.

Stopped reading after this.

It was traumatic for me, too.
Now I look like that.

[BortimusPrime]

How exactly did you get forced into therapy over an argument in a class?

[esperar]

PC brain washing.

[Caligula]

(02-15-2012 03:22 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

How exactly did you get forced into therapy over an argument in a class?

I'm guessing it has something to do with his studying clinical psychology.

IKE, does everyone who studies that have to do some amount of therapy or were you singled out?

[MikeCF]

You sound like a weird dude.

[Parlay44]

(02-15-2012 04:15 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

You sound like a weird dude.

Nahh I like this thread. He takes the time to share his experience and break it down for us. Good reading.

[Hades]

I'm not commenting on men and women, gender studies, or any of that bollocks, but I understand repressed anger. You probably had to go to therapy for a good reason. Maybe you lost your shit in class, or threw a book at someone, or wrote angry emails to the teacher, it doesn't matter. It's good that you're working to fix it.

A good cure for repressed anger is frank honesty. Some things nobody can let go, and it's good to get off your chest. If you state what pisses you off in class, and you do it without losing your cool, you'll make enemies but they will respect you for being upfront (and hopefully lighthearted but serious) about it. Most people who are angry are actually passive aggressive (they get pissed off when no one is looking, are seen as really nice, and when they lose their shit it takes everyone by complete surprise). Understand that most women are passive aggressive (catty) but they're extremely unlikely to act on their aggression. It takes mature men to behave differently.

I still get mad but now since I am assertive about my antagonistic feelings, some people cut me a wide berth and I feel much happier and more normal. Other people know how to interact with me and there's no surprises. I'm actually nice to people and don't have a beef without good reason. Nobody likes a dog that barks, but everyone wants to shoot a dog that bites.

Have you ever watched any Dick Masterson? Look it up in youtube and you can see a good way to deal with entitled women. This guy talks so much shit, walks away the winner because he's square about it, and leaves other people to their angry repressed feelings. The morons think he has some "big problem", the neurotic chicks think it's their problem, but they're all turned on by it since he's so damned alpha.

[iknowexactly]

(02-15-2012 04:15 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

You sound like a weird dude.

Not weird, REALLY weird!!!

Someday, if you work hard , you can be too!!

[iknowexactly]

(02-15-2012 03:38 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 03:22 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

How exactly did you get forced into therapy over an argument in a class?

I'm guessing it has something to do with his studying clinical psychology.

IKE, does everyone who studies that have to do some amount of therapy or were you singled out?

I'm actually a social worker, lower on the food chain than the psychologists.

Therapy for angry females was not required, I was singled out. It should be noted this was about 20 years ago, when there was no men's movements happening yet. That particular generation of women was probably the most angry and dangerous, as they still felt deprived but actually had already acquired more power than men in "soft" institutions like Social Work-- so they were free to be effectively vengeful, and there was never any question the man was unquestionably, ALWAYS wrong.

It was the female professor who undermined me; I'm pretty sure at least a couple of the feminazi students complained about me, giving her an excuse.

I think people who do therapy should have to go through it as well, unless someone is a natural ( there are naturals in therapy as well as in game) they really benefit from being on the other side of interaction. Making it a requirement is only done in a few, mostly elite programs, has some questionable ethical issues, however.

[iknowexactly]

(02-15-2012 08:41 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I'm not commenting on men and women, gender studies, or any of that bollocks,

"Men and women" are bollocks? I thought having sex with women was the whole point of the forum?

I appreciate the input on managing anger however, I think you're right that if you don't express if it messes you up most, but as I foolishly commented to the feminazis in my class, at some point I wanted to stop expecting the world to be other than it really is, so I could stop getting angry about the world not living up to my expectations.

For me, being angry is not a desired end state. Some here have claimed it gives them energy and the like, I just find it draining and off-putting to the new people I have yet to meet, amongst whom my future bangs lie.

I didn't make clear in the post, but now I realize, one way of analyzing anger is saying it comes from expecting the world to be other than it is, and being frustrated because reality doesn't match one's expectations.

Like expecting women to be loyal and honest with you when it is her potential children she is focused on, and we are just potential accessories before the fact, and expendable worker bees and wallets after.

I'm assuming you're not Murkan cuz you use "bollocks"; but believe me in the USA you didn't have to throw a book (never did anything on that rudeness level, just leveled them with pointing out their hypocrisy) or do anything beyond LOOK at a woman to get accused of being "sexist" or "angry" in a feminist coven in Murka.

One time I pointed out we were sitting under light bulbs, invented by men, on nylon carpet, invented by men, at formica tables, invented by men, complaining about men.

That didn't go over too well. When everyone falls silent, and has no rebuttal, you can count on calculated revenge later.

I was hinting at the forbidden, before I realized it myself-- that at the high end women are vastly intellectually inferior to men.

[Amour Fou]

(02-15-2012 10:22 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 03:38 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 03:22 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

How exactly did you get forced into therapy over an argument in a class?

I'm guessing it has something to do with his studying clinical psychology.

IKE, does everyone who studies that have to do some amount of therapy or were you singled out?

I'm actually a social worker, lower on the food chain than psychologists.

It was the female professor who undermined me.

I knew you were a social worker. You have knowledge in the "psy" field but you never said you were a "psy" yourself. Conclusion: social worker!

Man... you kickass as one of the most insightful, deep, thoughtful posters in this forum, and probably one of the most misunderstood too. I can sniff that right brain of yours working all the time.

I think you are directing your post towards American or Anglo-Saxon women, right? Because you can tell by now, living in EE fridge, that women in Continental Europe (but not Scandinavia!) are quite different.

I do emphatically agree with what you are saying about the social conditioning that messed women up... but not only women, you see (obviously!)

Damn, I'm running out of battery in my laptop... I won't be able to be as thorough as I wished as of now.

I probably have a different "psy" perspective than yours and a different way of expressing myself.

I just want to add some of my insights.

I agree that due to loads of cultural lobotomy (Capitalism, Statism, deep burocracy, Big Government) women AND men have lost touch with their feminine/masculine essence, their MATURE essence.

Women become opinionated narcisitic bitches and men become passive whimps who blindly serve "the man" and "the law".

Argh.

And I see places like this forum as exemplary of a few man that try and come to term, on their own way, with this lost "healthy masculine core" that is hidden under the pile of CRAP.

The thing is the path is not always clear... and what happens is that many on that process of maturing go halfway through the process...

Instead of being "beta males" they become "reactive beta males" instead of fully mature men (I honestly have my quarrels with the term "alpha male"), that go BEYOND the pairs of passive and reactive. They outlive and outgrow their wounds, getting in touch with their pain, and go past it. They become fully affirmative beings, gone past their boyish wounds.

The thing is, as far as I can tell, I don't seem to find any major movement of sorts on the women's side. Are they making any effort to recconect to their "healthy feminine core", their maturity, IN SPITE of all the constant brainwashing they undergo through the overbearing all reining mass-media?

Maybe, possibly, they might be more affected by this whole lobotomizing cultural industry, who knows...



outtabatteryhere!

[iknowexactly]

(02-15-2012 10:46 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

Instead of being "beta males" they become "reactive beta males" instead of fully mature men (I honestly have my quarrels with the term "alpha male"), that go BEYOND the pairs of passive and reactive. They outlive and outgrow their wounds, getting in touch with their pain, and go past it. They become fully affirmative beings, gone past their boyish wounds.

The thing is, as far as I can tell, I don't seem to find any major movement of sorts on the women's side. Are they making any effort to recconect to their "healthy feminine core", their maturity, IN SPITE of all the constant brainwashing they undergo through the overbearing all reining mass-media?

I'm happy you found the post useful. I think you summarized it well, I was a Beta male, but became a reactive Beta.

There is some direct game guy, forget who, who has a good model for what you're describing:
Mode 1 is direct ( "I want to fuck you") Mode 2 is indirect ( "Want to go for a ride on my yacht?") and Mode 3 is- pissed off guys for whom mode 2 didn't work, and who are now vengeful towards women.

Of course life is erratic and you're going to get mad sometimes, but being locked in the loop of :

1) Unrealistic expectation
2) Disappointment
3) Getting pissed off

4) ...but you fail to change #1 so you keep going back over and over and over.....AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

Me don't want to do any more!!!!!! Me want to play with pretty naked girl!!! No want to yell!!!

And you're also right about Murkabeests, outside of some self-analyzed submissive women and hard core Christian women with whom I am sort of intellectually incompatible, NOT making any movement towards a more natural femininity. That's why I am in the giant refrigerator, because there is a shred of that left.

But faulty philosophies (Feminism) which take hold can run a LONG time before falling apart. Witness totalitarian Communism, still [barely] alive ( N. Korea, Cuba) 90 years after the Bolshevik Revolution and after 20-30 million dead (Stalin Mao).

As you pointed out, I don't feel feminism has started the steep part of its decline yet.

Just make your money amidst the Murkawhales and then flee, flee!! Unless you are taller, younger, with better game than me. (None of these three is very hard to do/bem haha)

[iknowexactly]

(02-15-2012 10:46 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

Instead of being "beta males" they become "reactive beta males" instead of fully mature men (I honestly have my quarrels with the term "alpha male"), that go BEYOND the pairs of passive and reactive. They outlive and outgrow their wounds, getting in touch with their pain, and go past it. They become fully affirmative beings, gone past their boyish wounds.

The thing is, as far as I can tell, I don't seem to find any major movement of sorts on the women's side. Are they making any effort to recconect to their "healthy feminine core", their maturity, IN SPITE of all the constant brainwashing they undergo through the overbearing all reining mass-media?

I'm happy you found the post useful. I think you summarized it well, I was a Beta male, but became a reactive Beta.

There is some direct game guy, forget who, who has a good model for what you're describing:
Mode 1 is direct ( "I want to fuck you") Mode 2 is indirect ( "Want to go for a ride on my yacht?") and Mode 3 is- pissed off guys for whom mode 2 didn't work, and who are now vengeful towards women.

Of course life is erratic and you're going to get mad sometimes, but being locked in the loop of :

1) Unrealistic expectation
2) Disappointment
3) Getting pissed off

4) ...but you fail to change #1 so you keep going back over and over and over.....AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!

Me don't want to do any more!!!!!! Me want to play with pretty naked girl!!! No want to yell!!!

And you're also right about Murkabeests, outside of some self-analyzed submissive women and hard core Christian women with whom I am sort of intellectually incompatible, NOT making any movement towards a more natural femininity. That's why I am in the giant refrigerator, because there is a shred of that left.

But faulty philosophies (Feminism) which take hold can run a LONG time before falling apart. Witness totalitarian Communism, still [barely] alive ( N. Korea, Cuba) 90 years after the Bolshevik Revolution and after 20-30 million dead (Stalin Mao).

As you pointed out, I don't feel feminism has started the steep part of its decline yet.

Just flee, flee!! Unless you are taller, younger, with better game than me.

[hydrogonian]

(02-15-2012 10:46 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

One time I pointed out we were sitting under light bulbs, invented by men, on nylon carpet, invented by men, at formica tables, invented by men, complaining about men.

That didn't go over too well. When everyone falls silent, and has no rebuttal, you can count on calculated revenge later.

Damn!!! My god man, you have balls! I say this knowing the current status of politics in higher education. If you really said that in the class, then you have my respect. Although, it sounds like you said it not yet knowing what you were up against. Either way, hats off!

And, oh yeah, female silence to a deep-cut is very, very, very bad. ESPECIALLY, female group silence. The rarest form of silence known to man. You can be sure that you made enemies for life that day. Logic be damned. You probably made some of them so mad that they skipped their period that month from the stress... Be sure that you don't interact with anyone fromt that class in your professional life. Seriosuly. They'll do you in.

Being made to go to therapy for such opinions is about as far as they can go, shy of sending you to the state hospital. And send you there they would if the option existed. Anything that doens't comply with liberal non-reality, especially having to do with differing political groups (ie: men vs women) is a defacto mental disorder. There have been studies funded that have tried to have such opinions officially deemed mental disorders, but the results didn't stand. However, private institutions can still do things like threaten expulsion if you don't submit to reprogramming (ie: therapy). Scary, yeah? It's institutionalized "socializing" that is ususally passively accomplished through education, but is occassionally enforced through experiences such as your own when it doesn't take and some leverage can be exerted. Actions like this will be worse and more frequent in the future.

All of this is ironic considering that it was a "gender studies" class, which implies equal unbiased study of both perspectives.

I would recommend a lawyer if I thought it might help. Ideally, it would. In reality, I don't think so.

One simple correction: the two person income trap, and the resultant weakening of the family unit, is actually a communist ideal, not a capitalist ideal - from a strict perspective of philosophy. However, it definately benefits capitalists as well. This is one illustration of how captialism and communism are two sides of the same coin, imo. But that's another discussion (I won't go further in this thread).

[Amour Fou]

(02-15-2012 11:12 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Just make your money amidst the Murkawhales and then flee, flee!! Unless you are taller, younger, with better game than me. (None of these three is very hard to do/bem haha)

Just on a side note: dude, I'm Brazilian, my permanent residence is Brazil. For now, I'm good, I don't want to flee!

I'd only flee for some time to chase some more authentic Asian pussay, otherwise, I'm good.

[ElJefe]

This is what I do when arguing sex (I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD GENDER) issues with women:

I start by saying "I think that most women want..." then whatever it is I think women should be. Like:

"I actually suspect most women want to be great cooks" - implied; women want to be able to make you great food

"I think most women really do want to be sexy" - implied; women should take the time out of their schedules to look good, from exercising to applying make-up.

"I imagine most women want to be impress their man" - implied; women secretly want to live up to a man's feminine ideals

The reactions I get from girls is usually postive when I use this line of phrasing.

[Sphere]

(02-15-2012 02:32 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

"Man's main love object is woman, woman's main love object is her children."

This so very much.

I was tempted to quote your whole post just to emphasize how spot on I found your analysis.

I ran into your central point when my son was born and that was the beginning of the end of my marriage although it took 10 years to figure it out.

Thanks to analyses like yours and others on this forum my world view has changed completely. The world makes more sense now.

[Caligula]

(02-16-2012 12:31 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

One simple correction: the two person income trap, and the resultant weakening of the family unit, is actually a communist ideal, not a capitalist ideal - from a strict perspective of philosophy. However, it definately benefits capitalists as well. This is one illustration of how captialism and communism are two sides of the same coin, imo. But that's another discussion (I won't go further in this thread).

At its core it has to do with wanting economic growth above all else, something both capitalists and communists desire. They just disagree on how the fruits of that growth should be distributed.

[iknowexactly]

(02-16-2012 12:02 PM)Sphere Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 02:32 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

"Man's main love object is woman, woman's main love object is her children."

This so very much.

I was tempted to quote your whole post just to emphasize how spot on I found your analysis.

I ran into your central point when my son was born and that was the beginning of the end of my marriage although it took 10 years to figure it out.

This is quite sad-- do you think it would help to get a mistress so the child-focused wife could be sort of ignored in a situation like this? (especially since she's ignoring you by what you say?)

[ElJefe]

(02-16-2012 12:26 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:31 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

One simple correction: the two person income trap, and the resultant weakening of the family unit, is actually a communist ideal, not a capitalist ideal - from a strict perspective of philosophy. However, it definately benefits capitalists as well. This is one illustration of how captialism and communism are two sides of the same coin, imo. But that's another discussion (I won't go further in this thread).

At its core it has to do with wanting economic growth above all else, something both capitalists and communists desire. They just disagree on how the fruits of that growth should be distributed.

BOOM, AGAIN!!!

I found, reading Tolkien, that was his perception of it, as well.

[iknowexactly]

(02-16-2012 11:25 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

This is what I do when arguing sex (I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD GENDER) issues with women:

I start by saying "I think that most women want..." then whatever it is I think women should be. Like:

"I actually suspect most women want to be great cooks" - implied; women want to be able to make you great food

"I think most women really do want to be sexy" - implied; women should take the time out of their schedules to look good, from exercising to applying make-up.

"I imagine most women want to be impress their man" - implied; women secretly want to live up to a man's feminine ideals

The reactions I get from girls is usually postive when I use this line of phrasing.

This sounds like a smart way to handle these issues, but how effective is getting abstract agreement like you describe at reprogramming the "strong woman above all" programming?

When they want her to work more and she's married to the "status" of her job (typically some administrator bullshit anyone could do) I don't think she is going to tell them to fuck off and come home and cook. I know with one of my exes she worked and worked and worked until she was terribly sick-- she was over 45 and childless. She was frugal and could easily have told them to fuck off, but her self-value depended on that job.

[MrXY]

(02-16-2012 12:26 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:31 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

One simple correction: the two person income trap, and the resultant weakening of the family unit, is actually a communist ideal, not a capitalist ideal - from a strict perspective of philosophy. However, it definately benefits capitalists as well. This is one illustration of how captialism and communism are two sides of the same coin, imo. But that's another discussion (I won't go further in this thread).

At its core it has to do with wanting economic growth above all else, something both capitalists and communists desire. They just disagree on how the fruits of that growth should be distributed.

Totally agree with this-socialism and capitalism are the fraternal twins of modern industrialism-both share the same basic worldview and assumptions.

Modern Feminism is a branch of Cultural Marxism whose purpose has always been to undermine traditional sex roles in order to weaken the family and thus the existing civilization, in order to replace it with a Marxist utopia.

It just happened that capitalism discovered that the breakdown of the traditional family was a profitable enterprise for them, too.

I guess I'm not that shocked that IKE was forced into therapy for criticizing feminist dogma.

Political Correctness=Stalinism without the gulags (yet).

[Sphere]

(02-16-2012 12:39 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:02 PM)Sphere Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 02:32 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

"Man's main love object is woman, woman's main love object is her children."

This so very much.

I was tempted to quote your whole post just to emphasize how spot on I found your analysis.

I ran into your central point when my son was born and that was the beginning of the end of my marriage although it took 10 years to figure it out.

This is quite sad-- do you think it would help to get a mistress so the child-focused wife could be sort of ignored in a situation like this? (especially since she's ignoring you by what you say?)

Wow, if you're not in my head, my last post sounds depressing doesn't it? I actually did exactly that, owned it and then ended the marriage. My kids are happier, I'm happier and it's all good going forward.

I've gotten myself into a serious LTR since then but I'm here so you know what I'm thinking about.