Boys Don't Cry. Girls Do.

[RendHeaven]

12 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Women need to feel a container of ownership to feel truly loved.

Oh yeah? Tell us about your loving slave-wife. I'm very open to real stories by real people.

[Twentyfirst]

9 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Oh yeah? Tell us about your loving slave-wife. I'm very open to real stories by real people.

If you have never seen a woman brimming with joy because you made her obedient to you then nothing I say will convince you 

Slave wives are always happier than free liberated woman. Check statistics. And you’ll realize who is truly a slave and who is truly liberated

Life is paradoxical. Also I didn’t make the rules. I actually like the sound of your words versus mine the only problem is they don’t actually work 

Edited Sunday at 09:41 AM by Twentyfirst

[Twentyfirst]

Here’s another question for all of you. This Andrew Tate fool that your society debates about…some worship him and some hate him. Other societies would never even be at the level to pay attention to him. He is American and British right? So where do you think he got all his ideas? Do you think he thought of them himself? Do you think he got it from the British or from the Americans?

Or did he steal it from other cultures and rebrand it as his own…while also bastardizing it and being a terrible ambassador by muddying the values with his own egoic bullshit and to make a quick billion off of propagandized suckers 

Edited Sunday at 10:01 AM by Twentyfirst

[Twentyfirst]

 

Edited Sunday at 09:56 AM by Twentyfirst

[TheAlchemist]

2 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

If you have never seen a woman brimming with joy because you made her obedient to you then nothing I say will convince you 

Slave wives are always happier than free liberated woman. Check statistics. And you’ll realize who is truly a slave and who is truly liberated

Life is paradoxical. Also I didn’t make the rules. I actually like the sound of your words versus mine the only problem is they don’t actually work 

You sound quite submissive to these "rules". Men belong here, women belong there. As if there is some higher natural order that we must submit to in exchange for lasting fulfillment.

I think that's an illusion and a coping mechanism to stay feeling safe at the expense of others. We can engage with the world with our rational and emotional capacities, then we have some hope of actually moving somewhere instead of remaining stuck in some fantasy of the "good old days". It might be painful and it won't always leave us feeling happy but the alternative is much worse.

Oppression, force and control are what are needed for the system you suggest. Because not everyone will ever agree to those rules and roles that you seem to think are somehow divinely assigned. The human striving for individuality and freedom from any definitions, roles or rules are also a productive part of the engine of history. 

Edited Sunday at 11:58 AM by TheAlchemist

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@Twentyfirst There is some truth to what you're saying but what you don't realize is that your ideas are just another side of the same gynocentric coin. It seems like you are in a conflicts with the feminists but actually you both have something in common - you want a system that benefits women at the expense of men. That's why I did not respond to your original response of you harshly criticizing men for crying, because you are just hopesly lost. LOL notice both you and feminists bash men

[TheAlchemist]

Someone like Andrew Tate psychologically lives in the role of a submissive housewife in relation to their favorite paternal superego figure.

Think about it, the internalized paternal figure (God, parent, ideological structure) who is always watching and judging them, ready to punish and hurt them lives inside their mind in every moment. So to compensate for the sense of guilt they get from enjoying their slavery to the superego (the enjoyment in itself a kind of coping mechanism), these "alpha males" develop an enjoyment out of the domination and suppression of others. In a male-dominated culture, many women also can get enjoyment out of submitting, but there is an accepted social role for that for women so not as much guilt and much less compensatory behavior is expressed. But fundamentally it's a result of the internalized oppressive superego figure, which is perpetuated by these dynamics. 

So really, these self-annointed "alpha males" need someone who submits to them to feel like they aren't total worthless pieces of trash. Uncovering this dynamic and reflecting upon it honestly would be so painful that the path of oppressing others is chosen. Once I saw this dynamic I couldn't unsee it. I look at Andrew Tate and I see a sad little boy who is a slave to their superego.

So there is and isn't something natural about these dynamics. They are natural in the sense that we all grow into them to some extent without a choice , but not natural in the sense that they aren't somehow inescapable or hard-coded into being human. 

 

 

So about men crying:

Crying is just a natural expression of emotion for humans. The gender categories are what cause these interesting situations where crying is allowed for some and not for others. The social identity of being "man" is really just "not-woman". So there are certain qualities and behaviors that have cultural attachment to a certain genders. And of course identity is a source of stability and safety against death. 

 

So when a man cries and the culture tells him "men don't cry", he is confronted with a short moment of identity crisis, which is also a moment of confrontation with insecurity and lack. It can feel like a threat to the identity, which then has to be protected against by suppressing that behavior in the future, and telling others who share the same identity to also avoid that behavior. 

 

A man telling other men to not cry in public is often coming out of care and love, because one might intuitively know that it might not be received well by the social reality. And even many women might actually be repulsed by a man crying, because ultimately that identity also requires this distinction of being not-man. But still, the systemic and socially negotiated nature of the situation is not brought to light and the same dynamic continues.

Edited Sunday at 11:57 AM by TheAlchemist

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, TheAlchemist said:

You sound quite submissive to these "rules". Men belong here, women belong there. As if there is some higher natural order that we must submit to in exchange for lasting fulfillment.

Yes I am. Because everyone has to play their part and role in the universe. Which will indeed bring about the highest fulfillment. Kings and queens still exist believe it or not. I’m not arrogant to think I can abandon my role and still be successful 

1 hour ago, TheAlchemist said:

I think that's an illusion and a coping mechanism to stay feeling safe at the expense of others. We can engage with the world with our rational and emotional capacities, then we have some hope of actually moving somewhere instead of remaining stuck in some fantasy of the "good old days". It might be painful and it won't always leave us feeling happy but the alternative is much worse.

There is no expense of others.
 

Everyone gets equally fair treatment according to their role and everyone gets equal control placed on them according to their role 

 

1 hour ago, TheAlchemist said:

Oppression, force and control are what are needed for the system you suggest. Because not everyone will ever agree to those rules and roles that you seem to think are somehow divinely assigned. The human striving for individuality and freedom from any definitions, roles or rules are also a productive part of the engine of history. 

I wouldn’t say oppression is the same as force and control. Humans without a doubt need to be controlled or all hell will break loose. The need to be raised a certain specific way 

In the system you suggest not everyone agrees with it and you have to control the naysayers like me. There will always be men like me that you can’t breed the DNA out of 

Humans strive for freedom but also strive for connection with each other which requires a certain level of slavery. Too much of either is gonna result in problems  

 

 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@Twentyfirst There is some truth to what you're saying but what you don't realize is that your ideas are just another side of the same gynocentric coin. It seems like you are in a conflicts with the feminists but actually you both have something in common - you want a system that benefits women at the expense of men. That's why I did not respond to your original response of you harshly criticizing men for crying, because you are just hopesly lost. LOL notice both you and feminists bash men

What I want is a system that isn’t a random experimental guinea pig trial and something that has tested the length of time. If this new system is so great why are so many people so damn miserable 

I don’t bash men. I bash the new weak crying male. And one day when he wakes up he will thank me as a fellow brother in arms for it 

I agree with feminists on some things. It’s their way of trying to solve it that is completely ignoring basic human biology and function. I never met a happy feminist and try to stay far away when I detect a slight hint of it. I know the future of feminism at least in its current form 

 

[Twentyfirst]

28 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Someone like Andrew Tate psychologically lives in the role of a submissive housewife in relation to their favorite paternal superego figure.

Think about it, the internalized paternal figure (God, parent, ideological structure) who is always watching and judging them, ready to punish and hurt them lives inside their mind in every moment. So to compensate for the sense of guilt they get from enjoying their slavery to the superego (the enjoyment in itself a kind of coping mechanism), these "alpha males" develop an enjoyment out of the domination and suppression of others. In a male-dominated culture, many women also can get enjoyment out of submitting, but there is an accepted social role for that for women so not as much guilt and much less compensatory behavior is expressed. But fundamentally it's a result of the internalized oppressive superego figure, which is perpetuated by these dynamics. 

So really, these self-annointed "alpha males" need someone who submits to them to feel like they aren't total worthless pieces of trash. Uncovering this dynamic and reflecting upon it honestly would be so painful that the path of oppressing others is chosen. Once I saw this dynamic I couldn't unsee it. I look at Andrew Tate and I see a sad little boy who is a slave to their superego.

So there is and isn't something natural about these dynamics. They are natural in the sense that we all grow into them to some extent without a choice , but not natural in the sense that they aren't somehow inescapable or hard-coded into being human. 

 

 

So about men crying:

Crying is just a natural expression of emotion for humans. The gender categories are what cause these interesting situations where crying is allowed for some and not for others. The social identity of being "man" is really just "not-woman". So there are certain qualities and behaviors that have cultural attachment to a certain genders. And of course identity is a source of stability and safety against death. 

 

So when a man cries and the culture tells him "men don't cry", he is confronted with a short moment of identity crisis, which is also a moment of confrontation with insecurity and lack. It can feel like a threat to the identity, which then has to be protected against by suppressing that behavior in the future, and telling others who share the same identity to also avoid that behavior. 

 

A man telling other men to not cry in public is often coming out of care and love, because one might intuitively know that it might not be received well by the social reality. And even many women might actually be repulsed by a man crying, because ultimately that identity also requires this distinction of being not-man. But still, the systemic and socially negotiated nature of the situation is not brought to light and the same dynamic continues.

I think you are going to deep into the psychology of all this and missing out on the practicality. Men want a submissive woman because men are supposed to protect them. How can I protect you if you don’t listen to me. I don’t even want a submissive woman personally because the thought of it is weird but it wouldn’t work any other way. It’s just how things are 

I don’t think Leo wants to be the boss and act like it but he knows how leadership works and that it’s actually better for all of us. I’m sure he just wants to chill out and lay back 

Medicine doesn’t taste good. But you’ll be glad you took it 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:18 PM by Twentyfirst

[Schizophonia]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

- Mike Israetel while on 25x times the normal amount of testosterone.

It's funny because before he disappeared i pushed another French guy to create an account here who on another forum had a pp of Mike.

He was playing with testosterone cream and posting blood tests where he had more than 5000ng/dl or about 10 times higher than the average rate in men.

He had a vibe that was both very dry and direct, and at the same time trollish, almost sociopathic with the tendency to put winking smileys everywhere.
I myself like the winking smiley, it's like a common denominator for men rich in testosterone lol, but he's on another level.

 

😉😉

[Schizophonia]

@RendHeaven

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

If you have never seen a woman brimming with joy because you made her obedient to you then nothing I say will convince you 

Bro, I just said I'm open-minded.

Now tell me about yours. In detail. No vague hypotheticals.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

but gets quite challenging when responding to dust

 

5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I've come a long way and have trained myself to still respond to dust intelligently and with grace

Ooooh, so you are one of those, huh?

[Monomachus]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You go too old school you will turn into a plantation owner.

Haha, nice.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

What I want is a system that isn’t a random experimental guinea pig trial and something that has tested the length of time. If this new system is so great why are so many people so damn miserable 

So what if it stood the test of time? Why should I give a shit about a society continuing in any form of a gynocentric system, be it traditionalism or feminism? As far as I'm concerned either we will find a new radical ways to reorganize everything in our society throught political, economic and technological reforms - or the society can die out. Why should I care? Does it serve me? I don't think so. We can continue with the low fertility rate as far as I'm concerned.

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

I don’t bash men. I bash the new weak crying male. And one day when he wakes up he will thank me as a fellow brother in arms for it 

Of course you bash men. Just take a look at your own comments, re-read them slowly and then tell me you don't bash your own gender/sex.

No such thing as a weak man. It's a completely relative concept and even you probably wouldn't be able to define it in a full encompassing and satisfying way. And anyone else would define it in ways different than you do, mostly to suit their selfish subconscious needs and biases.

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

I agree with feminists on some things

Of course you do

[Twentyfirst]

53 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Bro, I just said I'm open-minded.

Now tell me about yours. In detail. No vague hypotheticals.

I don’t have a woman yet. The way it works is I simply wait until I am ready and then I have an arranged marriage. Until then I don’t speak or hook up with women that aren’t my relatives 

My relative women are happy as clams. No strange traumatic history that they have to deal with. No stds. No single motherhood. No children that hate them because the home got split up. No commuting to work, slaving for the IRS becoming masculine, just to buy a stupid handbag and cry on tik tok about all men being trash. They aren’t on advertisements naked so some man can profit off selling a car. They aren’t on music videos embarrassing themselves by objectifying themselves. 
 

They have children and love to take care of them. And they love taking care of their man and guests. They get respected like diamonds, as long as they play their role which they do get slack for as everyone wobbles every once in a while. They don’t get catcalled in the streets or bumped into and then someone touches their ass. 
 

It’s not really a bunch of positives you can point to but mostly no negatives. Traditionalism minimizes all the things that can go wrong and you get left with an ordinary base which you can actually build upon because you aren’t dealing with trauma. With that base you can do whatever your skill and ability allows but without that base you soend all your time just getting out of the hole 

 

They don’t come together, form a sisterhood, and go out marching in the streets. They don’t make deals with the government to gain corrupt rights over the same men who are supposed to be protecting them. I guess they don’t feel the need to rebel. Gee I wonder why 

 

Sometimes freedom comes at such a high cost that it’s not worth it 

[Basman]

The only person I really cried in front of in my life is my mom.

[Twentyfirst]

19 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

So what if it stood the test of time? Why should I give a shit about a society continuing in any form of a gynocentric system, be it traditionalism or feminism? As far as I'm concerned either we will find a new radical ways to reorganize everything in our society throught political, economic and technological reforms - or the society can die out. Why should I care? Does it serve me? I don't think so. We can continue with the low fertility rate as far as I'm concerned.

Of course you bash men. Just take a look at your own comments, re-read them slowly and then tell me you don't bash your own gender/sex.

No such thing as a weak man. It's a completely relative concept and even you probably wouldn't be able to define it in a full encompassing and satisfying way. And anyone else would define it in ways different than you do, mostly to suit their selfish subconscious needs and biases.

Of course you do

So you don’t care about the fertility rate? 
 

What am I supposed to say? How can I take you seriously and respond 

 

This is precisely  why women and weak men shouldn’t be allowed to make major decisions. It will lead to our extinction 

[Twentyfirst]

Listen guys all I’m saying is men shouldn’t cry. Take my word for it. 
 

Enough debating. I don’t want to be the dickhead here. Let’s battle this out on the battlefield fair and square. If your ideology wins then I guess my future sons will cry and change genders. But if my ideology wins fair and square don’t dare complain. Just get that apron on and introduce yourself to the washing machine. “Hello my name is Karen, and I’ll be your best friend from here on out”Let the war rage on