nastynaven
Rookie
discuss.
women are stupid
- Thread starter nastynaven
- Start date
Clown.
fukk nikkas then.
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
(Not my writing. Copied and saved from years ago)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Women are smarter than men
Henry Ford was a smart guy. Not because he could recite literature, history, law, or any of that on the fly but because he could get others to do it for him. When critics accused him of being stupid, he invited journalists in to answer any question. Around him he had his employees who answered all the journalists questions. "See how smart I am?" he would say. But a journalist said, "But Mr. Ford, you didn't answer a single question." But he didn't have to since he had others to do it for him.
From the vantage point of men, women have these characteristics:
-They show no interest in philosophy, literature, or higher spirituality.
-They show interest in celebrities, gossip, and a lowly ordered life (lack of spirituality).
-They appear emotional with lots of 'oohs and ahhs' as well as crying on the spot. They have temper tantrums. They appear giddy one moment and contemptous the next.
-They are physically weaker than men and do not perform well in the subjects of mathematics and engineering.
-They turn down 'nice guys' and mate with thugs and other scum. Sometimes they become single mothers and end up in poverty.
-When they are young, they think of dating all the time and are always on the look-out for 'Mr. Right'.
And yet, women are smarter than men. On "Men's Rights Activists" forums, you can hear men constantly give examples and say how dumb women are almost with a white-hot frenzy. What does women being dumb have to do with MRA? Nothing, yet it persists. The answer is that MRA men are in denial of the truth: that women are smarter than men.
Let us look at the vantage point from the woman. In fact, let us say for this moment you are a pretty woman. You do not need to work. All you need to do is get a guy to work for you. Viola, you are done.
On a man's financial statement, a girlfriend would be labeled as an 'expense' while a wife would be labeled as a 'liability'. But on a woman's financial statement, the boyfriend can be labeled as 'income' with the husband being an 'asset'. Men dislike dating for one part it is always money out of their pocket. But imagine if dating was putting money into your pocket, and, if you got the target, you would have an asset? Why, dating would fill your mind day in and day out! You would always be on the hunt for a working asset to acquire or 'potential asset' that was young enough to come and bloom to make money (especially if that asset had a college degree). Now, do see how women are smarter than men?
Celebrity worship is something that irritates us Men. Celebrities are not geniuses but quite the opposite! But scratch beneath the surface. Celebrities have money. Celebrities have power. Celebrities own the media. Maybe they aren't that stupid for how else could they have acquired that? Women look at celebrities as teachers for themselves. Celebrities are mind numbed fools (which puts them in common with women) yet they acquired so much. Women want that so they look at the celebrity as the model, the template to follow. Women often refer to their male admirers as their 'fan club'.
Intelligence and smart are too different things. A man may be intelligent yet be stupid. Michael Crichton, married five times and divorced four times. He is an intelligent man but pretty stupid. Issac Newton was intelligent. But he was stupid. (see how he pined for this one woman and her daughter(!)) Many men are intelligent. Most are stupid though.
Women are not the emotional ones. They see love in a very calculated manner. It is men who are the emotional ones. It is men who kill themselves over a girl or go bonkers in some other way. It is men who are the saps. The bottom line is when it comes to romance, women use men more than the other way around. Even the men who think they are 'using her' really is the other way around. How do I know this? Compare the 'work' a player does to the average hot girl. The average hot girl just puts on some 'hot' clothes and that is it. The player, meanwhile, spends agonizing amount of time working his 'game'. This game is like that wooden maze with the mouse (who is the player) and the cheese (the p*ssy) at the end. But who made the game? The women staring from the outside (as calculated as the scientist).
But what about the lack of spirituality? Surely, men are smarter from abandoning the lowly ordered life! But again, no. Spirituality is something that even a begger can obtain. But a big house, fancy car, and all that, no, only a few can get riches.
Many MRA men have realized that killing yourself for a job is not a smart idea. In fact, the smart thing to do is to have a stress free job with benefits (which women all obtain should they choose to work). Men might say, "But they do not know mathematics and engineering!" Actually, women don't know the humanities as well. So women changed the humanities to be whatever they felt like studying (feminism got rid of all the dead white male authors for example). So women are popping out with 'college degrees' that are worthless. But worthless to WHOM? Why, to many men at businesses who are interested in workers. This type of woman never had any interest in really 'working' anyway. She just wanted the status.
In the West, men operate from a Slave Morality (as described by Nieztche). The biggest believers in the Slave Morality are the 'nice guys'. Nice guys are great for marriage (i.e. slavery) but they are not good, to women, for dates and all. Why? And the 'thugs' that men think are losers because they do not operate from the 'Slave Morality' mentality, these thugs and 'scum' have much in common with western women. Women operate from a Master Morality. Every pretty woman thinks she is a huge celebrity in her little world. Thugs and 'scum' (from the male point of view) operate on a Master Morality so they are more in tune with women. From woman's point of view, nice guys are the 'losers and scum' who they must be careful with their words as to not break the slave's heart. But the thugs appear to be more 'equals'. When a Nice Guy finds his balls and acts that way to a woman, she is astonished. Now imagine how stunned a slavemaster might be when a slave stood up to him! The slavemaster would think, "Wow, that slave has lots of fight in him. He will make a great slave! He is not broken in yet." Notice how the thoughts are identical with women?
Women use shame tactics because they work on most men. Women, like little Caesars, can order men about at their will. This is why women are smarter than men.
But what of the single mother who lives in poverty? On first glimpse, yes, she appears very stupid. But actually, she is CLUMSY. One being clumsy is not the same as being stupid. Women aim at the stress free, fun life (which is smart) while many men aim for more-stress, responsible life (which is often stupid). Women want to live to the fullest. She will screw the guy should it be in 'the moment'. But she got pregnant not because she was stupid but because she was clumsy in not applying birth control. Hence, Planned Parenthood and so many other agendas pushing birth control education (and free birth control) everywhere. Many groups, men and religious groups, believe this is a hedonistic for-the-love-of-sex act. What it is, really, is a calculated for-the-clumsy-women act.
Granted, with both men and women, there are differentiating levels of stupidity and smarts. But, comparing the whole of one gender against the other, women are smarter than men.
Look at how politicians bend to their aim.
Look how they have taken over colleges.
Look at how courts serve them.
All the marriage laws run in a circle around woman, elevating her, while pushing down the man to serve for her. Child payment and assets-taken-by-divorce are really nothing more than legally enslaving a man.
See how, in romance, men are in full anxiety and go to tremendous lengths for a woman (where as she hardly goes to much lengths at all).
Women are smarter than men. You know this was the truth you've been fighting against for so long. We cannot improve until we accept this tremendous fact: women won.
"But Pook! Women were not smarter than men throughout most of history? So what happened?" What happened was that women were able to make men stupid and, thus, manipulate them at will. How a man becomes "stupid" to be ripe for "manipulation" is the matriarchy's great secret and is for another post altogether. And it isn't what you think.
The comic Jeff Foxworthy realized this truth himself when, as he said, his wife declared that she was hot and he, automatically, got up and turned on the fan. She didn't ask for the fan to turn on, but he automatically did it. Walking back to the couch, it hit him. "Women are smarter than men," he realized because they have us working for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Women are smarter than men
Henry Ford was a smart guy. Not because he could recite literature, history, law, or any of that on the fly but because he could get others to do it for him. When critics accused him of being stupid, he invited journalists in to answer any question. Around him he had his employees who answered all the journalists questions. "See how smart I am?" he would say. But a journalist said, "But Mr. Ford, you didn't answer a single question." But he didn't have to since he had others to do it for him.
From the vantage point of men, women have these characteristics:
-They show no interest in philosophy, literature, or higher spirituality.
-They show interest in celebrities, gossip, and a lowly ordered life (lack of spirituality).
-They appear emotional with lots of 'oohs and ahhs' as well as crying on the spot. They have temper tantrums. They appear giddy one moment and contemptous the next.
-They are physically weaker than men and do not perform well in the subjects of mathematics and engineering.
-They turn down 'nice guys' and mate with thugs and other scum. Sometimes they become single mothers and end up in poverty.
-When they are young, they think of dating all the time and are always on the look-out for 'Mr. Right'.
And yet, women are smarter than men. On "Men's Rights Activists" forums, you can hear men constantly give examples and say how dumb women are almost with a white-hot frenzy. What does women being dumb have to do with MRA? Nothing, yet it persists. The answer is that MRA men are in denial of the truth: that women are smarter than men.
Let us look at the vantage point from the woman. In fact, let us say for this moment you are a pretty woman. You do not need to work. All you need to do is get a guy to work for you. Viola, you are done.
On a man's financial statement, a girlfriend would be labeled as an 'expense' while a wife would be labeled as a 'liability'. But on a woman's financial statement, the boyfriend can be labeled as 'income' with the husband being an 'asset'. Men dislike dating for one part it is always money out of their pocket. But imagine if dating was putting money into your pocket, and, if you got the target, you would have an asset? Why, dating would fill your mind day in and day out! You would always be on the hunt for a working asset to acquire or 'potential asset' that was young enough to come and bloom to make money (especially if that asset had a college degree). Now, do see how women are smarter than men?
Celebrity worship is something that irritates us Men. Celebrities are not geniuses but quite the opposite! But scratch beneath the surface. Celebrities have money. Celebrities have power. Celebrities own the media. Maybe they aren't that stupid for how else could they have acquired that? Women look at celebrities as teachers for themselves. Celebrities are mind numbed fools (which puts them in common with women) yet they acquired so much. Women want that so they look at the celebrity as the model, the template to follow. Women often refer to their male admirers as their 'fan club'.
Intelligence and smart are too different things. A man may be intelligent yet be stupid. Michael Crichton, married five times and divorced four times. He is an intelligent man but pretty stupid. Issac Newton was intelligent. But he was stupid. (see how he pined for this one woman and her daughter(!)) Many men are intelligent. Most are stupid though.
Women are not the emotional ones. They see love in a very calculated manner. It is men who are the emotional ones. It is men who kill themselves over a girl or go bonkers in some other way. It is men who are the saps. The bottom line is when it comes to romance, women use men more than the other way around. Even the men who think they are 'using her' really is the other way around. How do I know this? Compare the 'work' a player does to the average hot girl. The average hot girl just puts on some 'hot' clothes and that is it. The player, meanwhile, spends agonizing amount of time working his 'game'. This game is like that wooden maze with the mouse (who is the player) and the cheese (the p*ssy) at the end. But who made the game? The women staring from the outside (as calculated as the scientist).
But what about the lack of spirituality? Surely, men are smarter from abandoning the lowly ordered life! But again, no. Spirituality is something that even a begger can obtain. But a big house, fancy car, and all that, no, only a few can get riches.
Many MRA men have realized that killing yourself for a job is not a smart idea. In fact, the smart thing to do is to have a stress free job with benefits (which women all obtain should they choose to work). Men might say, "But they do not know mathematics and engineering!" Actually, women don't know the humanities as well. So women changed the humanities to be whatever they felt like studying (feminism got rid of all the dead white male authors for example). So women are popping out with 'college degrees' that are worthless. But worthless to WHOM? Why, to many men at businesses who are interested in workers. This type of woman never had any interest in really 'working' anyway. She just wanted the status.
In the West, men operate from a Slave Morality (as described by Nieztche). The biggest believers in the Slave Morality are the 'nice guys'. Nice guys are great for marriage (i.e. slavery) but they are not good, to women, for dates and all. Why? And the 'thugs' that men think are losers because they do not operate from the 'Slave Morality' mentality, these thugs and 'scum' have much in common with western women. Women operate from a Master Morality. Every pretty woman thinks she is a huge celebrity in her little world. Thugs and 'scum' (from the male point of view) operate on a Master Morality so they are more in tune with women. From woman's point of view, nice guys are the 'losers and scum' who they must be careful with their words as to not break the slave's heart. But the thugs appear to be more 'equals'. When a Nice Guy finds his balls and acts that way to a woman, she is astonished. Now imagine how stunned a slavemaster might be when a slave stood up to him! The slavemaster would think, "Wow, that slave has lots of fight in him. He will make a great slave! He is not broken in yet." Notice how the thoughts are identical with women?
Women use shame tactics because they work on most men. Women, like little Caesars, can order men about at their will. This is why women are smarter than men.
But what of the single mother who lives in poverty? On first glimpse, yes, she appears very stupid. But actually, she is CLUMSY. One being clumsy is not the same as being stupid. Women aim at the stress free, fun life (which is smart) while many men aim for more-stress, responsible life (which is often stupid). Women want to live to the fullest. She will screw the guy should it be in 'the moment'. But she got pregnant not because she was stupid but because she was clumsy in not applying birth control. Hence, Planned Parenthood and so many other agendas pushing birth control education (and free birth control) everywhere. Many groups, men and religious groups, believe this is a hedonistic for-the-love-of-sex act. What it is, really, is a calculated for-the-clumsy-women act.
Granted, with both men and women, there are differentiating levels of stupidity and smarts. But, comparing the whole of one gender against the other, women are smarter than men.
Look at how politicians bend to their aim.
Look how they have taken over colleges.
Look at how courts serve them.
All the marriage laws run in a circle around woman, elevating her, while pushing down the man to serve for her. Child payment and assets-taken-by-divorce are really nothing more than legally enslaving a man.
See how, in romance, men are in full anxiety and go to tremendous lengths for a woman (where as she hardly goes to much lengths at all).
Women are smarter than men. You know this was the truth you've been fighting against for so long. We cannot improve until we accept this tremendous fact: women won.
"But Pook! Women were not smarter than men throughout most of history? So what happened?" What happened was that women were able to make men stupid and, thus, manipulate them at will. How a man becomes "stupid" to be ripe for "manipulation" is the matriarchy's great secret and is for another post altogether. And it isn't what you think.
The comic Jeff Foxworthy realized this truth himself when, as he said, his wife declared that she was hot and he, automatically, got up and turned on the fan. She didn't ask for the fan to turn on, but he automatically did it. Walking back to the couch, it hit him. "Women are smarter than men," he realized because they have us working for them.
Last edited:
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Two Spheres
Two spheres of life are placed upon the Earth. They exist on top of one another. Where one lives in one sphere, that person cannot see the other sphere. These spheres are the masculine and feminine spheres.
As men, we have our systems of beliefs, our moralities, and values. All men share similiarities that it is better to be smarter than dumber, stronger than weaker, and wiser than stupider. But 'smart', 'strong', and 'wise' exist only in a certain context: and that is to work. To accomplish.
When men look at women, they wonder how awful their existence must be. For women, in men's eyes, are stupider, weaker, and dumber. Men see women doing menial tasks, and we wonder how they do brain dead jobs.
Men think women are very emotional and can be like a frail flower.
Some men, when they think they 'understand' women, end up projecting their own male contexts into women. For example, a man thinks his context of horniness is shared by a woman's. He says, "She is just as horny as I!" (whereas her horniness has a tactic involved)
Men peering at the feminine sphere is like men on the shore of the world peering into the ocean. They see shadows of movement on the other side and consider that liquid underworld to be mysterious yet pretty shallow. Certainly nothing as complex and wonderous as above!
But let us jump into the waters into the Feminine Sphere. As we jump into the water, we realize there is no liquid underworld. We appear on the surface just as when we left but it is a new different overworld. And, likewise, there are women standing on the shore peering into the depths of the ocean wondering what it is like in the masculine sphere. They see the shadows and it seems interesting, a little mysterious, but they too think it is a shallow existence. And they pity men for their shallow existence.
The feminine sphere is just as wonderous and detailed as the masculine sphere. Both were created by Nature or Nature's God. Each sex pities the other for their 'shallow' existence.
Women do not think men are smart. They may be intelligent, but women will always think they are smarter. The feminine sphere operates in a different morality. For a woman, to be 'smart' is to manipulate others to do work for them. Beautiful women are despised by other women because they have the potential to become very rich.
To women, men are stiff creatures who, if they give intelligent talk, are percieved as talking nonsense. There are more practical concerns to talk about such as shopping and sex.
Both men and women exist for feelings. But men do not recognize video games, football, or the praise they get from jobs or girlfriends to be 'feelings'. Also, women do not recognize that decorations, shopping, food, and sex to be 'feelings'. When a woman insists on remodeling, it is considered very important to her. But if a man were to suggest a new HD TV to replace the old TV, the woman would think it nonsense and to consider the man is interested only in new feelings.
Women see men as weak creatures whose only benefit is that they can work for them. This is why when a woman dumps you, she uses BS language like "Let us just be friends" and all without telling you what is really wrong. She percieves men to be stupid because, let us face it, many men do act stupid around women.
To women, religion is totally different than what it is to men. Everything exists in a different context. When a man is with a woman wearing a hot outfit, don't look at her but at the other women on the street. They will be staring daggers into her.
Women do not care what men think of her. It is nice if a man turns to look at her. But if a woman turns and looks, then her day is made. Instead of saying a man said something about her, say that a woman said something. She will demand to know who the woman is and what was said. But as for the men? Well, who cares about those shallow simple creatures.
"But Pook! History books are filled with great men. And women read those books. So obviously the masculine sphere is superior." Yes, women read those books. But history itself is part of the masculine sphere.
The masculine sphere is full of straight lines, of towers, and pyramids.
The feminine sphere is full of reflections, of webs, and massagers.
Consider the home. Many men design the interior of their home for utilitarian purposes or for cool electronic equipment. Often, it is a black look everywhere (non-reflection). Men do this because it creates a mood within him.
A woman sees it totally different and considers the interior of the home a priority. She puts up drapes, carpet, constantly cleans, gets matching furniture, all because it creates a mood within her.
Men believe women are all about feelings because when they interact with them, that is all he sees. But women believe the same about men. They see your video game systems, speakers, and fast car and think, "Toys".
The problem that has occurred was that somehow along the way, the feminine sphere was proclaimed to be the 'master morality' while the masculine sphere was proclaimed to be the 'slave morality'. Society views a 'man' as only a being that works for a woman. And a 'woman' is a being that holds the leash over a man.
When a man thinks of equality, it is a difficult concept. Sure, he knows he should be fair, but he can barely respect women as equals. This is the same for women. They also barely respect men as equals.
I am tired of men standing on that shore, pointing at the water, and declaring, "What a shallow existence women are living! They are not fit to live!" It is because on the other side is a woman, pointing at the water, doing the exact thing. Women are very smart. They are just smart in ways men do not percieve as smart (so they just label it 'woman's intuition). Women do the exact same for men.
A few are able to travel to the other sphere. But they are always travelers and can only observe. They will never be native to that other sphere. Esther Vilar was one such traveler. Her "Manipulated Men" described women to a T but what she labels as men's hopes and dreams is a little 'fuzzy'. But that is enough. No woman can understand a man well enough as men can (just as men cannot understand woman as women can). But Vilar knew enough of our sphere to communicate.
"Manipulated Man" should reveal that there is a looking glass and, on the other side, there is a feminine world that is invisible to us. Vilar gave us a lens to 'see' it. We should strive to sharpen that lens. The better we understand the feminine sphere, the better we understand women.
Last edited:
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
Friday, August 25, 2006
Information Age is about context, not content
What happens when you are flooded with information? Information ceases to have the value it once did. Why pay for a newspaper when you can look it online for free? Why waste valuable time sitting through TV commercials for mediocre coverage when you can find better information online?
Some people think my passion in life is writing. It isn't. It is actually about contexts. I enjoy juggling various contexts around and discarding ones that lack the data to back them up. For example, Nice Guy is entirely a context. It is a view of the way to look at the world. A Don Juan has a completely different context than a Nice Guy. A business owner also has a completely different context than an employee. It is not so much that a context is 'wrong' or 'right', but they lead to entirely different places. A Nice Guy context leads to a different place than a Don Jaun context. Like a bucket of chips, I choose and discard different contexts. Some contexts you'll never be fully sure about but others you can track down the facts (or lack of facts) and discard it. The mental boundary in people's minds today is not information (which is easily available and infinite) but context.
There is a difference between the egghead and the wise man. The egghead knows much information about nonsense (in other words, a poor context). The wise man knows much nonsense about information (in other words, a rich context). The egghead is rich with information, the wise man is rich with contexts.
In a constantly changing world, you must allow the possibility of new contexts or you will be left behind. As example to this, consider people who cling to the old way of saving money to get rich. Yes, you might get rich if you save money but only within sixty years or so. These people will be outpaced by those who adopted a new context, of putting themselves into massive debt on assets, to get ahead. I believe Nice Guys are in a context of a previous era.
The anxiety of man is living today with yesterday's contexts. We are no longer in the Industrial Revolution. You do not pass Go and expect to get pensions from companies like your grandparents did. Health care from businesses is no longer assured. A happy and long lasting marriage is not probable. One of the benefits of altering your contexts is that you will lose that anxiety you used to have. You will no longer fear women because you now have an entirely different context. When a feminist starts saying, "Shame on you! You are a man! This means you only have responsibilities and do not deserve any pleasures," you have the ability to laugh at her.
I cannot respect someone who cannot challenge their contexts. You do not have to agree with mine or anyone else's contexts, but a context cannot be written in stone no matter how much you agree with it. Facts are written in stone, not theories (and the contexts those theories create). Some people tell me, "It is the theory that is fundamental!" I say, "No, it is the facts that are fundamental. We must change our theories based on the data." To them, they would rather discredit or not look at competing data.
So why would someone be unable to challenge their contexts? Feminism is a stubborn context that does not respond well to being challenged. Why is that?
1) People adopt the context that fits their narcissism.
Women will adopt the context of feminism because it fits their narcissism. A poor person will adopt the context that rich people are screwing out the common man because it also fits his narcissism (and vice versa for the rich man and poor man). People who play video games will think it is the apex of civilization while those who do not play video games will think it is a waste of time. Those who have many degrees will have the context that degrees make them smart. Those who flunked out of college will likewise call college a 'waste of time'.
My favorite example of this is people driving their cars. When a car goes faster than them, that driver is a "maniac". When a car goes slower than them, that driver is an "idiot". It is all relative based on that person's driving speed! So young people, who tend to drive faster than most, think most people on the road are idiots. While old people, who tend to drive slower than most, think most people on the road are maniacs ("those damn crazy kids!").
2) People stick with contexts that fit to their other contexts
Hence, those who hate religion will tend to subscribe to the context that religion is a source of civilizational decline in the world (or the reverse). Those who hate Western Civilization will only see the West spawning evil. Those who have the context that the world is going to doom and gloom will only see the downside of every issue. Their bigger context affects their smaller contexts.
Much of the bias in the media is due to this. They have a pre-existing template and so every story, even the selection of stories to cover, gets their contexts pre-painted due to the original Mother Context.
3) People become stubborn with contexts if they have never been challenged
As Thomas Paine used to say, "Time makes more converts than reason." What I call "The Way" is exactly this flaw. "The Way" becomes so since no one allows for any other possibilities, for any other options. By removing the entire outside, the remaining context becomes "The Way". This is how tyrannical societies tend to work by removing the outside as much as possible.
This is why many older men suggest to younger ones to meet foreign women in other countries. They are not saying to marry foreign women. They are saying that, by removing all foreign women, your typical American woman (or British woman, Canadian, etc.) becomes the de facto standard of all women. By meeting these various foreign women, you have a better idea of how women in your home country compare (or don't).
If you have a context and had no one challenge you on it, what happens? Well, you never had to explain your context to other people, to publicly defend it, to give reasons for it. All you know is that those who challenge your context (which is the only one you know so to you it is "The Way") must be dearranged, misfits, or losers of society. These people find the challengers not as challengers but as "outside the norm" and must be de-legitimized because, in their minds, you already have unlegitimate viewpoint. This is why Feminism, which has never been challenged, must destroy her critics instead of debate them in the arena of ideas.
Feminism is such a stubborn context because it holds all three of the above 'barriers'. Feminism has not been challenged, it feeds people's narcissism, and it fits other contexts higher up. When someone views all of society as an artificial creation, then one can easily believe in feminist laws to "progress" society. The pride of the person and the age of the context as well as the influence of other contexts prevents people from opening their minds.
To those from Sosuave, you know that your life changed when you changed your context away from the Nice Guy mindset. Just ask yourself, "If my life has so changed by altering that context, what other contexts could there be out there?" And with that, you embark on a series of life changing discoveries that will improve and enrich your lives more than those narcissists and arrogant elitists could imagine.
Information Age is about context, not content
What happens when you are flooded with information? Information ceases to have the value it once did. Why pay for a newspaper when you can look it online for free? Why waste valuable time sitting through TV commercials for mediocre coverage when you can find better information online?
Some people think my passion in life is writing. It isn't. It is actually about contexts. I enjoy juggling various contexts around and discarding ones that lack the data to back them up. For example, Nice Guy is entirely a context. It is a view of the way to look at the world. A Don Juan has a completely different context than a Nice Guy. A business owner also has a completely different context than an employee. It is not so much that a context is 'wrong' or 'right', but they lead to entirely different places. A Nice Guy context leads to a different place than a Don Jaun context. Like a bucket of chips, I choose and discard different contexts. Some contexts you'll never be fully sure about but others you can track down the facts (or lack of facts) and discard it. The mental boundary in people's minds today is not information (which is easily available and infinite) but context.
There is a difference between the egghead and the wise man. The egghead knows much information about nonsense (in other words, a poor context). The wise man knows much nonsense about information (in other words, a rich context). The egghead is rich with information, the wise man is rich with contexts.
In a constantly changing world, you must allow the possibility of new contexts or you will be left behind. As example to this, consider people who cling to the old way of saving money to get rich. Yes, you might get rich if you save money but only within sixty years or so. These people will be outpaced by those who adopted a new context, of putting themselves into massive debt on assets, to get ahead. I believe Nice Guys are in a context of a previous era.
The anxiety of man is living today with yesterday's contexts. We are no longer in the Industrial Revolution. You do not pass Go and expect to get pensions from companies like your grandparents did. Health care from businesses is no longer assured. A happy and long lasting marriage is not probable. One of the benefits of altering your contexts is that you will lose that anxiety you used to have. You will no longer fear women because you now have an entirely different context. When a feminist starts saying, "Shame on you! You are a man! This means you only have responsibilities and do not deserve any pleasures," you have the ability to laugh at her.
I cannot respect someone who cannot challenge their contexts. You do not have to agree with mine or anyone else's contexts, but a context cannot be written in stone no matter how much you agree with it. Facts are written in stone, not theories (and the contexts those theories create). Some people tell me, "It is the theory that is fundamental!" I say, "No, it is the facts that are fundamental. We must change our theories based on the data." To them, they would rather discredit or not look at competing data.
So why would someone be unable to challenge their contexts? Feminism is a stubborn context that does not respond well to being challenged. Why is that?
1) People adopt the context that fits their narcissism.
Women will adopt the context of feminism because it fits their narcissism. A poor person will adopt the context that rich people are screwing out the common man because it also fits his narcissism (and vice versa for the rich man and poor man). People who play video games will think it is the apex of civilization while those who do not play video games will think it is a waste of time. Those who have many degrees will have the context that degrees make them smart. Those who flunked out of college will likewise call college a 'waste of time'.
My favorite example of this is people driving their cars. When a car goes faster than them, that driver is a "maniac". When a car goes slower than them, that driver is an "idiot". It is all relative based on that person's driving speed! So young people, who tend to drive faster than most, think most people on the road are idiots. While old people, who tend to drive slower than most, think most people on the road are maniacs ("those damn crazy kids!").
2) People stick with contexts that fit to their other contexts
Hence, those who hate religion will tend to subscribe to the context that religion is a source of civilizational decline in the world (or the reverse). Those who hate Western Civilization will only see the West spawning evil. Those who have the context that the world is going to doom and gloom will only see the downside of every issue. Their bigger context affects their smaller contexts.
Much of the bias in the media is due to this. They have a pre-existing template and so every story, even the selection of stories to cover, gets their contexts pre-painted due to the original Mother Context.
3) People become stubborn with contexts if they have never been challenged
As Thomas Paine used to say, "Time makes more converts than reason." What I call "The Way" is exactly this flaw. "The Way" becomes so since no one allows for any other possibilities, for any other options. By removing the entire outside, the remaining context becomes "The Way". This is how tyrannical societies tend to work by removing the outside as much as possible.
This is why many older men suggest to younger ones to meet foreign women in other countries. They are not saying to marry foreign women. They are saying that, by removing all foreign women, your typical American woman (or British woman, Canadian, etc.) becomes the de facto standard of all women. By meeting these various foreign women, you have a better idea of how women in your home country compare (or don't).
If you have a context and had no one challenge you on it, what happens? Well, you never had to explain your context to other people, to publicly defend it, to give reasons for it. All you know is that those who challenge your context (which is the only one you know so to you it is "The Way") must be dearranged, misfits, or losers of society. These people find the challengers not as challengers but as "outside the norm" and must be de-legitimized because, in their minds, you already have unlegitimate viewpoint. This is why Feminism, which has never been challenged, must destroy her critics instead of debate them in the arena of ideas.
Feminism is such a stubborn context because it holds all three of the above 'barriers'. Feminism has not been challenged, it feeds people's narcissism, and it fits other contexts higher up. When someone views all of society as an artificial creation, then one can easily believe in feminist laws to "progress" society. The pride of the person and the age of the context as well as the influence of other contexts prevents people from opening their minds.
To those from Sosuave, you know that your life changed when you changed your context away from the Nice Guy mindset. Just ask yourself, "If my life has so changed by altering that context, what other contexts could there be out there?" And with that, you embark on a series of life changing discoveries that will improve and enrich your lives more than those narcissists and arrogant elitists could imagine.
nastynaven
Rookie
whoa.