ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

The real revenge of the nerds

Sexual harassment is what happens when a Gamma finally makes good in life:
Research over decades on thousands of men shows that those who harass or assault women often have a combination of two distinct sets of personality characteristics, and that these then become amplified by power, says Neil Malamuth, a professor of psychology and communication at the University of California, Los Angeles. Psychologists call these “hostile masculinity” and “impersonal sexuality.”

Men with “hostile masculinity” find power over women to be a sexual turn-on. They feel anger at being rejected by a woman. This is something that researchers believe probably happened to them a lot when they were young. They justify their aggression and are often narcissists.

Men with “impersonal sexuality” prefer sex without intimacy or a close connection, which often leads them to seek promiscuous sex or multiple partners. Often, but not always, this type of person has had a difficult home environment as a child, with abuse or violence, or they had some anti-social tendencies as adolescents....

“It’s not automatic; it’s not that power corrupts,” says UCLA’s Dr. Malamuth. “It’s a certain type of man who uses his power in this way.”

Dr. Malamuth says he has new, unpublished research that shows that men who are aggressive toward women are more likely to look for or create a situation where women are more vulnerable. So it’s no coincidence that they are the ones who seek out power—especially over young, beautiful women, who were the ones who tended to reject them when they were young. Then their natural aggression makes them more likely to achieve it.

“The bad behavior is a defense against being powerless,” says Dr. Kilmartin, of University of Mary Washington.
Narcissism, anger, frequent rejection by women, difficult childhoods, and anti-social tendencies. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The social scientists are still trying to spin this and blame it on more conservative and traditional men, of course.

Men who harass or assault women also tend to have sexist attitudes, such as an opposition to gender equality or a favoring of traditional roles for women, says John Pryor, a distinguished professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University.

But as we've seen, this simply isn't true. Again and again and again, we're seeing that the pattern of sexual harassment is based on male socio-sexuality, not ideology. The combination of childhood trauma, unattractiveness, low social rank, and intelligence with later-in-life success that provides power over others is a severely toxic one. Sexual harassment is what the actual revenge of the nerds looks like. Remember that even in the movie of that name, the gamma nerd "who thinks about sex all the time" seduces the cheerleader under the false pretense of being a literal Alpha.

Gammas never handle power well, whether they become the head of state, the head of a film studio, or just the manager of the sales department.

Labels: ,

114 Comments:

Blogger Bob Loblaw February 15, 2018 5:44 AM  

They feel anger at being rejected by a woman. This is something that researchers believe probably happened to them a lot when they were young.

So, like... 90% of men?

Blogger James Jones February 15, 2018 5:59 AM  

90% of men?

No. There's a difference between occasional rejection, and frequent rejection. Most people don't have an issue with occasional rejection. It's the frequent rejection that creates the weirdos - constant rejection creates the monsters.

Blogger Unknown February 15, 2018 6:19 AM  

Your low opinion of all non-Vox masculinity is showing again. Sexual harassment has nothing to do with men. It's the poisoned arrow used by those who serve the Feminine Imperative. The behaviour being described in those excerpts is the shit all men go through at some point or anothet on the road to being a man. Your predilection for imputing a stinking pile of gammatude into the everyman holds a mirror to your own. Talk about it often enough and it goes away, isn't that how the ladies do it?

Blogger SteelPalm February 15, 2018 6:23 AM  

Interesting idea, and I suspect you are correct.

I've had similar thoughts, but never elucidated them as well, in part because I wasn't thinking of a sociosexual hierarchy with your particular definitions. (Which work REALLY well for this)

Many people don't outgrow what they were when they were younger. And decades later, their elevated status is nothing more than an opportunity to finally get revenge.

Blogger Antony February 15, 2018 6:28 AM  

Maybe slightly ot - but as we are talking about childhood abuse, Norwegian Jewish leaders are protesting about a proposed circumcision ban ; http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/02/14/icelandic-lawmakers-are-acting-like-nazis-over-circumcision/ - this is a subject Stefan Molyneux has covered on occasion - Whilst on the subject, I understand recently there were proposals by the Jewish Lobby in some states of USA to ban even proposing that circumcision should be banned, though I am not sure what became of this, as with the proposal to ban the BDS movement talked about on this blog recently, this is just another example by "Gods Chosen People" to stifle free speech.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) February 15, 2018 6:30 AM  

So, like... 90% of men?

90% of men don't feel anger at being rejected

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 6:38 AM  

Put aside harassment for a moment. It's a known fact that rape is committed by sexual losers, when not by psychopaths, opportunists, or career/hereditary criminals. Why wouldn't it be? Men who can get women to agree to sex don't need the risk involved in rape.

I say it's known, but those in charge of our culture try to suppress obvious truths. In this case for several reasons. For one, because male sexual loserdom is tied to biology, and they wish everything to be environmental. I vividly recall being told at my college orientation, where they sit hundreds of students down to tell them not to rape eachother, that men with traditional views on sex roles were more likely to rape. They made extra-specially sure we remembered. That's where their heads are at.

Back to harassment, whereas rape can be lied about and there are ambiguities, it's straightforward relative to harassment. Which is pretty dang up in the air.

But that old SNL sketch with Tom Brady nailed it. If thevyirl finds you attractive, it's harassment. It's not as if everything a gamma does can be construed as harassment simply because women are put off by them. There have to be some objective standards for what counts, because women will unduly punish creeps.

However, it should be almost tautological that if you are Tom Brady in that sketch, you can't commit creepy harassment. Which s basically what sexyas garasshara is.

You can still sexually assault people.

Blogger Constantin February 15, 2018 6:39 AM  

*Men who harass or assault women also tend to have sexist attitudes, such as an opposition to gender equality or a favoring of traditional roles for women, says John Pryor, a distinguished professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University.*

Yeah, complete horseshit. If anything, it's been revealed these past few years that the majority of Men who espouse so called "equality" usually do so in a vain attempt to attract women to them. And in order to keep away other potential "suitors" the equality believers accuse them of things they themselves are guilty off; anger against women, seeing them as nothing but sexual objects, etc.

I have little respect for any *woman* that espouses "equality" drivel, but I especially loath any *man* who does it. They need to be watched carefully.

Blogger Koanic February 15, 2018 6:43 AM  

> Men who harass or assault women also tend to have sexist attitudes, such as an opposition to gender equality or a favoring of traditional roles for women, says John Pryor, a distinguished professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University.

There is nothing distinguished about Illinois State University, or "I Screwed Up", as it is known locally.

That said, I doubt Bill Clinton actually believes feminism. Rather, he believes he must espouse it as penance for his sins, in some psychopathic sense. Therefore his offense at those who reject it is feminine, since to reject the hypocrite's sacrament is to proclaim oneself an honest man, and therefore inherently superior to the hypocrite. Which is an existential threat as old as time. For if honest men are permitted to know each other, they will soon know the hypocrite too, and his death follows.

Therefore our distinguished professor embarritus is careful not to distinguished the publicly espoused from the privately held. Much less fake-rape from Biblical rape.

OpenID zhukovg February 15, 2018 6:43 AM  

Hmmm... did exhibit A just show up?

At any rate, I wouldn't think rejection, or even frequent rejection, creates a Gamma. It's how a Gamma will assume that something must be wrong with the person rejecting them, rather than looking to improving themselves.

They are the 'Secret King'. 'So just you wait till I come into my kingdom, bitch'! Even if their kingdom is just department manager at Walmart.

Blogger Koanic February 15, 2018 6:44 AM  

> those who reject it is feminine

*genuine

Blogger VD February 15, 2018 6:48 AM  

At any rate, I wouldn't think rejection, or even frequent rejection, creates a Gamma.

It's a necessary, not sufficient condition. The key is how the individual RESPONDS to the rejection. Is it "well, I need to up my game," or is it "I'll show you some day, you stupid, evil bitch!"

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 6:51 AM  

Sorry, I meant if the girl finds you attractive it's NOT harassment.

I long wondered in the earlier years of its use* what this term "sexual harassment" really meant. Was it harassment, but a man doing it to a woman? Meaning women are a protected class, like with blacks and hate crimes.

Did it require a sexual element besides the sexes of the people in question? Short of assault, because otherwise it'd be sexual assault.

What, then? Not just inappropriate behavior creating a "hostile work emvironment," or whatever. But a woman feeling uncomfortable because of a man's actionably out-of-line behavior.

While it is possible for an alpha to act that way, it's basically the definition of a sexual loser male losing control.

*I remember the first big court settlement. A boss said to an underling about her you-know-whats "Let's see which one's bigger."

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 15, 2018 6:55 AM  

Bob Loblaw wrote:They feel anger at being rejected by a woman. This is something that researchers believe probably happened to them a lot when they were young.

So, like... 90% of men?


Well, 90% of researchers certainly.

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 7:01 AM  

The sexual assault scene in Revenge of the Nerds gets to me. While the Blonde Beast jock alpha coul be a poor lover, the idea that nerds are Lotharios in waiting because they really care, study hard, and want to give, or whatever, pfft.

Practice makes perfect, and it's likely men with more experience would have superior skills. However, sex skills are overrated. I'm not a woman, but I've never thought to myself, "Man, she is a skilled lover. What a talent!" It's more like, "She's hot," or "I like her."

If the lovers are attracted to eachother, they'll usually enjoy it more. Odds are the type of man that cheerleader is normally attracted to would be attractive in bed, also. And for the same qualities. Confidence chief among them.

Blogger Shimshon February 15, 2018 7:07 AM  

Vox, is your memory eidetic, or did you rewatch Revenge of the Nerds to be able to describe the scene? I feel your pain.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 15, 2018 7:08 AM  

I have been running into this phrase a lot lately and it' always in terms of condemnation.

"I deserve access to women's bodies"

“From those four distal expectations come the proximal attitudes and behaviors, like ‘I deserve to have access to women’s bodies,’” he explains.

Woah! Woah! Stop! "Deserve to have access?" Desire access, sure. That's called being a normal human male. If you are thinking in terms of deserve there is something seriously wrong with you. Normal men don't think that way. But this guy clearly does.

It is a classic and frightening example of SJWs always project.


If you click on the link, my apologies for the first picture you are going to see.

It was very Steve-ish of me.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 15, 2018 7:12 AM  

Winning is impossible for a Feminist Gamma.

Their entire mindset is geared towards failing with women in the first place.

They did what they were told to do by feminists and they were supposed to succeed with women in consequence but it didn't work. And the only thing left is intense frustration.

Those few Gammas who become powerful become even more frustrated because now they have both feminist credibility and rich guy toys. Women are supposed to be throwing themselves at them and they still only go for dumb-jock-cavemen. At that point they begin acting out, not to try to actually get sex but to dominate and humiliate women. Although occasionally this need to dominate and humiliate will escalate all the way to actual rape.

The horrifying thing is that this actually worked for as long as it did because feminists would circle the wagons around known perpetrators in order to preserve their lies. And feminists would beat down any woman who tried to threaten their narrative. This reinforced the belief of powerful Gammas that they indeed earned a right.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 15, 2018 7:14 AM  

It's a famous scene, Shimshon. everyone remembers it. That movie is absolutely wish fulfillment of Gammas. Hilarious that Goose is the wingman in that movie too.

Another scene that looks different in this light is the part where they hide the cameras in the girls' locker room. "Bush. We have bush. I repeat, we have bush." That's almost pulled from the headlines nowadays.

Blogger VD February 15, 2018 7:21 AM  

Vox, is your memory eidetic, or did you rewatch Revenge of the Nerds to be able to describe the scene?

I'm not eidetic, but my memory is pretty good. I only saw it once in college. Sadly, I can still recall the Thomas Dolby-style song that had the Lambda from Lambda Lambda Lambda rapping to Herbie Hancock.

"Lambda Lambda Lambda and... Omega Mu!"

I remember seeing it and thinking, "ah, so that is what Philip Roth wishes his Bucknell experience had been."

Blogger McChuck February 15, 2018 7:35 AM  

According to his bio, Prof. Neil Malamuth has been researching porn for a long time (about 15 years), specializing in child porn and violence fetishes. It's the perfect cover.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 15, 2018 7:36 AM  

"Lambda Lambda Lambda and... Omega Mu!"

Damn it. Now I'm going to have that one bouncing around in my head all day.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 15, 2018 7:44 AM  

VOX HAZ A SAD

Blogger McChuck February 15, 2018 7:45 AM  

*Men who harass or assault women also tend to have sexist attitudes, such as an opposition to gender equality or a favoring of traditional roles for women...*

This may look absurd to us, because we have normal meanings for words. It makes perfect sense to the leftists, because to them, these words mean "toxic masculinity", "male privilege", and "homophobic cis-hetero male scum."

Blogger wreckage February 15, 2018 8:47 AM  

Well, there's a class of gamma bastards who really do hold to "traditional values", just not traditional values of manliness. I've met some. They're singularly detestable. There's also plenty of gammas who espouse anti-feminism purely because it gives them a safe space to hate women for rejecting them. Again, truly revolting specimens.

The key thing is, they don't improve themselves, they don't acknowledge that they aren't attractive enough to get the attention of a woman in the "could have been a model" tier, and they get viciously, murderously angry at rejection.

Blogger The Cooler February 15, 2018 8:55 AM  

John Pryor, a distinguished professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University

In a recent, very scientificist poll of every woman ever, 11 out of 10 women don't give a warm shit what men they don't want to plow them into the next universe have to say about sex.

Blogger Nathan Bissonette February 15, 2018 8:58 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 9:06 AM  

@7 "There have to be some objective standards for what counts,"

I think you maybe mis-wrote that. You probably meant:
"I HAVE to feel there are some objective standards for what counts"

"Objective" in human psychology, behavior, and interactions is a pipe dream! No such animal because: animal!

"Reasonable"? Sure. It's reasonable that a girl / woman will reject a weird-looking or acting (or even a shy apparently not close to alpha) guy. Or the guy that other girls / women have rejected for even whatever wrong or unknown reasons (herd animals, not anywhere CLOSE to "objective" acting; very very close to genetic / biological acting, and then rationalizing it afterwards).

(And before you go "well, we men are {can be} objective!" Uh, no. Predictable on genetic / biological reasons, sure. That's NOT objective, it's biological. (Reasonable, too; because there are *reasons* for it!)

I often 'hear' (and here!) in the 'all modern women are sluts' and 'modern girls are asking for it' and that type of *apparently* traditional male complaining about how things are today, the same 'cry' of the rejected gamma. (Oh, also the: "it's all women's fault, and all women WANT to dress and act like sluts" complaining.)

The whole White Sharia crap is (sounds like?) petulant *boys* wanting to restrict and control girls and women so THEY have a chance! "If no woman is allowed out in the public sphere, then she will have to marry some male, any male, in order to eat and live with indoors plumbing! So, let's do that!"

Traditional males surely might prefer (some of) the same sorts of strictures (and women -- and children, too -- might indeed benefit by some if not many of them!), but the trad-males 'drive' (their rationalization?) for it is (thankfully) more about protecting women and children, than about controlling and forcing them.

I don't know if there is a balance. I doubt if ALL of our great-great-grannies were perfectly happy being denied / protected from many of today's freedoms. Education is a (probably) blessing no matter which sex. (Well, sound education, not today's crap!) The ability to engage in some kinds of self-determination (the smartest women are wasted -- and horribly / painfully 'contained' -- if denied a chance to USE their big brains. Can there not be a way to benefit by the smartest, without turning the world into a feminist death camp? (Imagine, if you men even can, being denied the ability to read ANYthing on the web, and discuss it with other smart people! Imagine being told you could ONLY socialize with the folks living with some few miles of you. ("A lonely lone wolf living in a cow pasture," as my husband described living in the South.)

Would you do that to your daughters?

Blogger Gordon Scott February 15, 2018 9:06 AM  

John Pryor, a distinguished professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University

Well, thank goodness we are blessed by his wisdom. I'd hate to think we had to settle for an undistinguished example of a professor emeritus from a 4th-tier school.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 9:06 AM  

I think it's less being rejected a lot, and more being unable to "let it go" after being rejected. As soon as the thought that it's always everyone else's fault gets started, you're in for a bad trip, no matter what you're trying to do.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 15, 2018 9:10 AM  

Nietszche-bro:

Nice novel you got there .

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 9:12 AM  

"The whole White Sharia crap"

Is a figment of moderate imaginations as far as I can tell.

"Imagine, if you men even can"

And the truth comes out. A sexist is you.

"Would you do that to your daughters?"

Very few white men want that, and certainly not the traditional ones.

Try not to fly off the handle.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 9:26 AM  

@13 Was it harassment, but a man doing it to a woman? Meaning women are a protected class

Women are a prey animal class. When the predator bares his teeth or stares a bit too long at a prey animal, it arouses freeze, fight, or flight. (And admit it, when you stare at a woman, you're thinking: I'd like to GET me some of that!" Even if you'd never in a million years ACT on that thought. Do you think we don't see it? We're prey -- we ALWAYS watch the predators around us!)

When the predator brushes up against the prey animal, or says 'hey baby, which one is bigger?" the predator is intentionally reminding the prey animal that she is under threat.

Sorry, you nice / good / non-evil guys don't like that -- but it's absolutely true. It's also, as J. Peterson says on dominance hierarchies in 3.6 Billion year old lobsters: built-in! When the predator 'makes a move,' it is both intended to and does frighten the prey.

I'm reminded of Alison Armstrong (marriage / relationship trainer) in a coed session who asks the men to raise their hands if they have felt physically threatened in the past week. No hands. Past month? No hands. Past year? Maybe 1 or 2 hands. Past 5 years? Maybe 3 or 4 hands.

Now the women: Past 5 years? EVERY hand. Past year. Still every hand. Past month? Some hands go down, not many. Past week? Way more than half the hands stay up.

Alison says (paraphrasing here): "Men: LOOK around you! This is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between how men and women navigate in the world! And it does not MATTER if it's "realistic" or not (and it's both).

My expansion (Alison is WAY too "delicate" or unaware for my tastes): You cannot imagine being cautious and aware of danger every time you go out of the house! If you are going to leave the house after dark to walk to the end of your driveway to get the mail -- do you stop for one second to think about your safety? Damn near every woman does, every time!

You cannot imagine how viewing the world through a prey animal's eyes changes the world! You attribute to women malicious or angry or aggressive / hierarchical 'reasons' a man would have for what it actually pretty damned normal PREY ANIMAL behavior.

And it's biological -- many, maybe most women are completely unaware that this is why they are angry and hostile to 'predators' making moves. It's why idiot modern women are trying to make-over men into not-predators (ain't gonna happen!). AND why they view all men as dangerous horrible need to be castrated (by other men, but they don't consider that) so women can feel safe, like a child feels safe when mommy and daddy are good protectors.

Blogger SouthRon February 15, 2018 9:34 AM  

@Tubalcain, I hadn't even considered when and where the term "sexual harassment" came into being. A quick Google NGram search shows, shock of no shocks, that it didn't even exist before the mid-70s. Crap, the transsexual nonsense has been around longer.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 9:39 AM  

@17 (from the link:) "alcohol abuse is a perfect example. It numbs feelings and allows men to act aggressive."

Dr Pat Allen (who is certified in both alcohol and sex addiction, and mostly UN-P.C. -- and brilliant at getting through to brainwashed women: ask me how I know!) points out that a lot of alcohol / getting drunk lets a man get IN TOUCH with his feelings, to set down his control / suppression and *feel* what he feels... So, the anger and aggressiveness he feels (and suppresses to succeed as a man in a "man beat man" world) can come out! He's not losing touch with his feelings, he FEELING them! (Just as a woman drinks to numb-out her feelings and 'live' in her rational / rationalizing self.)

So this idiot-prof/author has it upside-down!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 9:39 AM  

There's another side or two to that, Neo.

Much like how men hardly ever report being raped, most men are never going to admit to feeling physically threatened on any sort of common frequency. To do so would be to admit weakness in a man's mind.

Do men often feel physically threatened? Some do, some don't. I can't speak for the former, being relatively large, and strong for my size, I've only felt physically threatened a handful of times in my life. Psychologically or socially threatened on the other hand? Daily basis.

Granted your average man won't feel physically threatened on a common basis in normal circumstances. Social threats tend to make up for that.

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 9:42 AM  

@28-I'm not talking about my feelings. I'm talking about the law*, primarily, as well as social convention. You know, like we used to have, instead of the prevailing anarcho-tyranny.

I know we can't be truly objective. We are not as God. Allow me some leeway within my limited manner of speech.

We can at least do better than taking the girl's word for it. Or brushing everything off as "gammas will be gammas," for that matter.

It's reasonable to say that we can't ever be objective, but you might be veering toward a postmodern denial of any standards whatsoever. I can't tell, because most of your post is ramblingly incoherent.

*If you wish to convict someone of murder, for instance, you must demonstrate certain prerequisites. These hurdles are not invented willy-nilly on the spot, but carry over and apply to all like cases

Blogger VD February 15, 2018 9:46 AM  

The ability to engage in some kinds of self-determination (the smartest women are wasted -- and horribly / painfully 'contained' -- if denied a chance to USE their big brains. Can there not be a way to benefit by the smartest, without turning the world into a feminist death camp? (Imagine, if you men even can, being denied the ability to read ANYthing on the web, and discuss it with other smart people! Imagine being told you could ONLY socialize with the folks living with some few miles of you. ("A lonely lone wolf living in a cow pasture," as my husband described living in the South.)

Oh, shut up already. No one gives a damn about hypothetical feelings when the West is in peril. Are you seriously going to try to make a rhetorical appeal to emotion here, of all places?

Would you do that to your daughters?

Without even a nanosecond's hesitation. Especially given that it would spare them the maleducation and narcissistic illogic that you exhibit.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 9:52 AM  

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, sexual harassment is usually code for any sort of remotely sexual behavior by the sexually unattractive. If the behavior is repetitive, that particularly raises the chance of it being regarded as harassment, no matter how mild.

The problem with harassment is it's entirely subjective. Some women will freak out and squeal sexual harassment if a guy slightly below their standards so much as looks at them in a way they don't happen to like once or twice. The same woman can be borderline sexually assaulted and never even consider it being harassment, because the guy in question was well north of her standards.

Sexual assault is an entirely different -- and more reasonable -- matter.

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 9:52 AM  

@33-You sound like you're trying to disagree, but you're actually making arguments for why women ought to be a protected class.

The threatened feelings test means at least two things, not necessarily but possibly either/or:

1). Women are unfit for public life as is, and require a return to patriarchy for their security and sanity.

2). They're playing it up for attention and whatever security they can get, because women are born liars.

Though they naturally feel threatened more often than men, those hand-raising experiments don't determine to what degree. It may not mean much of anything.

However, I do advocate a return to patriarchy. Women aren't fit for their current place in society, partly because they feel threatened too easily. But also because in other situations they don't feel threatened enough. (Immivasion.)

Blogger The Observer February 15, 2018 9:57 AM  

The ability to engage in some kinds of self-determination (the smartest women are wasted -- and horribly / painfully 'contained' -- if denied a chance to USE their big brains.

Two to three hundred years ago, we were told the same thing, that we were missing half the great thinkers, artists, musicians, etc, etc of the human species.

Three hundred years and ridiculous amounts of wasted resources later, we get not Bach, Da Vinci or Aristotle, but free bleeding onto paper instead.

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 9:58 AM  

@36-A better example may be mental "illnesses," like depression. Women are diagnosed more often than men, because they're more likely to go to a doctor, and like to talk about their problems more.

Most importantly, they're born playactors. I get the sense they all have incipient Munchausen Syndrome. Women and their broods had to be kept alive by male protectors all those years, remember. Which means they're adept at playing the role of protectee.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 9:58 AM  

@31 "Nietszche-bro:
Nice novel you got there."

(Uh, that'd be Neo-Nietzsche-sis... It's Avalanche, but the 'stay signed in thing' has me using my late husband's avatar till I can figure out how to change it back.)

(Not really) Sorry, it's long. This is partly my field of expertise... and because men often can't encompass the idea of women as prey animals, of women acting as much out of their biology as you men do out of yours, the 'consider this about women' can't be a sound-bite. It's a whole concept.

I often call the 'different world views' men and women hold: Mother Nature's nastiest little trick on us! Rev. Emmerson Eggerichs says men see through blue glasses and hear through blue headphones and speak through a blue megaphone. Women see, hear, and speak through pinks ones! If you don't learn to see the difference (and 'see, hear and sometimes speak' pink), you won't have really deeply successful intersex relationships.

He also, and many of you will like this, points out that St. Paul directs - and most churches only preach the first half! -- men to 'love their wives as themselves.' And then church counseling is all about trying to get men to do that.

Everyone leaves out (and Eggerichs himself said it's why HIS religious counseling in his flock rarely ever succeeded -- and it's what spurred him to this awakening): Paul ALSO directs women to 'respect their husbands.' And BOTH are fundamental and required! (Eggerichs says to women: "you need to stop saying/believing that 'if only he ACTS respectable, why then I'll respect him.' How would you feel if HE said: 'well, if only she would act LOVABLE then I'll love her'?

Fantastic book: Love and Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs -- and he bases it in BOTH the Bible and science. Worth the read!

Blogger The Cooler February 15, 2018 10:02 AM  

Though they naturally feel threatened more often than men, those hand-raising experiments don't determine to what degree. It may not mean much of anything.

These 'experiments' (which are in reality shit test lectures) reduce to, "raise your hand if you're female". It's an experiment only a female -- or the effete -- could come up with and genuinely believe indicates anything other than the wetness of water.

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 10:03 AM  

@41-We haven't given them enough time is the invariable answer. It's constantly three centuries ago plus one day, and women haven't yet had their chance. Despite generations of not mere chances, but favoritism and coddling.

They're like Marxists, ever waiting for the proletariat to rise up. Keep waiting, comrades. It's inevitable.

(I try to have this conversation with my sister and she always acts like I'm calling her stupid. That's not the way my brain works.)

Blogger Koanic February 15, 2018 10:08 AM  

> Three hundred years and ridiculous amounts of wasted resources later, we get not Bach, Da Vinci or Aristotle, but free bleeding onto paper instead.

Don't forget all the great male thinkers, artists, musicians, etc they didn't bear because they were too busy baring their behinds to badboys instead!

> Oh, shut up already.

A Spamalanch by any other name would still be as inane.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:11 AM  

"Three hundred years and ridiculous amounts of wasted resources later, we get not Bach, Da Vinci or Aristotle, but free bleeding onto paper instead."

Romance novels and fourth wave feminism. Feel the internalized misogyny flow through you!

"Which means they're adept at playing the role of protectee."

You might be overthinking this. You don't have to play a role if you are the role.

That being said, for sure some women have caught on that playing cutesy and/or exaggeratedly effeminate is an effective strategy with a lot of men. It's why so many Japanese women like to pretend that their voices are higher than they really are, for example.

As far as playing the victim, on the other hand... that comes from both sides. Some women will play the victim, and some men will see the victim they expected to see where none exists.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora February 15, 2018 10:11 AM  

Academia is in a sad state when a video game developer and writer has a better handle on psychology than people called psychologists.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 10:12 AM  

@32 "The whole White Sharia crap"
Is a figment of moderate imaginations as far as I can tell.

I see guys seemingly heading that way on various forae.


@32 "Imagine, if you men even can"
And the truth comes out. A sexist is you.

Not at ALL! I love and respect that men are predators (while also, wisely being a bit careful around them! Reformed feminist here, after all!). I was married to man who wore a .45 (GA is an open carry state) -- NOT to swagger, but because in his view the world was upside down: it's supposed to be that the aristocrats/warriors go armed, and the peasants do not. And asking a predator to imagine the mindset of prey is difficult.

The actual Neo-Nietzsche used to say, kindly: "how painful it must be to be weak." He also used to gently tease me that "a wife SHOULD be just the smallest bit afraid of her husband!" And he's right! A woman living with a killer should always remember NOT to push him too far. This is why so many feminists are so unbearable (God knows I was!) -- they ride the 'men don't hit women' way beyond any reasonable limits; and then either drive him off (no man wants an enemy in his house) or finally provoke him TO hit and then use the state -- the more powerful "man" -- to destroy him.


[i]Try not to fly off the handle.[/i]
I'm a girl, it's my job! LOL.

Not really. Because I have studied this stuff for 20+ years; because I have recovered from being a harsh NY feminist (for which I abjectly apologize to all (White Western/Christian) men); because (at age 41) I married (the most amazing and wonderful) traditional man (whom I could not have mocked up in my wildest imagination) and had to put us both through the horrific ordeal of 'taming his feral female' as he wryly called it; and because I have counseled both men and women (way more women obviously) on the science and millennia of wisdom in intersex realtions; there is 'stuff' most folks have had hidden from them!

Have YOU ever seriously considered the concept of women as prey animals and what that does to their psyches and ways of living?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:13 AM  

You can tell when there are scare quotes and exclamation points everywhere, Avalanche is in the house for good or ill.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 10:16 AM  

@50 You can tell when there are scare quotes and exclamation points everywhere, Avalanche is in the house for good or ill.

(Yeah sorry, you should my stuff (or maybe not!) BEFORE I take out the capitalized words and even MORE (oops) parentheses and quote marks and and and... I 'talk' like a girl.)

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:19 AM  

Nate: ...

Avalanche: ?!?""!""!!

Me: ""

Koanic: You're not esoterically Biblical enough and I'm here to punish you.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira February 15, 2018 10:22 AM  

In 2015 I completed a web development course as the top student, while maintaining my job and physique as a personal trainer. The gamma rays were intense. It was right around then that I sought out an explanation, and soon found this blog, Vox's writings on the socio-sexual hierarchy and took a few big, fat red pills. Since then I've read the SJW books and watched the last gasps of MARVEL. I can confirm that these nerds are everything that Vox says they are, and perhaps even worse.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:27 AM  

"I see guys seemingly heading that way on various forae."

I see a lot more people raising flags and pointing fingers that way in order to justify not budging an inch. Irrelevant is irrelevant, why would you bring up irrelevant? Someone else might say monomania...

"Not at ALL!"

Fair enough. The hyperbole got the better of your communication.

"Have YOU ever seriously considered the concept of women as prey animals and what that does to their psyches and ways of living?"

Yes, actually. Most of them really, really don't act like it in the situations I would consider to be actually most threatening. The feeling that gov-daddy is watching appears to have more effect in their minds in some areas than it ought.

Blogger Koanic February 15, 2018 10:34 AM  

> Koanic: You're not esoterically Biblical enough and I'm here to punish you.

Nice.

> Most of them really, really don't act like it in the situations I would consider to be actually most threatening.

Unlike sexual prey animals, actual prey animals do not aim to be eaten by the strongest lion.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:39 AM  

"actual prey animals do not aim to be eaten by the strongest lion."

My thoughts exactly.

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 10:55 AM  

@47-"You don't have to play a role if you are the role."

Let's say they're naturally equipped to be good actresses. The female strategy requires constant pretense.

In any case, you can't be a protectee alone. They must lure in protectors, which requires playing it up.

Blogger James Chinery February 15, 2018 11:08 AM  

I've seen it in situations where lower status men, because of their profession, are thrust into a different role - they finally have access to women in general and especially to higher status women who wouldn't even piss on them in the past. Because of their title they are granted a pass they never had before - the bouncer has finally let them into the club.

Blogger flyingtiger February 15, 2018 11:08 AM  

Reminds me of a story about Harvey Weistein. Some actress came to his room and he came out of the shower naked. She rejected his advances and he did not press on her. As she left,, she saw him naked, crying and saying to her, "Is it because, I am fat?" It is the revenge of the nerds.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 11:13 AM  

"They must lure in protectors, which requires playing it up."

I don't see most of them playing it up unless something physical actually happens.

I don't deny there's a subclass that does, but as an overarching trait, no. Modern times are mad times.

As far as (most of them) being good actors, that's probably due to being more socially/verbally inclined.

Blogger Aeoli February 15, 2018 11:23 AM  

Human beings are predators and predators always watch their prey. This is why women correctly find men who watch them without expression to be either frightening or arousing depending upon the man's psycho-sexual status. Eye contact is the Force Recon of social dominance, so its conscious management can be useful.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/05/alpha-frame-eye-contact.html?m=1

Blogger Redpill Angel February 15, 2018 11:39 AM  

49 MneoNietzsche said YOU ever seriously considered the concept of women as prey animals and what that does to their psyches and ways of living?

There is a feral hunter/victim aspect to human sexuality for sure, but it goes both ways. Easier to see perhaps in men but it's there too in the femme fatale. It's why we admire the beauty of predator animals, and enjoy looking at photos of tigers close-up, but sheep in farshots in a green landscape. Like prey. If men are predators, women are too, since we're the same species. Think of the "mama bear" image too. It doesn't go away.

Blogger Redpill Angel February 15, 2018 11:42 AM  

The feral aspect of human sexuality would explain why our sexuality is perceived as dangerous, and requires strict controls, without which we devour one another.

Blogger Aeoli February 15, 2018 11:48 AM  

If men are predators, women are too, since we're the same species.

Yeah, men and women are equal, one race the human race.

Blogger Aeoli February 15, 2018 11:52 AM  

As the dandelion inclines to the sun, so man's heart inclines to self-deception.

Blogger Nate73 February 15, 2018 12:50 PM  

So what happens if a gamma ups his game and self-improves? What would happen to Harvey Weinstein if 10 years ago he lost weight and worked out?

Blogger James Jones February 15, 2018 12:50 PM  

Denial doesn't help. I've known men in positions of power who have been sexual harassers. Real sexual harassment is no joke. And they normally fit the profile Vox talks about.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 15, 2018 1:22 PM  

@flyingtiger

Trying to seduce someone like a woman would, and behaving like a woman when rejected... yup, Harvey the Hutt was definitely Gamma.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 15, 2018 1:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 15, 2018 1:28 PM  

@Nate73

It'd take a lot more than getting in shape. Harv the Hutt is very mentally twisted. But I suppose if he learned a lot of humility and underwent some serious self-improvement, he could become an actual Alpha... theoretically.

Blogger Nate73 February 15, 2018 2:01 PM  

@VFM #7634 I was imagining that a lot of these people really believe in feminism and it will get them sex, but then snap when they realize it's all lies. I don't think this type of thinking is limited to males either. I heard a feminist talk about being fat in high school and losing weight, and she was chatting with a cute guy who approached her at a gym when she realized he had ignored her completely when she was fat before, so she left. (But then maybe she realized she's a genius lesbian or something, idk.)

Blogger Unknown February 15, 2018 2:58 PM  

Denial? Nonsense. Phtting the horse back in front of the cart where it belongs. Out of the 10% you refer to, how many are dogs that have been kicked to the kerb once too often and come out growling?

Or is VD suggesting all men who have suffered in the way he describes in the past should be quarantined from all women (i.e. a nation of men only) until they behave just as the rampant hypergamist or alpha widow and her enablers would have them behave?

Granted there is real sexual misconduct going on out there but it's far far more evident in the sexualisation of boys and girls from an early age and overwhelming pressure to meet that degenerate standard. But it's not just secular society, these days even a misquoted bible verse can get a man trapped and leave him sinking in a giant pool of chivalrous horseshit.

Rather than degrade and deride an ever-expanding range of normal male behaviors with this overwrought gamma horsehit, look to the underlying problem which is the Mother Goddess' goal of ever-reducing male sexual choices while ever-increasing female sexual choices, and work at restoring some sense of heavenly justice. At the moment all this is doing is aiming another kick at the gamma in everyman and mocking the rest of him when he tries to walk right. It's part of the systemic gendered abuse of men inherent in a gynocentric culture.

Abused men know all too well the breadth and depth of their suffering. Jesus never treated them as anything less than God's favourite children and walked them out of their troubles with grace, forgiveness and a powerful love. Christans are to do the same.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 15, 2018 3:48 PM  

I was imagining that a lot of these people really believe in feminism and it will get them sex, but then snap when they realize it's all lies.

@Nate73
I suspect that at least part of the male feminist Gamma virtue-signaling out the wazoo is precisely because they're afraid of being #metoo'ed, and so they're trying as hard as they can to show their female counterparts that they're on their team.

Jesus never treated them as anything less than God's favourite children

@Unknown
"FavoUrite"? Clueless Commonwealth MGTOW prog off the larboard bow, Cap'n!

Blogger Redpill Angel February 15, 2018 3:57 PM  

64 Aeoli said: Yeah, men and women are equal, one race the human race.

Not sure where you got that from my comments, but it wasn't my intention to endorse sexual equality or globalism. Human beings have a predatory nature which can, and often does, spill over into our sexuality.

Blogger Danby February 15, 2018 4:09 PM  

I wish she wouldn't change her name. Makes it harder to skip her verbal spew.

@Avalanche, keep feeding that Hamster, sister.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 15, 2018 4:11 PM  

Danby wrote:@Avalanche, keep feeding that Hamster, sister.

Girls can't help being girls. She's behaving herself pretty well today.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants February 15, 2018 4:34 PM  

"Revenge of the Nerds," AKA, Jewish revenge fantasy.

That's the long, and short, of the entire movie.

Blogger Latigo3 February 15, 2018 4:35 PM  

Gammas don't get it. My uncle once told me when I was a young teenager, "there's more than one fish in the see". I know it's an old saying, but guess what it worked. Plenty of women out there if that is what one wants. Rejection is part of life, in all aspects of life it is important for a man to understand this and see where he can improve. A man should improve himself mentally, spiritually and physically.

Over the years I have seen the result of Gammas with power and it doesn't work. It doesn't work in Construction Management and it doesn't work in Ministry.

OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 15, 2018 4:51 PM  

@73"FavoUrite"? Clueless Commonwealth MGTOW prog off the larboard bow, Cap'n!

Beyond the projection of your own cluelessness, the eloquence of your comment proves @72's point.

I perceive comments like yours in one of two ways (both of them bad):

1) Nagging. If you are looking to effect change in men, nagging is the least effective way (actually, nagging is very feminine, to be honest).

2) The view that any person less than 'pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps' makes you less than a man.

Jesus did not nag anyone; he told them the blunt truth (with varying degrees of forcefulness dependent on the spiritual stubbornness of the person involved). Jesus (and pretty much the rest of the Bible) also made it very clear how much a person's (physical, psychological, spiritual) dependence relies on God.

The only people that Jesus had a problem with were the self-righteous and those with an unteachable spirit.



OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 15, 2018 4:58 PM  

@40:

Amen.

Blogger SirHamster February 15, 2018 5:44 PM  

vfmshadow0342 wrote:@73"FavoUrite"? Clueless Commonwealth MGTOW prog off the larboard bow, Cap'n!

Beyond the projection of your own cluelessness, the eloquence of your comment proves @72's point.


Who are the abused men that Jesus treated as God's favourite children?

Blogger tublecane February 15, 2018 5:52 PM  

@72-"Gendered?" You have some points, but please don't ever say that.

Blogger Aeoli February 15, 2018 5:54 PM  

Redpill Angel wrote:64 Aeoli said: Yeah, men and women are equal, one race the human race.

Not sure where you got that from my comments, but it wasn't my intention to endorse sexual equality or globalism.


Avalanche's point is that every man represents a potential physical threat to any woman who is near him. You are equivocating men and women to disingenuously undermine this point. So I'm mocking your tactical stupidity for what it is.

Blogger Redpill Angel February 15, 2018 6:36 PM  

83Aeoli said: Avalanche's point is that every man represents a potential threat to any woman who is near him.

I agree with that, but never mind, point taken.

OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 15, 2018 7:51 PM  

SirHamster wrote:vfmshadow0342 wrote:@73"FavoUrite"? Clueless Commonwealth MGTOW prog off the larboard bow, Cap'n!

Beyond the projection of your own cluelessness, the eloquence of your comment proves @72's point.


Who are the abused men that Jesus treated as God's favourite children?


My comment (@79) assumes that 'abused men' is a subset of 'true seekers, truly repentant, and those striving to improve' (based on my reading of @72).

Jesus Christ (as recorded in the Gospels) did not (and does not) turn away, reject, or kick down any of those. And neither should we lump the true seekers in with hardened rebels or ignorant.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 8:17 PM  

@36 "Granted your average man won't feel physically threatened on a common basis in normal circumstances. Social threats tend to make up for that."

!!! You don't see or feel a difference between "this person could seriously damage and perhaps rape you" and "this person could make me lose my job? Or hurt my feelings? Or make people think ill of me?!"

Women are NOT afraid (in the sense of which I was writing) about being insulted or even losing a job. They are AFRAID of grievous bodily injury!

Men, generally are not afraid just walking down a street. Women are - and think they must be -- conscious at all times of who is around and what they might intend. Granted, I have a higher awareness of this because I worked with cops for a few years, and I carry, and I need to recognize both the 'warning signs of possible violence and WHO is more or most likely to offer same.

Have you ever considered your safety before going to your mailbox?

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 8:18 PM  

@38 "Especially given that it would spare them the maleducation and narcissistic illogic that you exhibit."

Well, there is that.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 8:25 PM  

@40 Women are unfit for public life as is, and require a return to patriarchy for their security and sanity.

I actually mostly agree with this. However, it is also the case that, because White men have given up the field to an extent that has done damage TO our safety. (Used to be, blacks (Mexicans/SAmericans, Indians/other Asians) would not offer anywhere NEAR the kinds of violence they do today; because they knew they'd be punished very harshly by White men). There IS more violence today, and more violence against women.


However, I do advocate a return to patriarchy. Women aren't fit for their current place in society, partly because they feel threatened too easily. But also because in other situations they don't feel threatened enough. (Immivasion.)

As, pretty much, do I.

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 8:36 PM  

@54 "Most of them really, really don't act like it in the situations I would consider to be actually most threatening. The feeling that gov-daddy is watching appears to have more effect in their minds in some areas than it ought."

Propaganda and brainwashing will always be more effective in the womenfolks. And they really really don't act like it because they're usually not supposed to BE in such a situation. Women are built to 'fit in' -- and the current pathological "in" they're raised in / stuck in tells them that they are required to assume the best of the child-acting males they see in Calais... it's nearly impossible for them to NOT go along ('fit in.')

Though, I'll admit, I cannot fathom an idiot woman being manhandled or raped and deciding to NOT raise hell so as to protect the 'poor migrant.' All I want to do is scream "Death death death! KILL them!")(The migrants, not so much the women.)(Although, on the other hand...)

I don't know. Is it really NOT possible to bring clear-eyed sanity to women?

Blogger NeoNietzsche: February 15, 2018 8:53 PM  

@83 "Avalanche's point is that every man represents a potential physical threat to any woman who is near him."

Oh, no No NO! I would not EVER suggest that! MOST men (and this is a thing most women rarely understand) MOST men would protect even a woman they did not know! MOST men are protective and will fight the tiger to protect women. (But, the problem always is: how do you tell which male IS the extremely-barely-existent one who might attack? Thus, the fear. And feminism has driven most men's 'outward show' of protection for women underground.) (So, yes, mostly women should be out of the public sphere, albeit the public sphere used to be more safe for them.) (For us.)

I'm suggesting WOMEN have a (not entirely unrealistic) fear of danger, or attack, of who-knows-what... Not a reasoned, considered, planned for what might go wrong fear; a more atavistic, basic, primordial fear. (We'll all primates, after all!)

Infants have a 'built-in' (genetic) immediate fear of snakes (as do the other primates), and 'cliff edges' -- have you never seen the experiments with babies barely crawling yet, who when coaxed to crawl to their moms and coming up to a (glassed over, safe) "drop" from the table height to "the depths below them" -- will stop and refuse to continue. Fear of falling, like fear of snakes, is inbuilt. Little girls have more fears than little boys -- it's not something wrong with them; it's natural.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 15, 2018 9:13 PM  

AVALANCHE

SIMMER DOWN

SIMMAH DAH NAH

Blogger VD February 15, 2018 9:38 PM  

Avalanche, stop using parentheses. It's bad writing. It's also not necessary. And your overuse of them renders your thoughts almost completely incoherent.

Blogger Danby February 15, 2018 9:52 PM  

It's not the parentheses.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother February 15, 2018 10:05 PM  

It's like Lite Beer. Just the less filling part.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) February 15, 2018 10:50 PM  

We get it, you were clearly the smartest woman in your book club. Congrats.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:51 PM  

"You don't see or feel a difference between "this person could seriously damage and perhaps rape you" and "this person could make me lose my job? Or hurt my feelings? Or make people think ill of me?!""

You're trying to say that the thought "this person could seriously damage and perhaps rape you" is much more common to women. I'm just going to say right off the bat, it isn't much more common in psychologically healthy women in a normal environment. If those thoughts are common, either the woman in question is paranoid, or she's commonly in an very lawless/dangerous environment.

Most women don't look at every guy that goes past like that. They just don't, because they're perfectly aware of the social aspect of the situation that usually holds that in check.

Let me put it this way, Avalanche. I've been a submariner. You know what submariners do among themselves? There's a constant psychological battle to see who can be made to crack. They do this intentionally at all levels because they don't want to be stuck depending on someone who's going to crack. Crack under the extraordinary psychological/emotional pressure of being stuck in a tube, hundreds of feet underwater, that is rapidly flooding and sinking, and no one outside the tube knows the precise location of the tube, and the tube won't even be checking in via communications for hours or days.

Constant psychological threat, dominance, and power plays. And if you think submarining is unique in this aspect among male dominated jobs... you really need to think again. Any sort of stressful job, the guys are trying to find the weak link, and break it so they can get rid of it ASAP. If that weak link is a human being, that human being is slime/scum/d***hebag/NonUseful Body/flake/liability. He's going goodbye, one way or another, and his future in a similar profession doesn't exist.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 15, 2018 10:59 PM  

"I don't know. Is it really NOT possible to bring clear-eyed sanity to women?"

In my experience, pretty much all women are subject to bouts of hysteria every now and then.

Even the ones raised and hardened in very rural settings do, they're just better at toning it down generally, and that's acceptable. Problem is it's rare.

"Have you ever considered your safety before going to your mailbox?"

Have you ever considered adjusting your gait, posture, and bearing as you walk down the street in an orderly and lawful area during broad daylight, so that you can't be perceived as a loser/b****?

Blogger VFM #7634 February 15, 2018 11:01 PM  

"And neither should we lump the true seekers in with hardened rebels or ignorant."

vfmshadow, you clearly don't get it. He's wallowing in self-pity like the other MGTOWs that show up here on occasion.

And calling me clueless is very stupid and ignorant. I've been there myself.

So yeah I'm saying he needs to pull himself up by his bootstraps. The "abuse" he gets is because he's doing something wrong and needs to figure out what it is.

Blogger Aeoli February 15, 2018 11:51 PM  

I agree with that, but never mind, point taken.

Please forgive the roughness of my method, it's not my preference.

OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 16, 2018 12:27 AM  

@98:

->vfmshadow, you clearly don't get it....I've been there myself.

For someone who been there, you are lacking in sympathy (and I'm a borderline sociopath who has been there also).

Frankly, it sounds to me that, despite your claim about 'pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps', you are projecting a cover for your own wound that really hasn't healed.

So I stand by my characterization of 'ignorant', and I add 'prideful'.

He's wallowing in self-pity like the other MGTOWs that show up here on occasion.

1) He sounds more like a Dalrockian.
2) He identifies the real problem as opposed to shooting the wounded.

Blogger John rockwell February 16, 2018 2:19 AM  

Hey Vox is there any way we can quarantine Gamma Males away from society like whilst reducing their sex drive through a vegetarian diet like Buddhist Monks? There they can nerd out all they want and maybe even prove useful.

Because for those that refuse to be honest with themselves they prove themselves as danger at worst or a major annoyance at best when interacting with the rest of society.

Blogger John rockwell February 16, 2018 2:21 AM  

Preferably as lone hermits and anchorites rather than a dysfunctional hierarchy.

Blogger SirHamster February 16, 2018 2:30 AM  

vfmshadow0342 wrote:My comment (@79) assumes that 'abused men' is a subset of 'true seekers, truly repentant, and those striving to improve' (based on my reading of @72).

That's reading what you want into the Bible to make yourself feel more special, as opposed to reading what the Bible says.

Abused men are not a subset of "true seekers, truly repentant, striving to improve". There's no correlation there.

Feelings of victimization do not excuse misrepresenting Jesus's ministry and the Gospel.

"treated as God's favorite children" has little relation to Jesus's life on earth, which primarily involved preaching to and being rejected by His own people. Favoritism has nothing to do with it.

OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 16, 2018 11:00 AM  

"That's reading what you want into the Bible to make yourself feel more special, as opposed to reading what the Bible says. Abused men are not a subset of "true seekers, truly repentant, striving to improve". There's no correlation there. "

So you KNOW for a fact that

1) no 'abused men' have existed or existed in the world
2) no 'abused men' that have been or are Christians and seek after Jesus?

How did you come by this knowledge, pray tell?

"Feelings of victimization do not excuse misrepresenting Jesus's ministry and the Gospel.
"Favoritism has nothing to do with it."

All are equal in Christ, true. But as the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1 26-30 (and as a read of the ENTIRE Bible would support):

"...when you were called...not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence...therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”


Blogger Aeoli February 16, 2018 11:21 AM  

vfmshadow0342, you're on to something important but expressing it imprecisely because it's just a feeling. Consider Frodo's pity for Smeagol - was it appropriate, and why?

Blogger VFM #7634 February 16, 2018 11:41 AM  

vfmshadow, just stop trying to psychoanalyze people. You're terrible at it. And clearly you have never argued with MGTOWs before.

OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 16, 2018 2:41 PM  

@104:

"Consider Frodo's pity for Smeagol - was it appropriate, and why?"

Frodo's pity stemmed from his understanding of Smeagol; both were hobbit-folk that knew the burden of an all-corrupting evil (from the Ring and in Frodo's case. Frodo saw something of Smeagol in his own heart...and possibly an alternate history.

By the end of the RotK, Frodo ultimately knows what it is like to be broken by evil...but unlike Smeagol, was redeemed by evil's destruction. However, he lives with physical and psychological scars from his journey ('a knife, a tooth, a sting, and long burden') and only finds rest 'West of the Moon, East of the Sun'.

In the similar sense, I understand something of the gamma / omega mentality:

-I know what it is to be on the 'fringe' growing up.
-I know the hungry, gnawing, empty void within...and resentment of the vapid, happy, chattering of the clueless masses around.
-I know the desire to 'let it burn around me', and wanting a pile of lifeless corpses on one side, and screams of terror on the other.
-I know that, as someone who has been redeemed, the remembrance of last point horrifies me.
-I know that no power of earth could redeem me other than Christ.
-I know that the day of my death is the last day I will have to deal with the horror of what I was, and the last day I have to struggle with the evil that lives in me.
-I know that if not for the grace, I would go the way of Elliot Rogers.

Finally, I know that it is God who empowers / dispowers the human will, and softens / hardens the heart, and all this talk of 'pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps' strikes me as... arrogant, to say the least.



OpenID vfmshadow0342 February 16, 2018 2:43 PM  

@105:

vfmshadow, just stop trying to psychoanalyze people. You're terrible at it. And clearly you have never argued with MGTOWs before.

You're absolutely right; I have no idea what it means to have a conservation with someone who thinks he is right, but is terribly stubborn.

Blogger Aeoli February 16, 2018 3:56 PM  

Finally, I know that it is God who empowers / dispowers the human will, and softens / hardens the heart, and all this talk of 'pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps' strikes me as... arrogant, to say the least.

More to the point, it's Luciferian. But you have to understand it's also the foundational mythos of America, and people don't like it when you attack their country's religion.

Blogger Aeoli February 16, 2018 4:10 PM  

As for the Smeagol explanation, good job. I'd further condense the lesson as follows:

1. Frodo took compassion on Smeagol because he recognized himself in him "there go I but for the grace of God". So in one sense he's striving internally with his own Gollum.

2. By showing a spirit of charity to Smeagol when he didn't deserve it, Frodo typified Christ as expressed in Romans 5:8. This love destroyed Gollum because he was wicked, sentencing him to the fires of Mount Doom, and was Frodo's salvation.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 16, 2018 5:44 PM  

More to the point, it's Luciferian.

That's a good one. Somebody alert every Marine Corps drill sergeant who's ever lived that he's demonic.

Blogger Aeoli February 16, 2018 6:14 PM  

That's a good one. Somebody alert every Marine Corps drill sergeant who's ever lived that he's demonic.

I hope you didn't think very hard to come up with that example.

Blogger Tuatha February 16, 2018 6:21 PM  

In order be a good xtian one must be a gamma male.

Blogger Rory March 11, 2018 7:12 AM  

I'm a subscriber of Harmontown, which is Dan Harmon's podcast, who you might remember was #MeToo'd recently.

tl;dr: (whilst he already had a girlfriend) he got possessive over a female writer on his staff whom he wanted on his staff; everyone noticed how he was behaving and (like Joss) he accused them of not being feminist enough to see how noble and disinterested he was; she rejected his advances and wanted to "be treated and left alone like male writers"... so he treated her like shit.

So, we have that creepy obsession, combined with an "impersonal sexuality" where he can't just leer over his own girlfriend, but has to have the women who work for him too. He has all that stuff described above about being fucked up, combined with that point about achieving success late-in-life.

And, of course, he can be a sanctimonious prick about how most people aren't enlightened and woke like he is, how they're just dumb mouth breathers and he's a secret king (wow, can you believe such a person wrote Rick & Morty?).

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts