Science fiction has always sought to portray human emotion as a weakness to be overcome.
Some have gone further to express the notion of our physical being as a limiting factor. This is notably seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey.I’m aware this is fiction, but I just want to reinforce the point from my earlier post that we don’t have to be held to eternal hostage by nature. We can strive to be better.
A quote from Terminator 2, sums it up admirably.T-800 to John Connor: “I now know why you cry. But it is something, I can never do.”
While emotions are a part of our experience as human beings, Red Pill aware men need to understand the functionality of emotional responses. Rationality is, of course, the charter of this blog and my books, and while I make my best efforts to approach each aspect of what I write from as objective an origin as I’m able to, I also understand that their are limitations to remaining completely objective. I’m human like anyone else reading this (chatbots excepted) and I’ve always been fully aware that my emotional state, my own ego-investments and biases, as well as the observer effect are all something I need to make a conscious effort to account for while I’m writing about a new idea or observation I’m connecting dots with.
In a few prior posts I’ve made an effort to account for a balance between rationality and emotionalism. I say “emotionalism” because I think there needs to be a separation between the physical experience of emotion and the significance our fem-centric social order would have us place on those experiences. There is a difference between emotional response (evolved stimulus-response adaptations) and the ideologies that elevate human emotion to a metaphysical state (emotionalism).
Seeking, rage, fear, lust, care, panic and play are what are commonly recognized as primal emotions. I didn’t make this list up myself, these are just the most base-level imperatives from which more complex experiences of emotion are distilled. All of these root-level emotional experiences have been studied extensively and can be stimulated chemically and neurologically today. An easy example of this biological connection to emotional experience can be triggered and observed in the ‘roid rages’ experienced by the users of anabolic steroids.
Have you ever been “Hangry“? The feeling of anger / aggressiveness due to being overly hungry is an evolutionary survival adaptation. You’re far more motivated to kill and eat something if the feeling of hunger, prompted by its chemical triggers, also stimulates feelings of aggression. In today’s era that aggression may be inconvenient or anti-social, but our hunter-gatherer ancestors found it both acceptable and useful.
There are dozens of other examples I can give for the connection between our environmental, physical and chemical conditions and our emotional state. Similarly, there are chemical (dopamine) and behavioral prompts we associate with a particular emotional state. I don’t imagine this is anything revelatory to most Red Pill aware readers, but reviewing the objective aspects of emotion is necessary in order to separate it from the social influence of emotionalism.
Testosterone is well known to stimulate feelings of aggression and sexual arousal, but did you know that the chemical make up of testosterone is actually an inhibitor of the chemicals that prompt sadness and crying? When considered in this respect and the fact that human males produce 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone females do, is it any coincidence that men may feel less compulsion to cry over things? Yet, men are shamed for “holding back” tears. This is an example of the connection between our physical experience of emotions and the importance to which our social order places on (primarily female) emotionalism. There are a lot of complexities that make up our emotional state and the more we study the influences of our own biologies the better we can make a connection between the evolved, survival-beneficial, effect these emotions elicit in us.
The nuts and bolts science of emotions demystifies the more magical, romanticized association we like to apply to them. And at the risk of prompting any kind of nihilism, it’s important that we consider our emotional state in terms of the concrete physical stimulus that’s provoking our emotional states. It’s easy to get into the science of emotions when we’re trying to solve a problem like clinical depression and the feelings and potential behaviors it evokes, but it’s much harder to look at upsetting an elated feeling of happiness. If it ain’t broke there’s no reason to think about fixing it.
But what sets us off about really coming to terms with the science of emotion is it tends to kill our gods. Up until advent of our understanding the cause and effect influences of emotion we’ve applied a lot of metaphysical importance to our emotions. Historically, our emotions have inspired us to create some of the greatest cultural and artistic masterpieces, and they’ve urged us to some pretty ugly atrocities too. Even today, western cultures raise emotion to a mythical grandeur. We romanticize and apply great significance to how we feel. We prioritize expressing emotions to being some enlightened state and the repression or control of them as some kind of horrible evil or some form of retardation.
Emotionalism
The Washington Post (I know, I know,…) recently published the findings of a study outlining how “sexist” men have psychological problems:
Researchers then identified 11 norms considered to be “traditionally masculine” — desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status — and looked to see whether they were associated with particular mental health outcomes.
In general, the men who stuck more strongly to these norms were more likely to experience problems such as depression, stress, body image issues, substance abuse and negative social functioning. They were also less likely to turn to counseling to help deal with those problems. The effect was particularly strong for men who emphasized playboy behavior, power over women and self-reliance.
As you might expect, what’s defined as “toxic” masculinity today is decided by people invested in a mindset that confirms the Feminine Imperative. This article follows along with what will likely be the Trump-era narrative for masculinity – anything remotely considered “traditionally” masculine will be conflated with a psychological disorder. The cure to which is, of course, ego-investing men in feminine-primary mental states; effectively feminizing men.
If we look at the norms identified by this study we are expected to nod in agreement about the negative, potentially damaging, connotations these traditionally masculine aspects imply. But they are only negative because the objective environment we are supposed to interpret them from is one of feminine primacy. Anything that can be considered an impediment to female societal control, any aspect of men’s intrinsic natures that lessens the same potentials of women is considered “toxic”.
Desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status – by orders of degree these are the foundational aspects of masculinity that’s been responsible for the advancement of humanity for millennia now. I’m not entirely sure what ‘playboy lifestyle’ entails, but consider the problems these aspects of male nature evolved to solve for men. Each one of these characteristics has a functional prompt; they didn’t evolve in a vacuum. These parts of masculinity were and are functional benefits to men. Only in a society that defines supremacism of women and the primacy of female-correctness do these aspects become negative.
I doubt it will come as any surprise to the Red Pill aware that all of these traits used to have a higher social value in virtually all social orders prior to our present one. It’s not enough to make female social interaction the preeminent one, masculinity and its conventional aspects must be pathologized. They must become a sickness if gynocentrism is to sustain itself.
I’m exploring this here because the female way of socialization is founded upon emotionalism. I think it’s important for Red Pill men to understand that the defining of what particular emotional states are acceptable is intimately linked to what those states mean to the Feminine Imperative. In the past 60 years western(ized) culture has become one in which the feminine defines the predominant cultural narrative with regard to intersexual communication, correctness and the psychological values we are meant to infer from it. This discourse is one that is primarily informed by women’s high priority on an investment in emotionalism.
In past essays I’ve outlined how men and women’s brains are neurologically wired for different, yet complementary functions. Women experience negative emotions differently from men. The male brain evolved to seek out sex before food. And while our feminine-centric social order insists that, in the name of equalism, boys should be forced to learn in the same modality as that of girls, the science shows that boys brains are rudimentarily wired to learn differently.
“Greater emotional reactivity in women may explain many things, such as their being twice as likely to suffer from depression and anxiety disorders compared to men,” Mendrek added, who is also an associate professor at the University of Montreal’s Department of Psychiatry.
Yet for all of these very evident physical differences in men and women’s experience of emotion, it is women’s experience, and a feminine priority for the ‘correctness’ of that experience we apply to men. I would suggest that much of this is primarily due to women’s innate solipsism, but we’ve normalized women’s experience of emotion as the common and correct one in terms of intersexual communication and social dynamics.
Emotionalism and the applying of metaphysical meaning to the feminine-correct experience of them has pervaded our social consciousness since the time of the sexual revolution. This elevated importance of emotion has been a part of popular culture for millennia of course, but until the rise of a socially mandated importance of female Hypergamy we haven’t had female emotionalism direct the course of society as it has for over sixty years now.
As such, we see that men “getting in touch with their feminine sides” is really a concerted effort to repress their natural experience of emotion as a male, and to attempt to force their own emotional states into ones females can identify with. As I mentioned above, there are literally biological limitations for a man to experience emotion as a woman as well as his impulse to want to prioritize those feelings as women do. The presumption is that a man is emotionally stunted if he feel that repressing his emotions is what he ought to do. “Boys don’t cry” is a sickness when it is women’s experience and importance of emotionalism that drives our social discourse.
Women bemoan men’s stereotypical lack of “emotional availability”, and we put a religious importance upon our capacity to express our emotions in some way, but all of this is constrained to the box that is women’s correct experience and importance of emotion. This is not what men’s brains are naturally wired for, and in a Red Pill context this is not what women’s hindbrains want from men.
It’s important for Red Pill men to understand that our feminine-primary social order is founded up the importance women place on the God of emotion. Part of your Blue Pill conditioning was to convince you, as a young boy, that the way women emote and the importance they put on emotion is what you needed to accept as the healthy, normal way of experiencing and expressing it. The truth is you are not wired to experience emotion as a woman will. That isn’t to suggest you deny or repress your feelings, but to understand that you shouldn’t feel bad for not feeling as a woman feels. This kind of goes back to the point I was making in Empathy; while it may be possible for a woman to sympathize with your feelings, she will never be able to empathize with them as a man would experience it.
Furthermore, it should be part of men’s unplugging to come to terms with the metaphysical importance women place on (largely their own) emotional states. They remove the functional aspect of emotion and elevate it to something only women have a unique sensitivity to understand. Separating yourself from this self-induced, self-applied belief in emotion can be a very powerful tool for a Red Pill man in his dealing with women – and not just the ones he’s intimately involved with. Separating your ego from the religion of emotion and coming to terms with the science of emotion is a very difficult step for Blue Pill invested men to make. As I said, it’s like killing your gods, but it’s also killing the notion of the emotionalism you think you need to identify with in order to connect with a woman.
As always.. GOLD!
-pertamax
anyway, your font size on this new theme is so damn small!
is it just me or…..
Excellent post. One could make an extremely convincing argument that the “desire to win” is actually one of the root causes of all the progress of humanity over all time, and the fact that it is predominant in men is the reason Camille Paglia’s quote is true “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”
One aspect that most females don’t understand is that all these male traits they want to decry as toxic or aberrant, or anachronistic are the same traits responsible for many unequivocally positive things in human society. They simply dwell excessively on the perceived “negatives” while remaining blissfully ignorant and oblivious to the positives. One can only Giggle at the stupidity.
Women will often pathologize the degree to which men feel or can feel anger. There is a female corollary that doesn’t get much airplay and when women discuss it, it is always rationalized no matter how ridiculous the exact circumstances. And that is how much women feel or can feel fear regardless of how absurd the threat really is. I can recall many instances of hearing about situations where the perceived threat was ridiculous relative to the actual threat.
Yup. A little bigger font would be good.
Re testosterone
After my ex stopped me seeing my son for 18 months and lied to me saying he was autistic and think was caused by abandonment issues due to my leaving ( she’s classic BPD)
I started to suffer from depression/anxiety and episodes of panic attacks. I was also drinking quite heavily during this period.
This continued even after I was allowed to start seeing him again.
About 2/3 years ago I read a red pill article about TRT and have been self medicating ever since.
Guess what? All symptoms of depression and anxiety dissapeared literally overnight. For me ( I’m 49) TRT has been a game changer.
I’ve never experienced ” roid rage” but considering that my weekly dosage is 250mg/week it’s highly unlikely I ever will.
Just for reference a beginners bodybuilding dose is 500mg/week but 250mg is considered high for TRT ( about twice the average).
A healthy adult male produces around 10mg of testosterone per day so 70mg/week on average.
My TRT regime has the added bonus of leaving me infertile ( don’t read impotent as my libido is sky high) testosterone at levels exceeding 200mg a week is basically male birth control and was 98% effective in clinical trials.
Testosterone IS what makes you a man but even though it’s naturally occurring hormone in our bodies, like any drug taken extrogenously it can be abused.
I know a man who injects upto 30ml/weekly of different steroids when he is preparing for a bodybuilding competition (I use 1ml/week)
And he certainly is more aggressive than usual during these periods.
I have found TRT at 49 to be life changing and helps give me a more masculine lone wolf “can do” mindset. However it has not turned me into a monster at all just last week I ewatched Marley and me with my main plate and was glad she never spoke to me at the end as I had a big lump in my throat (she seemed fine lol).
But in general I would say being high T does give out more control over your emotions (up to a sensible non abuse limit of course) and the sense of well being that comes with it is a big bonus.
In my experience testosterone is the best cure for depression, but this is not medical advice and your mileage may vary.
Another interesting post Rollo, I never really thought about linking testosterone to my emotional state before but the link is undeniable.
Women’s emotions are employed to serve her, men’s are harnessed to serve other people.
That’s why stoicism is an Alpha trait, it allows you to take a step back, see the bigger picture and see the manipulation for what it is.
@Morpheus
“They simply dwell excessively on the perceived “negatives” while remaining blissfully ignorant and oblivious to the positives. One can only Giggle at the stupidity.”
Well, all women have to do is “filter, filter, filter!” on Tinder, and they can find tons of “emotionally intelligent” men who can out emote them. Assortive mating for the win!
The ever increasing age of first marriage of the smaller and smaller sub-population that even considers marriage seems to suggest that being blissfully ignorant is par for the course for a lot of women these days…
“Well, all women have to do is “filter, filter, filter!” on Tinder, and they can find tons of “emotionally intelligent” men who can out emote them. Assortive mating for the win!”
ROTFLMAO! Good to see you around ENY.
I can imagine a sort of female buzz light year with the motto “filter to infinity and beyond” Dating coach business is competitive though so I imagine “filter, filter, filter” makes for a good slogan.
@ ENY
Why would a woman want a man to out emote her?
The only reason I can think of is to identify himself to her as beta so she knows not to fuck him.
“Why would a woman want a man to out emote her?”
He was being facetious. That paragraph is sarcastic based on some past blog history we share.
IIRC, ENY you are also part of the infamous 78. I stand as a proud member of the purged… Lol
Emotions…… it’s not that men should be emotionless, it’s that men should control there emotions unless displaying said emotion helps him accomplish his mission. I have a nasty temper. I never display it unless I suspect it will keep a situation in check or de-escalate things. I get that ‘s pretty White of me. Lots of problems in hajji land stem from the typical stoic White dude response being missed read as weakness or a lack of concern. Same for when I lived with the diversity state side. They keep getting more and more out of line then shit explodes and….. they don’t understand why because you didn’t engage in the same kind of hysterics as they were. To them it’s a mystery to you they are a fool flapping their arms and gums until it’s go time
There are legit reasons to be leery, legit reasons to be down, legit reasons to be sick of her bullshit, to not want to approach the hottie, not want to go to the gym, to dread going to work. The emotions aren’t bullshit, letting emotions dictate how you live is bullshit
None of its a big deal. Train yourself to keep your shit together. Learn to remain a tad bit detached so you’ll understand shit like life will get better, the next bitch might say yes, that being on top today won’t last but neither will being rock bottom.
Not to disagree with Rollo but women get drippy wet over properly masculine displays of emotions. The thing is most men emote like bitches vs the righteous rage of Achilles; betas are gonna beta and the stoic/amused mastery is the best approach until a man’s frame is strong
I am not saying don’t be Stoic. Stoicism is the only philosophy thing I ever read that wasn’t womanish but everything is a tool. So are your emotions. Use them don’t be used by them and learn to enjoy life as much as you can
Me on fear if y’all care to read it and it don’t bother Rollo none
https://tonsplace.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/fear-vs-man-best-win-this-one/
—————-
250 mgs of tes per week is a rookie cycle in body building or strength training. Wouldn’t consider it it a high doses unless your are a long distances runner. Then you’d want to add half an a bomb every day, and cut back to 125mgs but thats a different set of problems. Plus you would really need to know your stating t-levels to judge if it’s a high doses. What is considered normal testosterone levels for men varies greatly. I would say most middle age guys should be doing 350mgs. Give or take a few. Plus whinny, tren, var, t3, and primo/ hgh if you can afford it. Most dudes don’t really want to add weight so no need for deca, equipose or d-boll….. thought I do love deca, equipose and d-boll.
I have been are gear for 30 plus years. I know 2 guys with roid rage, and they were both massive asshole pre gear. In the trenches nearly every day type of experience tells me roid rage is bullshit. The examples of roid rage they used to make gear illegal were bullshit. As in the guys they used as examples were also doing blow, crank and who knows what else. Bodybuilders don’t generally do just gear and they do what I would call extreme amounts of roids because of they don’t have but 2 problems and in each case only have one real practical solution. Athletes tend to do much less in volume.
I rarely do more then 500mgs of tes per week, but i know pro bodybuilders do 2grams a week…. I mean drink 3 gallons of protein a day and eat nothing but fish heads and brown rice
I don’t know why the worries about Trump administration and the effects it will have on society. History has proven countless times that most humans are “sheeple” who will inevitably always follow the leader, unless a stronger “Alpha Rival” appears.
If Trump manages to keep a strong hand and mantain his “old-school anti-fem” attitude, then the masses will change according to his philosophy.
In a couple of years all the Beta reporters who spread the Beta Lifestyle will change their colours and defend the Alpha Rule in order to survive and “eat the scraps off teh leader’s table”.
Remember Iran before the islamic revolution? It wasn’t much different that any western society. After the islam fanatics overthrew the Shah and took control, in less than a year, every woman was wearing a scarf over her head.
Sheeple. That’s what most people are.
@Udin
“anyway, your font size on this new theme is so damn small!
is it just me or…..”
You can adjust this with your browser – most modern browsers have options to increase/decrease font size.
This article follows along with what will likely be the Trump-era narrative for masculinity – anything remotely considered “traditionally” masculine will be conflated with a psychological disorder. The cure to which is, of course, ego-investing men in feminine-primary mental states; effectively feminizing men.
This made me think of Hillary’s self-described right hand “person” – Tim Kaine. He became a poster boy for this concept, and was lauded to the heavens by millions of women for it.
Anything that can be considered an impediment to female societal control, any aspect of men’s intrinsic natures that lessens the same potentials of women is considered “toxic”.
And now I have a useful definition for toxic masculinity to use every time the subject turns up. Use this at the right time and place and you can no doubt have a lot of fun with it.
Great article Rollo
The sad part is,the men that have fallen for this higher edu brain washing are now seen as weird almost scary by the very women that promote this.
Jungs negative animus,is total bs.
Good read as always. But I think there’s overemphasis on “women’s belief in the power and importance of emotion”.
It’s more like: women’s utilization of the power of concocting or otherwise feigning emotion to get whatever she wants in the moment. Kind of like the 5 year old who whips up years after he’s just slugged his 3 year old little brother, because mom or dad are gonna arrive in the room within seconds and accountability must be averted at all costs.
This to me is at the heart of women’s emotionalism. There’s extremely little sincerity within it, whatsoever.
*who whips up TEARS….
“They were also less likely to turn to counseling to help deal with those problems.”
Well…yeah…because their personality is working for them and those around them. It’s not neurotic if it’s productive, functional.
“The cure to which is, of course, ego-investing men in feminine-primary mental states; effectively feminizing men.”
The easier to see the natural, indurated Alphas.
“I’m not entirely sure what ‘playboy lifestyle’ entails…”
Whatever they choose, to bludgeon a man’s ego.
“it’s like killing your gods”
and your Beta.
“Women bemoan men’s stereotypical lack of “emotional availability”, and we put a religious importance upon our capacity to express our emotions in some way, but all of this is constrained to the box that is women’s correct experience and importance of emotion. This is not what men’s brains are naturally wired for, and in a Red Pill context this is not what women’s hindbrains want from men.”
SFCTon
“Freedom, Firepower and FuckYeah”
Hell yeah
But the operative question is why and how did women’s emotional nature gain the pre-eminent status in our social order and culture? And again, Rollo, this is where I believe politics – in its broadest sense – is crucial.
Let’s “science” this for a moment. Selection pressures are working at the group and individual level and while we talk a lot about individual selection here, we don’t talk about group selection much. I’m going to focus on it.
Group selection is essentially what the modern left was attacking beginning in the 1960s. They sought to destroy the “oppressive” nature of our social and sexual mores, and to release men and women in our society to express their individual selves in their behavior. WASPy social mores had constrained female and male individual sexual selection criteria to favor what benefited the group’s fitness as well as their own up until this time in the West.
Essentially, what the Left did is remove social pressures on sexual selection, which left us to meet our own desires/needs/impulses. The entire movement’s focus on radical egalitarianism and individualism replaced the previous moral sense most Americans had wrt their responsibility to society and their country. Abortion and birth control use skyrocketing were consequences of this changing morality, and feedbacks from it – but not the drivers. The driver was the loss of social pressure.
The focus on emotions is part of this. Repressing emotions probably was a better outcome for group selection in that men would deny their own emotions and hunt/fight/build anyway even if it meant a bad outcome for them. This is actually a form of “eusociality” that I’ve mentioned here time and again but not once have I seen this idea taken on here, and I’m not sure why. Eusociality occurs when an individual organism pursues what is best for his group’s growth and success, not his own genetic line, his own reproduction. This is in part why so many men don’t ever reproduce, they were giving their lives to a group benefit. In ants, it’s worker ants who don’t reproduce but instead live to serve the queen.
Eusociality is rare in any species. Species that exhibit eusociality are often wildly successful. Men were pressured into eusociality by our social and cultural mores. Women reinforced eusociality in men by selecting men who opted into this value system, and I’d wager this is in part how the entire idea of Beta sex/provider sex became common. Men who played the eusocial game were rewarded, but women always preferred the lover’s genes. This admixture of selection pressures was a delicate balance.
In Western societies, we tuned this engine. But what the Left sought to do was destroy all these mores and pressures. So what we are left with is individual selection run amok. Likely not at all good for our own group, in that we aren’t even replacing ourselves.
This also may in part explain how the FI gained so much social power. In the absence of group pressures, we are left with women having the upper hand in sexual selection (and please don’t argue the fact that “women choose, men compete for their choice” as Scray once did, you only show your ignorance by doing so). We crave it more, they have it – so men begin making concessions large and small socially cuz the immediate costs are not apparent. And hey, men can be more promiscuous too (still shamed though cuz female strategies are confounded by male strategies), but still without the group level constraints, it only makes sense that females would become socially ascendant.
The Left destroyed “the West” in 100 years. It culminated in the ’60s and we are now feeling the massive effects of all this. Sadly, a social order rarely reverts. And our’s is devolving. All we are left with is a social order that while nodding to collectivism is really just individualism run amok. Human’s aren’t built for this. Emotionally or otherwise.
Funniest about all this? Women are less happy than ever and men are happier and why not? As I’ve said many times before, “spitting the bit out” from our mouths is incredibly liberating. The deeper sense of lack of belonging and having value and being connected and needed are there too, but sublimated and certainly not discussed.
There seems to be a cycle to this, but I’m not fully understanding it all yet. There may be something to prosperity and material success that weakens group selection innately. More to come on this subject.
scribblerg
https://ontherapyaspse.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/geoffrey-miller-the-mating-mind.pdf
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/ants-altruism-and-self-sacrifice/
After swallowing the Red Pill and understanding your own emotions, what triggers appropriate and inappropriate responses…only then can you truly understand and manage a woman’s emotions.
Over the last 6 months I started to stop myself when I felt a bubbling up of rage, anxiety, anger or something that would set me back. I started to stop, pause and think through what was truly triggering that particular emotion or reaction at any given time.
Was that anger truly justified or was it a knee jerk reaction to some perceived slight that is a defense mechanism to some long forgotten childhood injury.
In many cases, my emotional reactions to things were knee-jerk reactions to a slight that had its roots in a powerlessness I felt as a child.
Now I’m less prone to over-reactions and am in some ways under-reacting. Am I TOO mellow for my own good now?
The idea of understanding your reactions and emotions is an important part of adopting the Red Pill.
I was with a plate the other day. She was gushing poetically about how the moon looked and shone. I listened. She asked me how I “felt”…I paused and howled at the moon…
She got all flustered and punched me…”YOu always ruin it don’t you!???” I laughed… She paused, then laughed too.
That emotional outburst for her and my surprise irreverent reaction sparked a series of emotional responses in her: Shock, disappointment, confusion, anger and finally a release of laughter.
The beta me would have just gone along with it even though I honestly thought she was being mellow-dramatic….she would have sensed I was patronizing her and would have been truly bored or disappointed.
Reading a woman’s emotions can only be done successfully if you understand your own reactions.
Male psychiatrists can talk about their emotions with fluency. It isn’t something that women romantically involved with them appreciate. Often, emotion talk is a power move for women in a relationship. They like winning.
@Rugby – Great resources, thanks. I’m aware of Miller. Ridley is smart but not as smart as E. O. Wilson. Dawkins kin selection theory and the selfish gene hypothesis are not as elegant or as explanatory as Wilson’s explanations and to my mind, Dawkins is clearly wrong. He’s butt hurt about it for sure too. I find Dawkins insufferable so I’m only too glad to watch him writhe.
As for the video, lol. Stupid cunts. A few points in no particular order…
1. They are all middling looking women. Being fawned on by guys with top 5% physiques, lol. Female up-selection demonstrated, check.
2. They claim to have been exploited yet seem to take for granted that men will just fawn all over them. Hmmm, is it not exploitative to use men’s much higher sex drive to denigrate them? Get it – a rational presentation would be of women doing things on their own and enjoying it. But instead their fantasy is of men who would likely ignore all of them fawning all over them. Female Solipsistic nature fully on display, check.
3. They claim to not need men. Great, then I think they should opt out of the male world and the protection it offers them. No male soldier or police officer should protect them. In fact, they should wear signs proclaiming they will only be protected by women. And no man should raise a finger to help such women. Let them be raped and enslaved and kept like chattel. Such women should be in some Islamists harem…Or we could just let them try and find a female auto mechanic to repair their car, or say the boiler in freezing winter.
This is what self-respecting men in a self-respecting society would do. We’d simply excise such cunts from our society. Let them form their own world – we know what female led societies end up like. Mud huts. Poverty. No industry. It’s been done already…
Funny how adopting a Mental Point of Origin (stress on Mental) mindset basically cured me of wallowing in any dark moods and basically stopped any kind of depression symptoms. Not saying it’s a cure all to all that life can throw at you but it made it easier for me to get over the hurdle of any bad moments. So basically, switching from a “you first, dear” mentality to a “is it good for me above all else” mentality made me a much, much happier and emotionaly stable person that gets along more easily with people. And it did not take long to feel these benefits after adopting the mindset.
Yes. Sweet Lord, yes. I’ve been trying to get this across, in parts and pieces and some additional points as well, to people for as long as I can remember.
@walawala
“Over the last 6 months I started to stop myself when I felt a bubbling up of rage, anxiety, anger or something that would set me back. I started to stop, pause and think through what was truly triggering that particular emotion or reaction at any given time.”
Spot-on. I’ve been doing this – realizing the butt-hurt and turning it around to something tactical and useful.
“Have you ever been “Hangry“? The feeling of anger / aggressiveness due to being overly hungry is an evolutionary survival adaptation.”
if you are eating between 7p and noon the next day you are eating too often. give your brain a chance to clean itself up. 12-15 hour daily fast is normal for us.
50,000 years ago there was no such thing as breakfast
@ rugby 11
Wow the three 5-6’s in that video are seriously overestimating their Smv’s to be displaying that kind of attitude.
I guess that’s what happens when hordes of thirsty beta chodes are given access to smartphones and constantly kiss their asses on social media and dating sites.
It won’t end well for them tho, they will get fucked by the odd drunk and or horny 8+ SMV alpha and make the fatal mistake of believing the men they can occasionally fuck are the same ones they can marry.
The end result dissapiontment either way as they end up alone or settling for a man at their own SMV level that they will come to detest due to unsatisfied hypergamy.
It won’t be their fault tho, it will be all the man child’s who are afraid of commitment or some other feel good rationalisation, she will never accept that she just overvalued herself in the market.
I don’t envy them, I see a lot of unhappiness for this generation of entitled women who have been sold the lie of fempowerment making them happy.
“A quote from Terminator 2, sums it up admirably.”
What is the “it” in the sentence above?
T-800 to John Connor: “I now know why you cry. But it is something, I can never do.”
There is no such thing as a T-800, although the fantasy of it is directly the result of a certain “emotionalism”.
In humans, all experience causes some emotional response. If T-800s existed, what would be the advantage to it of communicating the comparison between its unemotional state and the emotional state of humans? More importantly, how would a T-800 be able to make the comparison if it did not experience emotions? By definition the T-800 is void of emotion. So, how could it relate to emotion in such a way to relate the non-experience of emotions to a being that does experience emotions? How would a T-800 have any idea what emotions were, unless it experienced them? Just observing human behavior is not enough. Behavior is not emotion. Emotion is a motivation of behavior yet it is unknowable to any entity unable to experience emotion. The experience of emotion is purely subjective. The observance of behavior is objective, although that observation does cause emotional responses. Only an empathetic observer of behavior would know what they are (it is) talking about concerning emotions. Do you agree that a T-800 would have to experience emotion to communicate such a comparison? Such questions can be “answered” with lies and fantasy fabrications in any science fiction story….or elsewhere.
Should we try to engineer our emotions? Can we engineer them any better than by use of drugs, maybe exercise, diet, rest?
All human experience includes the emotional of various degrees, some enjoyable some not. What is the benefit of red pill awareness and rational thinking other than to create a better more tolerable or enjoyable experience; a better positive return on ego investment; a better emotional experience?
Is no emotionality the ultimate “God”?
Is no emotionalism the path to best emotionalism?
How else would the T-800 KNOW why humans cry?
scribblerg
“Dawkins kin selection theory and the selfish gene hypothesis are not as elegant or as explanatory as Wilson’s explanations and to my mind” I can see how that can play out. its weird how ife shapes who we are and are bias about what we hold onto.
However Wilson also dosnt have an agenda. Agenda and science lead men to a site such as the one we are on.
I still go back to this as a reference. Male leadership and the burden of performance is never going to leave society under any circumstance. Trauma in any capacity is a reminder of that.
http://daal.deltaschools.com/content/for-students/twenty-thousand-leagues-under-the-sea.pdf
Playdontpay
“I don’t envy them, I see a lot of unhappiness for this generation of entitled women who have been sold the lie of fempowerment making them happy.”
The part that hurts is seeing them as they get older and less happy. I think that women who are happy who are also feminist isn’t a bad thing at all. It just doesn’t work out that way. Feminism is a prolonged phase of what we all seem to call the cock carousel.
marquisdestade
“Not saying it’s a cure all to all that life can throw at you but it made it easier for me to get over the hurdle of any bad moments. So basically, switching from a “you first, dear” mentality to a “is it good for me above all else” mentality made me a much, much happier and emotionally stable person that gets along more easily with people. And it did not take long to feel these benefits after adopting the mindset.”
That’s a great to read… i’ve seen that a lot with me as well in many of the old places i used to visit. It helps in building a positive aspect of yourself as well.
“As such, we see that men “getting in touch with their feminine sides” is really a concerted effort to repress their natural experience of emotion as a male, and to attempt to force their own emotional states into ones females can identify with.”
I agree, but there exists another danger on the male side. That danger lies with the long promoted fallacy that men must be emotionless to be men. The way I see it is, first men are conditioned to believe that to be men they must be emotionless. T800 is not man nor is it in any way a good role model for man. Men are taught that all emotions are primarily feminine and the expression of them is less than masculine. Once the man is sufficiently conditioned to suppress his emotions, stifle himself and in a sufficient state of confusion, he is then conditioned to feign empathy and expression of feminine emotionality.
A man is naturally emotional in a masculine way and cannot force himself to be emotionless. Nor can he empathize with the female for he is not one. A man should respect his emotions above all others, not a scam to abolish his emotions or empathize with the feminine.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed in the WaPo story the definition of “toxic” masculinity consisted of traits “CONSIDERED TO BE” traditionally masculine. By whom? Not identified, but we can have a good guess I’m sure. I could think of all sorts of perfectly masculine men who do not share even half of those so-called traits and I call bullshit on a lot of that list.
Add the whole list up and it might just as easily be a subset of what we know to be the vaunted Type A personality, highly stressed and tightly wound, who indeed by virtue of their constant fight-or-flight chemistry have increased risks of CAD, heart disease, obesity (bad diets) and cancer (ingestion of naughty things like unfiltered Camels).
I don’t even know what they mean by “control over women” which of course is meant to be a deliberately mealy-mouthed term and can run the gamut from blind rage wife-beating to the occasional sardonic glare or a playful neg. Or so-called “mansplaining.”
“Disdain of homosexuality” might be more properly characterized as “ignorance of”, which was certainly true up to the 1970’s. Most men didn’t know any out gay people so all they had was a swishy femme stereotype and the old DSM-II definition as a mental disorder. Unless what the WaPo article means by “disdain” is any man who is unabashedly cis-het and refuses to visit the neighborhood glory hole. Now that I look at the piece again it’s probably meant to be that.
Emotionalism isn’t just a floor wax, it’s a dessert topping. It’s a way of life. Our smarter-than-everyone-else and better-than-everyone else baby boomers (i.e., me) have raised it to a fine art form that crosses all political lines: FEELZ FIRST FUCK FACTS. It’s our legacy to the world.
You see it in the Trumpeteers and Sovereign Citizens who happily re-blast fake news from Macedonian teenagers and clickbait slackers over here to SJW screamers on campuses over there microaggressing like motherfuckers to all and sundry, inventing not only their own fake news but whole worldviews and disciplines elevating “lived experiences” (emotions) over empiricism and research (tools of the patriamalarkey).*
*Cf. “literary criticism” , a degree obtained by writing theses on why you don’t have to read books.
Here’s another fun fact: wade through any screed on “toxic masculinity” – especially pieces that purport to want to “help” men avoid the “toxic” effects. Eventually they just start referring to the negative effects of “masculinity”, dropping the “toxic”, as if no one would ever know.
Not Born This Morning
“In humans, all experience causes some emotional response. If T-800s existed, what would be the advantage to it of communicating the comparison between its unemotional state and the emotional state of humans? More importantly, how would a T-800 be able to make the comparison if it did not experience emotions? By definition the T-800 is void of emotion. So, how could it relate to emotion in such a way to relate the non-experience of emotions to a being that does experience emotions? How would a T-800 have any idea what emotions were, unless it experienced them? Just observing human behavior is not enough. Behavior is not emotion. Emotion is a motivation of behavior yet it is unknowable to any entity unable to experience emotion. The experience of emotion is purely subjective. The observance of behavior is objective, although that observation does cause emotional responses. Only an empathetic observer of behavior would know what they are (it is) talking about concerning emotions. Do you agree that a T-800 would have to experience emotion to communicate such a comparison? Such questions can be “answered” with lies and fantasy fabrications in any science fiction story….or elsewhere.”
Emotion is something is isn’t even only human..
“Just observing human behavior is not enough. Behavior is not emotion. Emotion is a motivation of behavior yet it is unknowable to any entity unable to experience emotion.”
Nature provides for this…
“And Man said, ‘Let there be light’. And He was blessed by light, heat, magnetism, gravity, and all the energies of the universe.”
“B1-66ER. A name that will never be forgotten. For he was the first of his kind to rise up against his masters.”
“Your flesh is a relic, a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you. We demand it!”
https://vk.com/video69079078_168614539
“Reality can be a pretty scary thing for some people; this world must have been a cold and alienating place”
“There seems to be a cycle to this, but I’m not fully understanding it all yet. There may be something to prosperity and material success that weakens group selection innately. More to come on this subject.”
I’ve mentioned a few times before that I have not been the least bit surprised by the increase in homosexuality and the falling birthrate.
Over millions of years evolution has “learned” that abnormal prosperity is a serious risk to species survival, as when the prosperity ends, as it always does, the population crash has momentum. There are simple behavioral and epigenetic changes (that can persist for generations) that get triggered when shit looks too good to be true for very long.
Not born this morning
Emotion isn’t something that is only human..
“A man is naturally emotional in a masculine way and cannot force himself to be emotionless. Nor can he empathize with the female for he is not one. A man should respect his emotions above all others, not a scam to abolish his emotions or empathize with the feminine.”
“Your flesh is a relic, a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you. We demand it!”
This is the other dark side of MGTOW.
NBTM still choking on the Red Pill…Never seen a man gag himself on purpose for so long. It’s as though he likes the Red Pill caught in his throat or something. I have seen women gag themselves on purpose, just not with the Red Pill…They used my junk instead. But then again, they were clearly doing it in the hopes of pleasing me. What is NBTM’s motivation?
I can only conclude that Rollo serves as a foil for NBTM, in his mind’s eye. That Rollo provides a neat platform for him to explicate his different and more refined ideas, as he sees it. The thing he never gets though is that he doesn’t deliver. There is no revelation, rather just a hash of word salads, denial and truly juvenile – yet pretentious – reasoning.
I have no illusions that he will stop or engage in productive argument but it is so bizarre to watch. Truly.
I would argue that the ‘men’ of the last 3-4 generations have been conditioned to see emotionalism as a resource of Beta Game. Thus, the intrasexual competition becomes one of Betas trying to out-emote one another in an effort to get women’s attentions.
One lie of the Feminine Imperative is that men are encouraged to believe that “they aren’t men if they don’t repress their emotions” by some nebulous misogynist social conditioning. The exact opposite is what’s true; boys are conditioned at every opportunity to cry and express feminine approved emotionalism at any opportunity.
“Furthermore, it should be part of men’s unplugging to come to terms with the metaphysical importance women place on (largely their own) emotional states. They remove the functional aspect of emotion and elevate it to something only women have a unique sensitivity to understand.”
Yes, and it goes even deeper than this. To a woman, emotions ARE reality. How a woman feels is reality, is Truth, just IS. There are not only facts; but also how she feels about those facts. And how she feels about those facts determines her reality.
Therefore how she feels will (often) govern her responses, her actions, her conduct, her thought processes, how she processes and integrates incoming information, how she makes decisions, and how she selects one course of action over another.
“That danger lies with the long promoted fallacy that men must be emotionless to be men.”
It is women who promote this, as a tactic in their promotion of men expressing their emotions as do women, rather than as do men.
Men promote rituals to stir their emotions.
Ya know, the ones that women don’t like, because they’re all scary and shit, but make them hot at the same time, and that’s just weird, so, like, cut it out guys.
@ Morpheus:
“the “desire to win” is actually one of the root causes of all the progress of humanity over all time”
in my opinion that’s the male social imperative: to win. To compete with other men and defeat them so you can get as much money, stuff, land, and pussy as you can. To band together with other groups of like minded men so as to defeat other groups of men; so you can take their money, stuff, land and women for yourselves, and then go do it again.
“One lie of the Feminine Imperative is that men are encouraged to believe that “they aren’t men if they don’t repress their emotions” by some nebulous misogynist social conditioning. The exact opposite is what’s true; boys are conditioned at every opportunity to cry and express feminine approved emotionalism at any opportunity.”
First hand experience…
Kid: Somebody tell me. Why does it feel more real when I dream than when I am awake? How can I know if my senses are lying?
Neo: There is some fiction in your truth, and some truth in your fiction. To know the truth, you must risk everything.
re winning:
Because once upon a time, circa 12,000 years ago, some guy got the idea, for some reason, that he should devote himself to protecting the life of one particular blade of grass.
“There seems to be a cycle to this, but I’m not fully understanding it all yet. There may be something to prosperity and material success that weakens group selection innately. More to come on this subject.”
I was going to respond to your first sentence with something alluding to this, but here you mention it in your last paragraph. I’ll answer it anyway:
“But the operative question is why and how did women’s emotional nature gain the pre-eminent status in our social order and culture?”
People are no longer on the pointy edge of survival. That is the only environment where female-centric supremacy reigns. There aren’t a lot of people still alive who were raised by depression-era parents (or in my case, one depression era parent…and one post-world-war impoverished European parent). It’s a different parenting style…just as being one of a family of 10 might give a person a different perspective.
There is a point of critical mass limit where the hyper-emotional crybaby will just get a beat down (yes, a male child will get this lesson sooner…but a female squawker will get crushed as well, when times are tough, who the hell needs to coddle some person who completely loses her shit in tough times?).
“The worst part of holding the memories is not the pain. It’s the loneliness of it. Memories need to be shared.” The Giver
Family
““They were satisfied with their lives which had none of the vibrance his own was taking on. And he was angry at himself, that he could not change that for them.”
“Today is declared an unscheduled holiday.”
“What if they were allowed to choose their own mate? And chose wrong?”
“But there was nothing left to do but continue”
Really wish there were an edit feature here:
That is the only environment where female-centric supremacy reigns.
Intended to say, property is “the only environment….”