It's the one that really showed us all what women's political power was for.
And what is it for?
Well, it's pretty obvious. Why the push to try and get me R16'd?
You think you are still on Reddit. Rather, you're using that as an excuse to not be forthright about odious stuff that you believe.
So to be clear, you think wahmen beat to death anyone who does this? Presumably, no one in the world does this. And if wahmen beat to death anyone who does this, just imagine what they will do to rapists and sexual harassers, things worse by any reckoning. There must be an epidemic of killings by women.
To give them their "right" to harm us if we "mistreat" them.
No, I don't. I was being hyperbolic. But it's interesting that the definition of emotional abuse they use in "coercive control" trials that decide if a murder is a murder or an "innocent victim who couldn't take it anymore" is extremely similar to this advice.
To give them their "right" to harm us if we "mistreat" them.
So you think wahmen have the right to kill us for no reason at all, and that they will not be punished for it. Yet women have far lower rates of murder than men. They'll kill less even though, you claim, they won't be punished for it. They really are our better halves then.
No, I don't. I was being hyperbolic.
Imagine that, you being hyperbolic.
I appreciate the admission you. Usually you'll pretend that you're writing in absolute earnestness.
But it's interesting that the definition of emotional abuse they use in "coercive control" trials that decide if a murder is a murder or an "innocent victim who couldn't take it anymore" is extremely similar to this advice.
Nah, this seems far more analogous to the BS peddled by pick up artists. Although it does seem like fairly good but stale advice.
Women! All two of you who view this site! Don't have a woman explain to you how a man works, no matter how creepy and demented-clown-looking that woman might be (seriously, look at that author photo tiny circle, she looks like Jared Leto's Joker's stunt double). While you may think men are clowns, they LIVE the clown lifestyle, just looking like one doesn't help.
Here's how to get a man's attention: "Speaking seriously right now, I'm in a real rut. I have a list of concerns and my current thoughts on their outcomes in my current day-to-day life, as well as how to avoid the outcomes if negative, but I worry about lack of outside perspective that might see some obvious flaws. Some intermediate-difficulty stuff that's taking a lot of thought-power. Could you help me with it when you have some free time next?"
You had their curiosity, NOW you have their attention. Most men, even the soyest of soyboys, want to fix womens' problems. It is built into the DNA of men to want to do that, it is how our society evolved and kept more or less stable. Women are the founding stone of male progress, interest, power, and growth. We want to say we're more than our DNA, that we can rise above petty base impulses, but that little quirk will still be there, and if the man has ANY interest in you as a woman, that line will make him give you his full and undivided attention the first time you use it, and if you ACTUALLY have a proper list and actually seek advice on it and follow said advice if it makes sense, you will have his attention the next time too.
If you want to START a relationship, you can even use that advice going to a male friend you know is available, and list "getting a boyfriend" on your list of troubles, and as a possible solution, "ask him to look over this list and see if he takes the hint", if you want to be cutesy about it, or just straight up ask him. Men LIKE clear, unambiguous, forward women. That Ursula octopus-witch-woman in The Little Mermaid lies, she is a villain, a completely silent wallflower will NOT get the guy, that's the whole point of the movie! Ursula steals his attention with her "talking" and "doing things", and the only way she wins is by stopping being a passive doormat.
For fun, let's summary THEIR strategy to get men, by contrast:
Ignore his texts, flirt with other men (ideally while doing overnight outings without him there, use photos or rumors to get the info to him), randomly ask him for help with things but then ghost him right after, and above all else, make sure you're clearly more concerned about self-profit and self-growth than the health and growth of the relationship. Oh yeah, and don't be honest. Seriously, that's listed as number one on their list, exact words, "Too much honesty will simply make him run as fast as he can."
Most men, even the soyest of soyboys, want to fix womens' problems.
Disagree, most soyboys I've met are generally much more selfish/mercenary than that. They would only help if it could be made into a performative display recorded for public viewing, and they would never hitch themselves to someone even less capable than them unless it appeared personally profitable for them. So leading with a problem or needing support would be a negative for them, they're only after a sugar momma to sponge off or, failing that, someone to take advantage of.
Do as you say. Go to same single man that I got on with for help problem solving like once a week or so. After about two months of doing this I tell him I always go to him cause I'm interested in him.
He calls me desperate lol I ask for feedback and apparently asking for advice for DIY or tech shit means I'm clingy and/or dumb.
There is no 'one way' to do things because different people respond to different shit. Some men respond to the woman's strat of messing with his emotions, it works and I've seen it in action. It's pathetic but it's effective if you're looking for a soyboy.
A lot of men don't like 'clear unambiguous forward' women because it makes them come across as desperate, clingy, slutty, or otherwise untrustworthy. Outside my own experience, I've seen that being the case with other women. Just asking a guy out can be taken as a slutty gesture (how many other men has she asked if she's this forward?).
You're either going to meet someone who likes that type of person or one who doesn't. "Too much honesty" means telling him that you're dating with marriage in mind and that you eventually want a family. Men will run for the hills and never look back.
telling him that you're dating with marriage in mind and that you eventually want a family. Men will run for the hills and never look back.
That's a good thing though. Why would you want to waste someone's time if they're not dating for marriage? Are you trying to manipulate someone who isn't looking for marriage into marrying you?
The exact same thing can just as easily be said about women. If they aren't interested in marriage and you bring it up, that'll be the end of the relationship. But if both parties are being honest, then that's exactly what both of them should want.
Emotional abuse DOES work short-term, even on what are otherwise reasonable people, Pick-Up Artists do suggest using "negging", after all, and they get strong returns on their efforts. I won't argue it. But that lack of honesty is not good at the personal OR societal level, and will not net you a long-term partner in any healthy way. Perhaps he was following the advice of this columnist and calling you clingy and dumb because that is what this woman thinks women want and he's following the guidebook? Or perhaps he was an asshole? A world of possibilities.
I think given your statements, you're working the wrong target market. There's a VERY large demographic of men who date with marriage, with long-term partnerships, in mind. But they're not going to be the hotshot 10/10 men who can "play the field",why would they? Asking for commitment from someone who can get better, it could happen, sure, as you said, different people are different, but it's about generalities. And it isn't going to be the fresh college students at a liberal arts college. But a religious school? A church?
You had an honest conversation, and you got an honest response. Or, at least, I assume it was an honest response and not following some asinine Cosmo-magazine guide. That's the problem with honesty: Sometimes it isn't what you want to hear. The average man needs to approach approximately 40 women before one will reciprocate at even a basic level, if going semi-random (thanks OKCupid contact stats!). You approached ONE, good job, 39 to go. And it hurts just as much as you did, for every single one of them.
There is a difference between "clear and unambiguous", and "untrustworthy". Men ride that difference every single day, some more successfully than others. There's tons of "creepy" guys who are entirely harmless, and "potential mate" guys who should be very untrustworthy. It's a matter of practice. If you act like the Watamote girl, yeah, that's creepy. If you're batting way out of your strike range (be it either direction, too hot for someone, or too ugly for them), it's untrustworthy because the reason you're there isn't obvious. Still comes down to honesty: They honestly can't understand why you're there, and you have a very small window to explain it to their satisfaction.
And if you're Christmas Cake, that... sucks. ("No good after the 25th"). Because you then have another layer of honesty to explain: Why are you unpaired? What severe flaw has stopped you from securing a mate at the height of your sexual value? Like it or not, MOST men will like a woman being frank and honest with them. Liking it doesn't mean they'll like you.
If you're in an area without mask laws, where you can actually engage in mating rituals, put on your battle uniform, and go to a bar. Go to every single man in that bar. And say "I'm doing a survey to prove a guy wrong on the internet that thinks he knows more about men than I do, mind answering a few quick questions? Would you like it if a girl you thought was attractive came up to you and casually said she thought you were attractive in some way and asked you on a date to test the waters? Would you accept the offer if you were available to? Would you ghost her if she said she was hoping for a longer-term relationship than a one-night stand after that date if it went well?"
See your results. The chance exists that, in your society, emotive norms are incredibly different than mine, perhaps you'll get a large pile of "no, no, yes" answers. It's possible. But I doubt it. And that would be in a bar, the land of one-night-stands, not a church or community event or hobby-focused location of obvious immediate shared interests.
Pick-Up Artists do suggest using "negging", after all, and they get strong returns on their efforts.
The returns being the money that the sad sacks of crap who are their followers shovel into their pockets. Like with the rest of the self-help lot, what what folks apparently don't understand that, skills in general cannot necessarily be taught. That is assuming that they have skills to begin with. In my view, successful self-help propagators mostly have the skill of self-enrichment. Learn that from them instead, though not by manipulating a sucker out of his money.
The average man needs to approach approximately 40 women before one will reciprocate at even a basic level, if going semi-random (thanks OKCupid contact stats!). You approached ONE, good job, 39 to go. And it hurts just as much as you did, for every single one of them.
It only 'hurts' because those men assume that men and women are the same. They're not. A basic understanding of biology would solve a lot of problems for both sexes.
My longstanding theory is that these magazine s purposely give women bad dating advise, so they will remain single and continue to buy dating magazines.
Fatlogic reddit featured plenty of fitness magazines advice and articles that are pseudoscientific feel-good bullshit setting the reader for failure ( the point is to mock the fatlogic ).
Crash diets to lose X pounds ( of mostly glycogen and water weight in a ridiculous timeframe ) before "eating normal again" ( if your "eating normal" made you fat, you'll get fat again after the crash diet. And buy another fitness magazine. )
"Slow metabolism / metabolic damage" pseudoscience laced with misrepresentations of the trivial difference so the reader externalizes responsability and seeks "tricks and hacks" and magic cures the magazine proposes.
"Can't lose weight? You're actually not eating enough!" (How stupid can people be?)
Claims that CICO dosen't work and instead you need their guidance, because people don't need their magazine if they figure a food scale and the Cals/100g written at the back of everything is all you need to manage your weight.
Magic foods and rituals that will totally break the laws of thermodynamics in either direction, you NEED to know their secret otherwise you'll accidentally eat a cashew past 3PM, break your metabolism and gain 5 pounds.
Don't look at the back of the package of the food you eat or search-engine the nutritional info of what you eat, buy their magazine!
Nutritionists/Dietitians do too. You should have seen the flyers my father got after his taxpayers funded meetings with one to learn to manage his T2 diabetes.
It's like they tried to make it as obscure, complex and innefective as possible. A points and trade system that only vaguely adressed portion sizes in no meaningful way. Told to eat stuff he hates instead of educating him on how to mesure and limit what he does want to eat.
It failed, of course. ( Though you can't help someone who has no intention to change. )
Ignore the need to have exaggerated emotional displays.
Ignore the need to overreact.
I dunno, maybe she's a secret red-piller in disguise? (She calls them "needs," really?)
The rest of the advice is reads to me like, "don't cling. You can both keep your own friends." I would say, she only missed one thing: "Don't expect him to talk to you as if he was a girl."
Instead I'll leave you with a different comment from ShitPoliticsSays:
Ah yes. The "femoids".
Surely this will cause white women to increase the low birthrate. I can see it now:
"Excuse me, but as a well read disciple of Jared Taylor, George Lincoln Rockwell, and Charles Coughlin, you need to stay in the kitchen and accept my seamen into your womanly dirt, such that we may grow a proper white family with my stellar genetics. I'll have you know that I've achieved perfect enlightenment and self-discipline by not masturbating or looking at porn for the past 10 years."
The fact that the irony never crosses your mind never gets amusing.
"Well, he's clearly outspoken, denies that he's a jew, and is confrontational. It's as if the flair is satirical... but no, he's just trying to hypnotize me with his secret yamaka!"
Too much honesty will simply make him run as fast as he can.
Oops, you were too honest again lady. Now we know you're just an awful person if showing your true personality sends everyone running for the hills. (If writing a psychotic article like this wasn't evidence enough)
That's someone who rightfully stay partnerless or only be with a fellow psychopath.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking...I can think of 1 or 2 women who need to avoid being honest...they're just bad people...when anyone gets to know them they go running when they realize what they got themselves into.
If you did this to them, they'd call it emotional abuse and beat you to death with a hammer in your sleep.
Shades of the 'pick-up artist' fad of the 00's. Tear down their ego, have them seek validation from you.
I didn't see it at the time, but the real reason that produced such an apoplectic reaction is it's a reversal of the classic woman's playbook.
Thing is, I think it actually works better for men interested in women than the other way round.
Exactly why people aped out over it. Effectively reversing the balance of power always causes upheaval.
Who is 'they'?
I'm referencing a specific case if you're curious.
I'm sure that happened somewhere.
What I want to know is what group is going to beat me to death with a hammer if I use these techniques on it.
It's a very famous case. It's the one that really showed us all what women's political power was for.
Well, it's pretty obvious. Why the push to try and get me R16'd?
And what is it for?
You think you are still on Reddit. Rather, you're using that as an excuse to not be forthright about odious stuff that you believe.
So to be clear, you think wahmen beat to death anyone who does this? Presumably, no one in the world does this. And if wahmen beat to death anyone who does this, just imagine what they will do to rapists and sexual harassers, things worse by any reckoning. There must be an epidemic of killings by women.
To give them their "right" to harm us if we "mistreat" them.
No, I don't. I was being hyperbolic. But it's interesting that the definition of emotional abuse they use in "coercive control" trials that decide if a murder is a murder or an "innocent victim who couldn't take it anymore" is extremely similar to this advice.
So you think wahmen have the right to kill us for no reason at all, and that they will not be punished for it. Yet women have far lower rates of murder than men. They'll kill less even though, you claim, they won't be punished for it. They really are our better halves then.
Imagine that, you being hyperbolic.
I appreciate the admission you. Usually you'll pretend that you're writing in absolute earnestness.
Nah, this seems far more analogous to the BS peddled by pick up artists. Although it does seem like fairly good but stale advice.
How idiotic.
Women! All two of you who view this site! Don't have a woman explain to you how a man works, no matter how creepy and demented-clown-looking that woman might be (seriously, look at that author photo tiny circle, she looks like Jared Leto's Joker's stunt double). While you may think men are clowns, they LIVE the clown lifestyle, just looking like one doesn't help.
Here's how to get a man's attention: "Speaking seriously right now, I'm in a real rut. I have a list of concerns and my current thoughts on their outcomes in my current day-to-day life, as well as how to avoid the outcomes if negative, but I worry about lack of outside perspective that might see some obvious flaws. Some intermediate-difficulty stuff that's taking a lot of thought-power. Could you help me with it when you have some free time next?"
You had their curiosity, NOW you have their attention. Most men, even the soyest of soyboys, want to fix womens' problems. It is built into the DNA of men to want to do that, it is how our society evolved and kept more or less stable. Women are the founding stone of male progress, interest, power, and growth. We want to say we're more than our DNA, that we can rise above petty base impulses, but that little quirk will still be there, and if the man has ANY interest in you as a woman, that line will make him give you his full and undivided attention the first time you use it, and if you ACTUALLY have a proper list and actually seek advice on it and follow said advice if it makes sense, you will have his attention the next time too.
If you want to START a relationship, you can even use that advice going to a male friend you know is available, and list "getting a boyfriend" on your list of troubles, and as a possible solution, "ask him to look over this list and see if he takes the hint", if you want to be cutesy about it, or just straight up ask him. Men LIKE clear, unambiguous, forward women. That Ursula octopus-witch-woman in The Little Mermaid lies, she is a villain, a completely silent wallflower will NOT get the guy, that's the whole point of the movie! Ursula steals his attention with her "talking" and "doing things", and the only way she wins is by stopping being a passive doormat.
For fun, let's summary THEIR strategy to get men, by contrast:
Ignore his texts, flirt with other men (ideally while doing overnight outings without him there, use photos or rumors to get the info to him), randomly ask him for help with things but then ghost him right after, and above all else, make sure you're clearly more concerned about self-profit and self-growth than the health and growth of the relationship. Oh yeah, and don't be honest. Seriously, that's listed as number one on their list, exact words, "Too much honesty will simply make him run as fast as he can."
https://herway.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/61214988_1310667325756729_8182028723126534144_n.jpg
It looks better zoomed out. That is not a friendly cropping/resize.
Disagree, most soyboys I've met are generally much more selfish/mercenary than that. They would only help if it could be made into a performative display recorded for public viewing, and they would never hitch themselves to someone even less capable than them unless it appeared personally profitable for them. So leading with a problem or needing support would be a negative for them, they're only after a sugar momma to sponge off or, failing that, someone to take advantage of.
Do as you say. Go to same single man that I got on with for help problem solving like once a week or so. After about two months of doing this I tell him I always go to him cause I'm interested in him. He calls me desperate lol I ask for feedback and apparently asking for advice for DIY or tech shit means I'm clingy and/or dumb.
There is no 'one way' to do things because different people respond to different shit. Some men respond to the woman's strat of messing with his emotions, it works and I've seen it in action. It's pathetic but it's effective if you're looking for a soyboy.
A lot of men don't like 'clear unambiguous forward' women because it makes them come across as desperate, clingy, slutty, or otherwise untrustworthy. Outside my own experience, I've seen that being the case with other women. Just asking a guy out can be taken as a slutty gesture (how many other men has she asked if she's this forward?).
You're either going to meet someone who likes that type of person or one who doesn't. "Too much honesty" means telling him that you're dating with marriage in mind and that you eventually want a family. Men will run for the hills and never look back.
That's a good thing though. Why would you want to waste someone's time if they're not dating for marriage? Are you trying to manipulate someone who isn't looking for marriage into marrying you?
The exact same thing can just as easily be said about women. If they aren't interested in marriage and you bring it up, that'll be the end of the relationship. But if both parties are being honest, then that's exactly what both of them should want.
It's of course that both parties are deceiving the other.
Well, should have told your sisters to leave a little bit of fairness in marriage law.
Emotional abuse DOES work short-term, even on what are otherwise reasonable people, Pick-Up Artists do suggest using "negging", after all, and they get strong returns on their efforts. I won't argue it. But that lack of honesty is not good at the personal OR societal level, and will not net you a long-term partner in any healthy way. Perhaps he was following the advice of this columnist and calling you clingy and dumb because that is what this woman thinks women want and he's following the guidebook? Or perhaps he was an asshole? A world of possibilities.
I think given your statements, you're working the wrong target market. There's a VERY large demographic of men who date with marriage, with long-term partnerships, in mind. But they're not going to be the hotshot 10/10 men who can "play the field",why would they? Asking for commitment from someone who can get better, it could happen, sure, as you said, different people are different, but it's about generalities. And it isn't going to be the fresh college students at a liberal arts college. But a religious school? A church?
You had an honest conversation, and you got an honest response. Or, at least, I assume it was an honest response and not following some asinine Cosmo-magazine guide. That's the problem with honesty: Sometimes it isn't what you want to hear. The average man needs to approach approximately 40 women before one will reciprocate at even a basic level, if going semi-random (thanks OKCupid contact stats!). You approached ONE, good job, 39 to go. And it hurts just as much as you did, for every single one of them.
There is a difference between "clear and unambiguous", and "untrustworthy". Men ride that difference every single day, some more successfully than others. There's tons of "creepy" guys who are entirely harmless, and "potential mate" guys who should be very untrustworthy. It's a matter of practice. If you act like the Watamote girl, yeah, that's creepy. If you're batting way out of your strike range (be it either direction, too hot for someone, or too ugly for them), it's untrustworthy because the reason you're there isn't obvious. Still comes down to honesty: They honestly can't understand why you're there, and you have a very small window to explain it to their satisfaction.
And if you're Christmas Cake, that... sucks. ("No good after the 25th"). Because you then have another layer of honesty to explain: Why are you unpaired? What severe flaw has stopped you from securing a mate at the height of your sexual value? Like it or not, MOST men will like a woman being frank and honest with them. Liking it doesn't mean they'll like you.
If you're in an area without mask laws, where you can actually engage in mating rituals, put on your battle uniform, and go to a bar. Go to every single man in that bar. And say "I'm doing a survey to prove a guy wrong on the internet that thinks he knows more about men than I do, mind answering a few quick questions? Would you like it if a girl you thought was attractive came up to you and casually said she thought you were attractive in some way and asked you on a date to test the waters? Would you accept the offer if you were available to? Would you ghost her if she said she was hoping for a longer-term relationship than a one-night stand after that date if it went well?"
See your results. The chance exists that, in your society, emotive norms are incredibly different than mine, perhaps you'll get a large pile of "no, no, yes" answers. It's possible. But I doubt it. And that would be in a bar, the land of one-night-stands, not a church or community event or hobby-focused location of obvious immediate shared interests.
The returns being the money that the sad sacks of crap who are their followers shovel into their pockets. Like with the rest of the self-help lot, what what folks apparently don't understand that, skills in general cannot necessarily be taught. That is assuming that they have skills to begin with. In my view, successful self-help propagators mostly have the skill of self-enrichment. Learn that from them instead, though not by manipulating a sucker out of his money.
It only 'hurts' because those men assume that men and women are the same. They're not. A basic understanding of biology would solve a lot of problems for both sexes.
My longstanding theory is that these magazine s purposely give women bad dating advise, so they will remain single and continue to buy dating magazines.
Create the problem, sell the cure.
Well, close enough for the grift to keep working anyway.
Do fitness magazines do the same then?
Wouldn't surprise me. I can't say that I'm familiar enough with them to say, but I do know Cosmo's memetically bad sex and relationship advice.
Yes.
Fatlogic reddit featured plenty of fitness magazines advice and articles that are pseudoscientific feel-good bullshit setting the reader for failure ( the point is to mock the fatlogic ).
Crash diets to lose X pounds ( of mostly glycogen and water weight in a ridiculous timeframe ) before "eating normal again" ( if your "eating normal" made you fat, you'll get fat again after the crash diet. And buy another fitness magazine. )
"Slow metabolism / metabolic damage" pseudoscience laced with misrepresentations of the trivial difference so the reader externalizes responsability and seeks "tricks and hacks" and magic cures the magazine proposes.
"Can't lose weight? You're actually not eating enough!" (How stupid can people be?)
Claims that CICO dosen't work and instead you need their guidance, because people don't need their magazine if they figure a food scale and the Cals/100g written at the back of everything is all you need to manage your weight.
Magic foods and rituals that will totally break the laws of thermodynamics in either direction, you NEED to know their secret otherwise you'll accidentally eat a cashew past 3PM, break your metabolism and gain 5 pounds.
Don't look at the back of the package of the food you eat or search-engine the nutritional info of what you eat, buy their magazine!
Nutritionists/Dietitians do too. You should have seen the flyers my father got after his taxpayers funded meetings with one to learn to manage his T2 diabetes.
It's like they tried to make it as obscure, complex and innefective as possible. A points and trade system that only vaguely adressed portion sizes in no meaningful way. Told to eat stuff he hates instead of educating him on how to mesure and limit what he does want to eat.
It failed, of course. ( Though you can't help someone who has no intention to change. )
/me reads article, esp. first two points:
I dunno, maybe she's a secret red-piller in disguise? (She calls them "needs," really?)
The rest of the advice is reads to me like, "don't cling. You can both keep your own friends." I would say, she only missed one thing: "Don't expect him to talk to you as if he was a girl."
That is the worst.
Just stop reading supermarket tabloids, which is all this is. The Cluster Bs can't pull off steps 1 and 2 anyway.
u/Gizortnik, someone needs that essay you wrote about how men and women think
Pretty sure OP is an ethno-nat.
Let nature take it's course.
Instead I'll leave you with a different comment from ShitPoliticsSays:
Ah yes. The "femoids".
Surely this will cause white women to increase the low birthrate. I can see it now:
ok "secret jewish subverter" as you call yourself that on reddit
The fact that the irony never crosses your mind never gets amusing.
"Well, he's clearly outspoken, denies that he's a jew, and is confrontational. It's as if the flair is satirical... but no, he's just trying to hypnotize me with his secret yamaka!"
How tradcucks think the world will work if they get rid of those pesky redpillers.
Oops, you were too honest again lady. Now we know you're just an awful person if showing your true personality sends everyone running for the hills. (If writing a psychotic article like this wasn't evidence enough)
That's someone who rightfully stay partnerless or only be with a fellow psychopath.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking...I can think of 1 or 2 women who need to avoid being honest...they're just bad people...when anyone gets to know them they go running when they realize what they got themselves into.