Friday, 5 September 2014

Damaged Men and Women

Uncle Bob comes up with something that makes one hell of a lot more sense than the PUA's concept of "shit-testing for genetic fitness".

Shit Tests Don't Exist And Are About Women Hating Men Because They Have No Men In Their Lives

Women Trying To Bully Men

Bob, I hand it to you: this makes a goddamned sight better sense than some of that PUA crapola.

A while back I figured out that PUA is Broken, analysed far better than I could by TheRawness (link to his analysis is in that above link). It was a helluva lot of narcissism, jumping through hoops just so you could get involved with the more-warped types of damaged women.

From the women's side it boils down to: these damaged women don't know how to treat a man well enough to keep them in their lives.

From the men's side it boils down to: these damaged men don't know what it's like to be treated well, so we tolerate this bad behavior in our women.

I hesitate to entirely blame feminism for this situation, though I could probably make a good case. When children who are effectively abandoned by their parents (divorce/frivorce/never-there) and don't know what being treated well is like, they don't know how to treat the opposite sex well or how the opposite sex should treat them well. Or how to treat their children well.

Men and women both have been afflicted by this stunted personal growth. Men and women both have been damaged in a fundamental manner that will likely require many generations to repair. If that ever happens.

It looks as if Men are the ones waking up to the fact that both sides have been smacked around and damaged. It doesn't look as if many Women are waking up to the same fact. I guess it's because Men are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick more than Women are.

A general observation of humanity is that if someone is getting preferential treatment then all is peachy-keen in their world. Tough titties if you're getting the short end of the stick, I'm getting mine.

Note that I'm not letting Men (or myself) off the hook here. We are bloody damaged by this as well. Taking a good, cold, hard look at things: we are doing a shitload of projection when we turn around and say "it's all women's fault" and "bloody feminism" and et-fucking-cetera.

I know, the pendulum has swung to an extreme, it's time it swung back, etc etc. Yet we need to have a damn close look at ourselves to be absolutely certain that we're not attempting to pull the same bullshit on women that they've been pulling on us men. Or that we've allowed to pull on us.

Not much point if we damage things a shitload more, ay. No healing gonna happen then!


  1. One of the problems with the Manosphere is the concepts are so easy to understand because they are so simple. Guys fall for that and think they have found the Keys to the Kingdom.

    1. Are we as a species predisposed towards simple explanations? Simple minds, the simple solutions of Occam's Razor? When in reality we all know that things are never simple, just look at the Climate Change debate for an example.

      On the whole I think that the Manosphere does at least attempt to give some kind of help. Some kind of explanation. A good thing when one of us damaged men feels lost, alone, and powerless. In the end though, many of the concepts are contradictory and quite damaging: chasing women so you can have the sex you're not getting - yet not being needy about women and not putting her up on a pedestal - when you really still are just so you can have some sex. Just a single confused example.

      Take the so-called Dark Triad business being what attracts women - the simple solution becomes "therefore become more Dark Triad". I'd never clicked that female bad behavior is a damaged woman's expression of the female Dark Triad. Of course she'd be attracted, like to like and the PUA is mirroring her inner darkness back at her. Its the codependency/narcissist stuff from TheRawness. Become more damaged yourself so you can attract more damaged women.

      As you showed in your two posts: look at a behavior from the correct viewpoint. All of a sudden it's not "shit-tests", its simply bad behavior from a damaged person who doesn't know what good behavior is. Because we are likewise damaged we can't recognize it as simply being bad behavior so we have to come up with some other weird explanation to attempt to make sense of it.

      Hell, all that is pretty weird-sounding when I read over it.

    2. What is better, having no wider perspective at all, having or one that has a flaw of being oversimplified? To borrow the example, every globe model of Earth suffers from this, by not accounting for deviations from the ideal, spherical shape. Is it useful, regardless?

  2. Looks like I left a bit unfinished, was interrupted. Can't quite remember what I planned to put there so have put in an update to try and help it make more sense.