An anon on 4chan makes an interesting case for women being psychopaths when it comes to love and life, and receives another insightful response from someone else who has taken the time to ponder his points over:
WARNING: this is likely going to ruin all of your future relationships with females, forever. But who am I kidding, you’re on /pol/, so they’re probably already ruined.
So, I was on Jewtube when the algorythm made me stumble upon this old video of Jordan Peterson. I have mixed feelings about the guy, but he can sometimes give interesting insights.
To sum the video up, they analyzed the most popular erotic female fantasies on the market and the top 5 sexualized men turned out to be: a billionaire, a surgeon, a werewolf, a vampire and a pirate. At first sight it’s just silly and harmless teenage smut, but boy does the rabbit hole go deep. So what’s so special about these men? Let’s examine one by one.
As the saying goes, money makes the world go ’round. Obviously, if you’re filthy rich, nothing is out of your reach.
This is someone who dedicated his whole life to his profession, obtaining an almost unparalleled level of skill and expertise. Paired with an above average sense of care and self-sacrifice, it goes along with an extremely high income and social status.
What defines this fictional monster is superhuman physical strength and killer instincts. It’s a savage beast in human shape whose favorite pastimes are raping and devouring. A monster in wait of being unleashed.
Extremely attractive and charismatic, this creature of the night is a master of manipulation. He might be a bloodsucking parasite, but with a few words he can grab anything he desires.
The bad boy, the criminal. Nothing stops him from freely getting what he wants when he wants, not even the law. Just being around him is sure to provide countless adventures and thrills.
None of these men are exactly marriage material, in fact they’re pretty much the opposite of what’s supposedly an ideal family man, i.e. a loving husband and a caring father; even when it comes to the billionaire and the surgeon, their wife and children are generally the very last of their daily concerns (their divorce rates attest to this). But what do all these 5 archetypes have in common? The answer is POWER. They are all men who hyper-specialized in different fields of competence, becoming dangerous beasts who can pretty much do and obtain whatever they want. Yet the main character of these female erotic fantasies, which is typically an average, pure and innocent girl, always manages to seduce them and tame them with relatively little effort.
That’s right, a female who is the epitome of weakness is able to put a leash on one of these monsters and effectively turn his power into hers by using no other weapon than her sexuality. If this is always the pattern of their fantasies, the logical conclusion is that it’s not just a powerful man that women seek, but power itself. Not virtue, not reliability, not good genes, no fatherly instincts, not honor, none of that idealized garbage. Raw unadulterated power in its most visible and direct form.
Trying to put some order into these thoughts, I remembered once reading this article on how to identify a psychopath.
These are apparently the signs to look out for:
>socially irresponsible behavior
>disregarding or violating the rights of others
>inability to distinguish between right and wrong
>difficulty with showing remorse or empathy
>tendency to lie often
>manipulating and hurting others
>recurring problems with the law
>general disregard towards safety and responsibility
Sound familiar? Why yes, these are all perfectly describing women, at least after you’ve been on /pol/ long enough. I think you already understand the conclusion I’m getting at. It’s the reason why feminism has been a complete disaster, the reason why no matter how much men are kneeling and how many rights and privileges women are given (working, voting, divorces, child support, alimony, driving, welfare, abortions, sexual abuse laws, leading positions…), women will NEVER be satisfied.
TL;DR: All women are power-hungry psychopaths.
Another anon took the time to ponder the above message, which apparently had been made into a green text copy pasta, and has offered up his thoughts in response to it that puts the matter of women and power in a different light:
The true value of the message here, is that the biological reality of things can be found to be the following: men strive to gain power (combination of strength and influence, voima + valta) in different hierarchies. Women respond to this by preferring the cream of the crop, the top males in any given hierarchy. Forget everything else, alpha/beta etc, the only thing that matters is power. The manifestation of this power is different as per the hierarchy, but power is always the only force driving female to male sexual attraction.
For men, this has a clear message as a biological imperative: acquire power. This is perhaps the only thing that matters outside of basic needs. A dead end job that you’re stuck in, feeling like you’re suffocating? The reason you’re feeling that way is because whatever you’re doing is not making you more powerful. The reason for this could be almost anything: the monetary compensation for your work is insufficient to extract power from, the amount of work you put in is exhausting to the point of crippling, or maybe you lack social interaction in your life in which case no amount of money is going to make you powerful.
The same could be said about anything that’s making you miserable, most likely the reason is that you’re not gaining power from it. Remember Notch, Markus Persson? The creator of Minecraft who sold his game to Microsoft for God knows how much money. Did that make him happy? Fulfilled? Powerful? His problem was never money, and power is much more than that. Always seek power, and more importantly, making yourself more powerful. Power that is not your own or power that you have not earned is not truly power.
Power is a slippery word, I prefer the words strength and influence. Strength is your physical and mental capacity to resist the world, everyone and everything in it, including your own shortcomings. Don’t fight stupid battles for the sake of displaying power, but never compromise your true values and morals. Train yourself both physically and mentally to be more capable.
Influence is your physical and mental capacity to bend the world to your will. This is most often social and economical. This is not improved by taking from others, but rather by abundantly giving yourself to others (because you are powerful). Mutual trust between men builds them up, and makes the whole group more powerful. You don’t exist in a vacuum.
Men seek power, but women do not (only indirectly). Therefore, women do not have power, at least not in the same sense that men do, especially over others. What follows is the age old realization of the “immorality” of women. Women lack sophisticated understanding of morality, duty, honor, etc. Why? This has nothing to do with women being “evil” or anything like that. It’s simply because these are tools of power. To hold power, you must understand these concepts when you use power, or power will be taken from you by those who have trusted you with it. If you act like a psychopath when given power, other people will righteously judge you as unworthy of that power.
There is a rather amusing phenomenon in movies and other media that’s being subverted in the name of social justice and cultural Marxism. You might have noticed this yourself, in female characters that are written to be “strong” and “independent”. Once they gain or are given power, these women often become rather psychopathic, cold, unfeeling and callous. Perhaps the best example of this is in the show Westworld, if you’ve watched it.
The reason for this is that the kind of power that these characters are given is unnatural for a woman. The more a female character is made to wield the masculine concept of power, the more they lose their femininity, and their humanity even. Feminine power is a different beast from the one we’re talking about here, it’s a feminine mode of being that shines light to the world, illuminating the paths of us men who mostly walk in the dark. I’m not blind to the misuse of this power, but when you see the next psyop about how women are manipulative and immoral whores, instead realize the biological reality of the sexes. There’s a man and a woman, and men hold power in a way that no woman ever could (and vice versa), and the responsibilities and capabilities that come with it both belong to only men.
Don’t measure a woman by a yardstick that was made to measure men. Measure yourself.
Beware of equating money or displays of power with power. To stay on top you can never stop improving, but never lose sight of the only thing that matters: what makes you more powerful? For some it’s going to be self-reliance, but for self-reliant types it might be other people. Your goals and areas where you need to grow will and should change as you approach power. Whatever you need to do, do it.
TL;DR: Women are power-hungry psychopaths only if you equate them to men and if you don’t believe in your own capability to be powerful.
Both of these anons are intelligent people who managed to notice trends and made observations on them. Despite noticing and recognizing the same trends, they have very different reactions. The first, who appears to judge women on the basis that they are the same as men, sees an injustice to be angry over. The second, who considers men and women to be simply different, acknowledges the same observations but moves past them to focus on bettering himself with an “it is what it is” attitude.
I don’t think the first essay is necessarily wrong in its anger, but the second one does go deeper and offer advice on what men ought to do as well as why some of the mutual observations between the two authors are the way they are. Overall, reading the two together, where one was meant as a response to the other anyway, paints a great bigger picture that leaves a lot of room for thoughts.
Original screen caps to both of the above writings: