[iknowexactly]

(04-20-2013 06:28 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

Why are spoiled children unhappy? Why are overindulged pets stressed and aggressive? All these posts attributing understanding or realization of facts to the behavior are completely off the mark. You greatly overestimate the complexity and capacity of the female brain. You have a creature of very limited capacities that needs to be controlled and have its options strictly limited. When you pretend it's people, it can't handle it and becomes overstressed.

Pretending women aren't people may be an interesting thought experiment, but it's logically absurd.

People can't exist without women, women manufacture people. YOu can argue there's test tube babies now or soon, but to make believe all of history is irrelevant is disingenuous.

I don't really feel a house is a home without a woman in it. You may sort of shepherd them in and out and try to keep total control, but I think that may be even harder than getting one good one who is deferential most of the time.

[Lemmo]

(04-20-2013 08:27 PM)bacon Wrote:  

Ok but you are looking at things from a college level.

I think that might me the problem.

Guys in college are usually at their lowest SMV and women are close to peaking at their SMV. This would probably explain the frustration among college guys but when both genders are more or less at the same SMV at around age 30 this is when you see women angry and men happy and looking positively at the future.

Yep, a woman's "personality" peaks during the college years and nosedives after 22. I haven't figured out an explanation for this. It makes sense for men to find girlishness more attractive so that may be part of it. And it may be that the girls just haven't realized yet that they can get away with being cunts. I've know several girls who I met and liked during their early 20s but when I met them again post-25 they were without exception unbearable.

And no way men and women have the same SMV at 30. Women peak well before that. It is not unusual at all for a 9 at 22 to be a 5 or 6 at 30.

[iknowexactly]

(04-20-2013 08:41 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

American/Western Women are mad because for all the so called progress promised to them, reality can never change:

for the female of the species, Biology is Destiny. They HATE this.

The older I get, the more I think Freud had it right. They suffer from Penis Envy.

I think of it like penis envy is in reality the envy of men's ability to achieve greatness in many things with much more frequency than women, except in childbirth. That's a pretty good accomplishment. Like being in a fucking war.

Also Freud's dictum "Man's primary love object is Woman, Woman's primary love object is her children" means they can never really love you back the way you can love them. It's an insoluble conflict in the larger sense, although very happy alliances can be formed. There are a lot of very happy marriages, despite maniacs like Mark Minter shrieking like a little girl how he's been gypped.

[Lemmo]

(04-20-2013 10:12 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Pretending women aren't people may be an interesting thought experiment, but it's logically absurd.

Not at all. Your attempts to ascribe male intellectual capacity to women are what leads to absurd conclusions. They are simple, easily understood creatures who only become complex when you try to think of them as rational actors (i.e., functioning men) rather than biological automatons. Pretty much this entire forum just says in detail "No, girl X is not going to do what your male brain says would be rational or decent in situation Y because her inferior capacity makes her a slave to hormone or stone-age era instinct Z".

And I don't disagree that ideally a woman will contribute to making a house a home (although this is fairly rare in reality).

[iknowexactly]

(04-20-2013 10:33 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 10:12 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Pretending women aren't people may be an interesting thought experiment, but it's logically absurd.

Not at all. Your attempts to ascribe male intellectual capacity to women are what leads to absurd conclusions.

Oops, you slipped and used a strawman.

Is English your first language? It's hard to tell if you really are serious about such an absurd idea.

Anyway, I never said women are intellectually equal to men in general.

All the great symphonies, vaccine advancements, etc are from men.
93 % of patents are from men. So are well over 50% of murders. It's not like we're everything that's good.

It's a big jump from that to saying women aren't human beings. It strains credibility that you really even believe that.

Obviously, from any observation of the real world at all, the bell curves overlap. In fact women have some superior verbal skills.

They can reach high levels of expertise. Probably the best health care practitioner I've had was a female NP. She was humble and followed up on stuff, and had the right knowledge base. Most of the male practitioners , often MDs, were egotistical, sloppy and cut a lot of corners.

If that is not an important, worthy job -- to take care of people's health well, what is?

If it is indeed your argument that women are not human beings, you are being foolish and arrogant.

Have you done something beyond the ability of a talented woman? Invented an important vaccine, written a widely respected symphony?

Is there any reason we should be happy YOU are alive, over someone of renowned accomplishment like Joni Mitchell or Martha Graham, or any competent classical ballerina?

[Lemmo]

(04-20-2013 10:43 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 10:33 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 10:12 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Pretending women aren't people may be an interesting thought experiment, but it's logically absurd.

Not at all. Your attempts to ascribe male intellectual capacity to women are what leads to absurd conclusions.

Oops, you slipped and used a strawman.

I never said women are intellectually equal to men in general.

All the great symphonies, vaccine advancements, etc are from men.
93 % of patents are from men.

It's a big jump from that to saying women aren't human beings. It strains credibility that you really even believe that.

Obviously, from any observation of the real world at all, the bell curves overlap. In fact women have some superior verbal skills.

They can reach high levels of expertise. Probably the best health care practitioner I've had was a female NP. She was humble and followed up on stuff, and had the right knowledge base. Most of the male practitioners , often MDs, were egotistical, sloppy and cut a lot of corners.

If that is not an important, worthy job -- to take care of people's health well, what is?

If it is indeed your argument that women are not human beings, you are being foolish and arrogant.

Have you done something beyond the ability of a talented woman? Invented an important vaccine, written a widely respected symphony?

Is there any reason we should be happy YOU are alive, over someone of renowned accomplishment like Joni Mitchell or Martha Graham, or any competent classical ballerina?

Didn't slip. Just trying to give an interpretation to your statements that would make them at all coherent. Obviously women are homo sapiens. No one said otherwise. That is your own straw man.

I said their behavior is understood by comparing it to children or animals - i.e. creatures governed by impulse and biology and a need to submit rather than reason. This outlook is generally successful in explaining their behavior. Your outlook explains zilch.

The rest of your post is just an incoherent rambling from atop your white horse. You are like the feminist who says that some women are stronger than some men so therefore women are men's physical equals. "But my dr is a woman and she is great!!! )" You say you don't believe women are in general equal to men intellectually and then the rest of your post is a tantrum because I said the same thing. Bizarre.

[iknowexactly]

Wow, you should be in politics!

(04-20-2013 10:57 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

You have a creature of very limited capacities that needs to be controlled and have its options strictly limited. When you pretend it's people, it can't handle it and becomes overstressed.

Then you later, after I called you out on it, revised your "argument:

(04-20-2013 10:57 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

Obviously women are homo sapiens. No one said otherwise. That is your own straw man.

How else could one interpret this earlier statement of yours:

"When you pretend it's people, it can't handle it and becomes overstressed.

Seems like were implying women are "its" and not "people"' and again when you said "It can't handle ...."

Could you explain what you meant by this? Is English your first language? If not that would account for incorrect use of "it" to refer to women.
It's no shame not knowing normal use of pronouns in a second language.

That was good use of ad hominem attack however, comparing me to a feminist. Compared to you, I probably am.

[Lemmo]

(04-20-2013 11:06 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 10:57 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

You have a creature of very limited capacities that needs to be controlled and have its options strictly limited. When you pretend it's people, it can't handle it and becomes overstressed.

I may have misinterpreted this earlier statement of yours:

"When you pretend it's people, it can't handle it and becomes overstressed.

Seems like were implying women are "its" and not "people"' and again when you said "It can't handle ...."

Is English your first language? If not that would account for incorrect use of "it" to refer to women.

Are you 4? It's called humor - i.e, that which you do not have a sense of. But you're right. That was way out of line and discourteous to all the great women out there like your doctor. It was down right disrespectful. I really appreciate you being here to show me the error of my ways. Please also go through all the threads and point out where the word whore was used to describe people who were not actual prostitutes. I've also seen some nude photos posted on this forum recently that one might argue are objectifying women. Are they really saying women are LITERALLY objects and not people? If so, we should be offended. Could an object invent a vaccine?!!!!!???!!!!

[iknowexactly]

(04-20-2013 11:09 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

I really appreciate you being here to show me the error of my ways.

You are welcome.

[Parlay44]

Gentlemen please.

[bacon]

[Vitriol]

Regarding college, I think it's pretty well documented that most guys in college aren't getting tons of pussy unless they're in a LTR or the quarterback of the football team. If you're a "normal" guy in college who is working part time and sitting around reading books for hours on end every week, the girls who know they can get older guys to blow money on them and have guaranteed jobs regarless of grades go in full on party mode because they realize there are no consequences for them.

They don't have to earn it. The guys do.

[Dillon]

I think girls are happier during their early 20s because they are counting on catching a prince later on when they are ready for marriage. They are happy having fun with cads for now, confident in their awesomeness.

But the bubble pops when they go through few relationships with "prince-looking" guys who just pump and dump them, thus the anger at the world.

Another reason might be that a woman's body is ready to breed at say 15-16 year old and going a decade or more without getting knocked up messes up their minds.

[DriftWood]

(04-20-2013 08:27 PM)bacon Wrote:  

Guys in college are usually at their lowest SMV and women are close to peaking at their SMV. This would probably explain the frustration among college guys but when both genders are more or less at the same SMV at around age 30 this is when you see women angry and men happy and looking positively at the future.

No way are both genders equal in SMV at 30.

A man hasn't even reached his SMV peak at 30, some woman have hit the wall already. I'm 30 now and have seen facebook photos of girls I went to high school with... my god.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-21-2013 01:08 AM)DriftWood Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:27 PM)bacon Wrote:  

Guys in college are usually at their lowest SMV and women are close to peaking at their SMV. This would probably explain the frustration among college guys but when both genders are more or less at the same SMV at around age 30 this is when you see women angry and men happy and looking positively at the future.

No way are both genders equal in SMV at 30.

A man hasn't even reached his SMV peak at 30, some woman have hit the wall already. I'm 30 now and have seen facebook photos of girls I went to high school with... my god.

I totally agree with the above -- at 30 the big switch has taken place between most (if not all) men and women.

KIDS:
Women: Either getting desperate to have babies or have popped out a few already. Don't underestimate the pressure they feel internally or externally -- and how having or not having a kid alters their SMV and self-image. It's either A) mom or B) future cat lady. It's A or B -- there is no C or D!!! (Women may claim "I never wanted kids," but no matter what they say, the world views them a certain way if they don't and they know this.)
Men: Who gives a fuck? No kids? Then you can run around. Have kids but remained single? Well, some women like that, esp. when you take the kids around as cute props.

SEX:
Women: Not constricted as to whom they can have sex with (unless they're landwhales), but constricted as to what quality man they can get to commit. Any fool can fuck the "hottt" bus boy. Not many can get the junior vice president to buy a ring.
Men: Can date ANYONE from ages 18-50. Can fuck club chicks, screw their moms the next day, then get serious with a 23-year-old if they so desire.

WORK:
Women: Burning out not because the job is bad per se, but because they either thought they'd be married or thought things would be different in some undefined way.
Men: Kicking it into high gear on the job -- more money and more freedom. And more perks.

LOOKS:
Women: What DriftWood said above. Some remain hot, but kids damage their eligibility. Here is where the "women age like milk" platitude starts to kick in...
Men: ...age like wine. If they try to keep fit, that is.

If you're reading this at 30, this is the time guys -- appreciate it!

[Wreckingball]

I think this image is relevant

[Grit]

Feminism has made men thirsty like mad. Women are henceforth infuriated at reality: the more they try to work and be 'empowered' and self-sustaining,, the more men will try and pay womens' way. Its a paradox.

They all can see the alternate reality in which they opt out and cuddle up with a strong man, forgoing the careerist path. But if they encourage this, they are socially ostracized.

I want to digress a bit and talk about why women are social. It is a paradox that a hot woman needs a social circle. She could never say a word, sit on a park bench, and would still have high status men competing for her.

As much as i can tell, women socialize in order to ostracize. The only way to ruin the value of something inherently valuable is to make it destroy itself. If you leave kryptonite out of the Superman story, what is the only way to defeat Superman? Cripple him with self-doubt so that he never shows up.

The only way a lesser woman can compete is to shame feminine women into not showing up in public. Thirsty men will default to the next available option. It is the only chance for uglier women.

I can see the cause for anger. The epitome of feminine cuteness today is a sorority girl giggling while she does keg stands with an army of thirsty guys cheering.

[guerrilla]

I don't think girls are generally mad at all. They may be bitchy and spoiled and act entitled. But they are much more adept at being fully present to the moment laughing and having the best time in their life. If you are capable of pushing those emotional buttons that is.

In fact I'm constantly amazed at the compassion and loving emotions girls can give to complete strangers who push the right buttons.

[Dillon]

(04-21-2013 12:32 PM)Grit Wrote:  

The only way a lesser woman can compete is to shame feminine women into not showing up in public. Thirsty men will default to the next available option. It is the only chance for uglier women.

Yes, feminism is rejected women's war against desired women.

[Ensam]

That really resonates with me. I've plowed my fair share of feminists (there are bangable ones out there). They generally don't really hate men and enjoy being dominated as much as the next girl. It is really about shaming feminine women into taking themselves out of the sexual market place. Women hate other women far more than they could ever hate a dominant man.

[Donnington93]

(04-20-2013 05:16 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

They have realized that their entry-level positions in public relations, human resources, or fashion don't actually provide enough cash flow for a Sex and the City lifestyle.

They have realized deep down that they are but a package of ass, tits, face.

They have realized deep down that their college, masters, and PhD degrees don't mean anything per se in the game of life.

They have realized deep down that female and male sexualities aren't the same, and they've screwed up royally in riding the cock carousel.

They are angry because the world doesn't operate the way they were told, because what they were told was but a web of feel-good lies--yet they've bought the lies anyway. Hook, line, and sinker.

They subconsciously sense the things we articulate.

This is all you need to know. End of thread.

[A War You Cannot Win]

I'd reckon because at the peak of her life, when her gift and most important event in her life is supposed to be occurring, she is sterilized and turned into a carnival ride for a revolving carousel of uncaring cocks rummaging her swollen vagina. Instead of embracing maternity she is instead deceived into working a meaningless, pointless job that will do nothing for her legacy or her immortality. She will fill this lingering void she can't quite articulate with hollow announcements about how important her career is, going to third world shitholes to 'Eat, Pray, and Love', buying designer handbags with the names of other people on them, taking pictures of herself in public restrooms to post on Facebook and Instagram so the rabble of Simps and Those Who Thirst exalt her unique and splendid existence. But deep down, she knows all this is for nought.

Then, when the Masters tell tell her it is time for children, that she has made her bones in the HR department and her Prince shall descend from the heavens and swoop her up, he doesn't even reply with a flake to the confirmation text. Now, the men, whose attentions and affections she so easily cast aside when she was younger abandon her for her younger cohorts because she has forsaken them in the name of Career and Hypergamy. Her womb withers and decays, and her only repose is massive cat adoption.

Now she dies alone, innocence sacrificed and heaven denied. Her gift of begetting a new humanity squandered. Eventually the Hamster wheel stops squeaking and is drowned out by the hungry mewing of a thousand cats.

This is why the modern woman is angry.

[bionicman]

If I ever start a band I'm gonna call it ''Massive Cat Adoption''.

[iknowexactly]

(04-21-2013 12:50 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  

I don't think girls are generally mad at all. They may be bitchy and spoiled and act entitled. But they are much more adept at being fully present to the moment laughing and having the best time in their life....

When women aren't bitches the capability of being in the moment, as you say, like a child has a calming effect on men.

It's the women who realize, as others have mentioned here, that are in a double bind after a cushy everyone-loves-them-goodlooking-adolescence who become emotional porcupines.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-21-2013 01:15 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

That really resonates with me. I've plowed my fair share of feminists (there are bangable ones out there). They generally don't really hate men and enjoy being dominated as much as the next girl. It is really about shaming feminine women into taking themselves out of the sexual market place. Women hate other women far more than they could ever hate a dominant man.

Interesting observation. I'll add to it. I dated a serious somewhat well-known feminist in my early twenties (I didn't go looking for this; she kept leaving notes on my desk and had a nice rack).

Anyway, after spending a lot of time with her, I noticed that she didn't hate individual men so much as she despised the general idea of men as unseen, disembodied "oppressors." Back then I was just like "Yeah yeah, sounds good, whatever you say -- so let's make out." But if I knew her today, I'd ask how exactly men can be the oppressors when she couldn't name any oppressors she knew personally. Seems like a flawed philosophy based on invisible enemies and questionable ideas.