Female Cognitive Dissonance.

[Burroughs]

Fascinating there are so many sexists here. I'd be curious to see who is getting laid more.. sexist guys or non-sexist guys. That would be interesting.

My theory is that sexism ruins game. And it does so because it blinds you to certain wisdom about humanity.

Just as your interactions with people of different races, religions, or nationalities would be stunted if you had blanket stereotypical ideas about them, your interactions with women will suffer as well if you have sexist notions about them.

And if your interactions with women are stunted, you're less likely to get laid.

That's my theory. I could be wrong.

no stunting whatsoever

I just keep my mouth shut and listen.

I meet 90% of my gfs through the music scene. if there is attraction it is immediate and physical. there is very little talking.

there is no reason a woman has to know how i feel about politics or sociology if I just want to get my d!ck wet.

 

[( . )( . )]

Fascinating there are so many sexists here. I'd be curious to see who is getting laid more.. sexist guys or non-sexist guys. That would be interesting.

My theory is that sexism ruins game. And it does so because it blinds you to certain wisdom about humanity.

You would be very wrong.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/happy-sexist-is-happy/

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N = 6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.

Besides the fact every guy I personally know who does well with women are all "sexist".

If you weren't rehashing all the "manosphere" mumbo-jumbo this might be an interesting thread.

This is the manosphere. Anywhere where red pill awareness is promoted is the "manosphere".

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Biology tells us that alpha males enjoy harems.

Not a universal truth in the animal kingdom. Many species of animals are monogamous and don't fit the above. Some species of animals are matriarchal and there is no real position for an "alpha male" to exist in the first place.

This idea of alpha is really overstated beyond belief on here. Looking back on the couples I know who ended up getting married or in LTR's, NONE of the men were what you would typically associate with being "alpha". Yet those are 10 relationships right off the bat that I can think of from just memory.

People on here need to stop obsessing with this idea of what is alpha and what is not. How about this for thought: just don't be a pushover.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Not a universal truth in the animal kingdom. Many species of animals are monogamous and don't fit the above. Some species of animals are matriarchal and there is no real position for an "alpha male" to exist in the first place.

This idea of alpha is really overstated beyond belief on here. Looking back on the couples I know who ended up getting married or in LTR's, NONE of the men were what you would typically associate with being "alpha". Yet those are 10 relationships right off the bat that I can think of from just memory.

People on here need to stop obsessing with this idea of what is alpha and what is not. How about this for thought: just don't be a pushover.

^ I agree with this.

The 'natural hypergamy' thing is really, in the biologic kingdom BS. We all have this sort of 'caveman' analogy in our minds -- what people fail to realize is the CAVEMAN WASN'T HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN! It was homo erectus! Hmm...are we really like homo erectus...is THIS the best archetype for the "alpha man"...should we also be carrying sharpened rocks and burying our babies fetus's in caves (things homo erectus also did)?

I have had LESS success being alpha -- because by that I genuinely bcome an @ss and I HAVE turned women away by being a d1ck.

I find more success being 'sensitive' (my true self) -- but it's a FINE LINE -- women want a caring dude, but they don't want you to turn into a pushover!

***

Jeremiah -- I did read your post, I think its intelligent. Those feminist professors must be a trip. They want to be the Men in relationships, likely because they've had some real bad relationship experiences. Don't get me wrong, women have had a 5hitty role for a long time -- wasn't that long ago they couldn't even VOTE -- women have had to fight to be recognized and not feel like being swept under the rug in terms of social well-being.

And there are plenty of accomplished wonderful women out there, who have self-strength but aren't complete feminist b1tches.

In some ways the feminist women are just as bad as the chauvinist dudes who think a woman isn't worth anything outside of sex and the kitchen. Two extremes...

When are extremes often correct?

**

I would say we all have cognitive dissonance. There are plenty of dudes who act in ways contrary to what they truly want. Women also. Cognitive dissonance might be more related to the shifting nature of the human mind -- sometimes what we want in the morning time is not what we want at night time, and sometimes we want many things at once, some that are contradictory. The human mind wants everything, always, any way it can relate it to itself, its ego, any way to further justify to ourselves that we are substantial...bleh...it's hard to label all women under categories like "they all cheat", "they all lie", "they all practice cognitive dissonance" -- all of these attributes exist in men and women -- some individuals are better at investigating their emotions than others.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N = 6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.

Despite my last post I also agree with this here -- I do think gender roles can be quite USEFUL.

In the uber-androgynous society where we are all 'people' and not acknowledged for our biological wirings is somewhat naive..

We didn't make it 350,000 years of evolution as 'Pat' from Saturday Night Live (is it a man or a woman!?!?)

I identify with being a Man. That is what I am. A tiger wouldn't be a very good tiger if it didn't think as a tiger.

But some issues, like homosexuality, could challenge these traditional gender roles -- but I wouldn't be surprised in most healthy homosexual relationships, if there is still some distinct 'gender' differences that each party characterizes (one is more like the 'man' while the other is more like the 'woman').

 

[BPH]

This is ridiculous, I feel like I'm reading a college thesis paper. Why can't women just be taken at face value, and be subsequently f***ed? As is custom.

 

[Jeremiah]

This is ridiculous, I feel like I'm reading a college thesis paper. Why can't women just be taken at face value, and be subsequently f***ed? As is custom.

Haha. I agree. Discussion over as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Fly By Night]

I kind of skimmed through this thread so I'm not sure what has been said or if someone has already said what I am about to say:

1. Women want a Man to rock her world. This test comes first.
2. Women want a Man that has his sh!t together. That test comes second.

She doesn't care if you have a secure job if you can't make her vag tingle. She might remain FWB if you can provide 1 and not 2, but she will drop you for better.

Women will never say this in public because she does not want to be perceived as a s1ut.

There is no cognitive dissonance. Every woman knows deep down what she wants, but she's not going to ruin her reputation to say something she already knows, it's just a risk with no benefit. That is how women run "game": *to not seem like a s1ut, qualify yourself, and drop the betas who can't provide 1 and 2.

*The girls who are obviously come off as s1utty are the ones that are the AFC's of female game.

 

[flashpoint]

In either case, it makes little sense to belittle men who seek to understand women and their motives when most assuredly you are benefiting from the men who expended their energy into understanding women enough to found the concept of PUA.

it was his first post. maybe i m doing the OP wrong. just seems like a bad approach towards the whole subject, starting off with some sort of theory about what is wrong with THEM to explain why he hasnt got the results he might have wished for. just looks that way.

i call that an AFC attitude and do think it is best to get rid of this kind of thinking. frustrated because the world doesnt respond to you the way you think it should and constructing all kinds of theories and explanations that keep you from improving instead only help to put the blame on other things than yourself. up to the point where it gets outright misogynic.

is that helpful? really? in any way? the founding of PUA has a whole lot more to do with understanding how to successfully interact with women and of course how to get your own shyte together than with mentally masturbating over what is wrong with the female world.

 

[Zarky]

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N = 6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.

Please, there are so many ways I can destroy the argument. "Life satisfaction" and "getting laid" aren't the same thing.

Besides, the sexism here would certainly not be considered "benevolent." Benevolent sexism ("BS," very funny researchers) is stuff like opening car doors for chicks because they're weak and frail. It's not sitting around b*tching that all American women are feminist sluts.

Saying that women are "deserving of men’s adoration and protection" would be more akin to chivalry than sexism, as far as I'm concerned.

The manosphere is afraid of and unsuccessful with women. That's not me "shaming" anyone, that's the truth. And the result is unfortunately dudes who fail time and time and time again, become bitter, and post rants about how "all women are [negative trait]."

And, in some really sad cases, they then go in and shoot up women's gyms and sh*t like that.

The manosphere is just bitterness turned into hateful words. It is no different than hate speech anywhere, except that instead of focusing its shortsighted attacks on a religion or race, it focuses them on a gender.

Any time someone comes out with any of the following sentences, it's hate speech:

"Blacks are all [X]"
"Muslims are all [X]"
"Mexicans are all [X]"
"Women are all [X]"

I'm shocked and saddened that many posters here don't understand that when you lump an entire category of people together and then assign a negative attribute to all of them, that's pure hate and nothing more. It's anti-intellectual, it's stupid, it's shortsighted, and the worst part is it's just incorrect.

Sorry, the truth hurts. If you are posting threads saying that all women are this and all women do that, you're engaged in hate speech. Fix yourself, or just own up to it. Just say "I hate and fear the power that women are attaining in the world" and at least you'll be honest.

 

[Zarky]

I don't disagree that many of them are "slutty" and "easy." But to say they "all" are anything is hateful and wrong. That's the problem I have with the manosphere writers.

Yes, I'm sure most of your "100" chicks have been slutty and you're an expert at finding the slutty ones. I have no doubt. But to then extrapolate and say that "all" women are slutty.. that's small-minded.

That's like seeing a black suspect on the news and saying that all blacks are criminals. Completely false and small-minded.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

I also agree that the dialogue "all women do this" is just like "all blacks do this" "all hispanics are this way" "all white people only do this" which is of course GENERALIZATIONS.

Look--men are EASY too aren't they? How many of you go to the sack right away?

 

[Solomon]

Dictionay.com defines CD as:

noun Psychology.
anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.

Can the uniquely female phenomenon of saying X but doing Y be attributed to cognitive dissonance? When a women says that she does not want to be dominated by a man - this is cognitive dissonance, not duplicity, correct?

Women want alpha males. Biology tells us that alpha males enjoy harems. Women tell us they want fidelity.

Women say they want an equal relationship. The fifth Commandment of Poon is "Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you." Roissy calls this the "golden ratio".

Good examples of female cognitive dissonance are infinite, so I'll stop there.

Feminism is essentially a guide on how not to get laid. Are feminists aware of this? I've heard feminism described as a "smoke screen" to keep beta males at bay.

All this must be cognitive dissonance because I see the anger in the faces of my feminist professors. I hear indignation in their voices. It's sincere.

I don't understand how a human being can function in this world when there is that large of a disconnect between what they say and do. Krauser talked about this on "London Real". In the same interview he said something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing) women don't interact with the real world, because they can't.

Initially, I thought he was referring to the fact that women are not capable of taking down an ox or fighting off the rival tribe. I thought he meant that a man is better suited for surviving, by himself, in the woods.

What I think he actually meant was that women can't interact with reality in anyway. Not physically. But not mentally either.


I hope I'm not bringing up a stale topic.

Laterz -

J.

OP made a great thread but KJ's ruined it....

My motto is simple with women Pay attention to what they do and not what they say

 

[Zarky]

And many women do it to men as well. Books like "The Rules" and "Men Love B*tches" assume that all men are exactly the same and all will respond exactly the same when women do X, Y and Z.

Totally ridiculous.

The most egregious one which I utterly hate is when women say, "Men love the chase." No, I don't. I don't like to "chase" women. Maybe some men do, but I don't. If women play coy and expect me to chase them, guess what, they lose.

So the same with men. If you lump women into one category and assume they'll all behave the same way if you do X, Y, and Z, you're going to lose too.

Stereotyping leads to seduction failure.

OP made a great thread but KJ's ruined it....

Nah, it wasn't that profound to begin with, even if stripped of its generalizations. Yes, a lot of people believe one thing and do another. That's called being human. Pay attention to actions, not words. This isn't exactly news.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Any many women do it to me as well. Books like "The Rules" and "Men Love B*tches" assume that all men are exactly the same and all will respond exactly the same when women do X, Y and Z.

Totally ridiculous.

The most egregious one which I utterly hate is when women say, "Men love the chase." No, I don't. I don't like to "chase" women. Maybe some men do, but I don't. If women play coy and expect me to chase them, guess what, they lose.

So the same with men. If you lump women into one category and assume they'll all behave the same way if you do X, Y, and Z, you're going to lose too.

Stereotyping leads to seduction failure.

Man this is why sh1t is so fvcked is because BOTH SIDES are playing by rules that WHO wrote? I'm not snuffing my nose at some basic biological aspects of attraction -- but some of this COMPLEX MENTAL sh1t absolutely has got to be a mind fvck.

Women read these trash Cosmo magazines and then we wonder why she's being all WEIRD? Because she's responding to whatever her popular culture source tells her how a relationship should be dictated.

 

[( . )( . )]

The manosphere is just bitterness turned into hateful words. It is no different than hate speech anywhere

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc145/Warlock0716/633921783736320000-facepalm.jpg

Ok I'll bite. So what are you doing here then?


Btw I'm still scratching my head as to why a 37 year old man used the term "hate speech" so often. Unless your a single white liberal arts university student, the question needs to be asked....wtf are you doing?

 

[Solomon]

Zarky aren't you part of the "Manopshere"?

 

[Zarky]

No, no I'm not. I'm purely about seduction. I have no interest in men's rights or anything like that.

Don't get married, don't knock a chick up, don't live with a chick, in general don't be stupid with women, and you won't have any problems.

I'm not against feminism because I think it helps me get laid.

The "manosphere" blogs argue about how they feel the world should be. I don't give a sh*t about shoulds and shouldn'ts. I only care about what is and isn't. The world is what it is and it's my job to do what I can to take advantage of that. I don't expect it to change for my convenience or pleasure.

From what I've read, the "manosphere" is full of bitter men who rail against "injustice." I ain't interested. I just want to get laid by as many women as I can as quickly and as easily as I can. The current state of the world, whatever one may judge it to be, is excellent for that.

I'm not interested in society or making the world what I consider to be a better place. I'm basically a mercenary. I use the current situation to best suit my ends. If it changes, I'll adapt and again use its state to best suit my ends.

The manosphere is awash in negativity. I, on the other hand, am positive. I don't see the current state of society as problematic for me. In fact, I'm getting laid frequently. If I wanted to get married and raise a family, I might think differently. But I don't, so this society is perfect for me.

So no, I have nothing to do with the manosphere and I look down on manosphere writers. I think they're extreme whiners, and that's just sad. They're overly interested in what "society" thinks about them. Whereas I just don't give a f*ck about what society thinks of me. That's my main disdain for them. They feel oppressed by society. I don't.

Having said all this, I still try to help my fellow men out by Passing the P*ssy Forward whenever I can. That's not political, though, that's a practical way I help mankind.

This is an accurate take on the "manosphere":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew8KPNeEds8

EDIT:

The more I read of the "manosphere," the more it seems they're right-wing, conservative guys who value traditional gender roles. Some even delve into right-wing conspiracy theories. I have no use for that sort of stuff. They're secretly betas looking for a wife and kids in a time when that kind of thing is an anachronism.

I consider myself a modern guy. I'll never be married with kids, I'll never own a home, I'll never take part in those 20th century and earlier rights of passage into "manhood." And I don't want to. This society suits my personality just fine

EDIT 2:

In writing up a blog post on the topic, I'm starting to think that I "swallowed the red pill" so long ago that it's no longer a big thing to me. Maybe I was so manosphered so long ago that I'm a living representation of it. No wife, no kids, no desire for any of that sh*t. Banging chicks, having fun. Maybe I look down on manosphere types because they still seem to be primitive, inchoate versions of myself. I've already moved on.

 

[Zarky]

we had you pegged for a left wing feminist screecher a long time
ago

...who gets laid, who gets laid

Is everyone here a conservative wingnut? That would be interesting. Maybe I'll put up a poll if I can.

It would reaffirm my (new) belief that the "manosphere" and the right-wing agenda are closely aligned. And that would explain A LOT.

 

[flashpoint]

funny that the concept of cognitive dissonance can also be applied on some male behaviour towards women. like when he initially wants her, she rejects him and he as a consequence lowers her value in his mind (in order to reduce the inner conflict of wanting but not getting). she becomes a whoore, slvt, biatch, BECAUSE she doesnt want to sleep with him or have a relationship with him (although with others she does of course).*

so im going to make a wild generalization here that men usually are acting in a state of cognitive dissonance because they need to constantly reduce dissonance over the fact that they dont always get what they want. men are flatout crazy because of their enhanced sex-drive and easily frustrated. and the whole debate about feminism and such only proves this point. case closed.


* rejecting a man is not without danger. so women tend to lie and deceive in order to avoid upsetting the man. they are the weaker sex and way more vulnerable physically, so they had to develop certain defence mechanisms, mostly on a more psychological level. She might kiss, make out, lie to you with a smile about how much she likes you when secretly she is afraid to tell the truth. after all men are emotionally instable creatures with a tendency to violence when sexually frustrated. right?