Red Pill Truth: Women are incapable of love
About a year ago, I exasperated a very nice lady (a psychologist, if I remember correctly) in a social media thread in which I asserted that "Women are incapable of love." She was very nice about it, and expressed pity for what pain I must have gone through to result in such a negative outlook on life.
Well, sure. Who hasn't been hurt? But some of us learn from our pain. Today is a good day to lay out my argument.
"Love" is a word that means whatever one wants it to mean (and is therefore meaningless) but know this: it does not mean the same thing to women as it does to men. I speak here according to what it means to US [men].
A few cliches might be useful, as they represent views on the topic that are widely held:
"Behind every successful man is a __(1) woman."
"Men think that sex is love; to women, sex is a response to love."
And of course King Lemuel's famous paean to "a virtuous woman" in Proverbs 31.
We shan't debate whether these are true; what matters here is the insight they give us into the human species. True or not, they represent what we believe in the deepest, most primal part of our nature.
So let us begin to parse them. Not the literal meanings, but the primal drive, driven by DNA that is over fifty million years old, that they explain.
The first cliche speaks of a very deep-seated desire that most of us men don't want to admit. It probably doesn't apply to Alphas. But most men aren't, cannot be, and never will be Alphas: that's one dog per pack. One elk per herd. One man out of dozens. This post is about the others, which are the majority.
So what does "Behind every successful man..." really mean? It means that most of us have self-doubts (this is normal). We need: validation. We need someone in our life who believes in us. Because Out There is a world that doesn't. Ecosystems are brutal and don't care if you live or die. They don't care about your pain, your fatigue, your exhaustion. Fighting whatever you had to kill that day to feed your family - and fighting the saber-toothed tigers to whom your family is food - is exhausting. Though we don't do that anymore, it's only been 10,000 years since we did, and evolution doesn't move that fast: all of this is still in our DNA.
So, deep within our souls is a primordial need, after a long day of killing food while avoiding being food, an exhausting day in which one almost died - not once, but twice - a hunt that wasn't as successful as one wanted, a day of being mocked by the brutal forces of Nature for one's puniness and weakness... is a primordial need for validation. A primordial need (not a nice-to-have) for someone at home who believes in us, encourages us, makes us believe that Yes, We Can...
-- because tomorrow you have to get out of bed and go out there and almost get killed again. The "almost get killed" part is still literally true after all these millennia: more than 90% of workplace fatalities are: MEN.
Men need a reason to get up in the morning. A woman who believes in her man, who validates him, encourages him, strengthens him -- is, literally, the reason that a hell of a lot of us get up every morning. Without her, we feel like the old Emo Phillips joke: "Sometimes, it hardly seems worth it to chew through the leather restraints in the morning." Because Life is brutal. Every day, men die. And every one of us (soyboys excluded) knows that: today might be my day to die.
This is what the cliche means. Not that men can't make it without a woman; many do. Not that we need a woman to succeed; the Red Pillers warn men against that mindset all the time. No, it's a statement of what men want. And what the word "love" means to a man. Validation. And sex is the greatest validation of all (or at least, the greatest of all that a woman can give a man). It means everything (well, almost everything) to us. Which is why, to us, sex is love.
The second cliche is one that my sister told me, when I was struggling with relationships. I was seeking to understand women: what they want, how to please them, etc. There is a great deal there in her words. I've already explained the male half, now let's parse the female half: "To women, sex is a response to love."
"...a response to love." And right there, men, are some of the coldest words ever spoken by a woman. A rare instance in which a woman actually told the Truth. It means: payment, and not payment for what we call love. It means, payment for what they call "love." Payment. Not love. To her, it's a business transaction and little more.
She doesn't give a damn how many times you almost died today to bring in food for the table. She doesn't give a damn about the stabbing pain you're suffering after slipping and falling while you speared that fur-bearing animal so that she could have a nice pair of fur slippers. She cares about the food. She cares about the slippers. And oh, by the way, she wants a pony. Which you will feed.
Women are a lot like cats: Food is love. They don't care what it took to get that food; they only expect it to be there when they need it. Keep the food coming and Pussy will "love" you (meaning: it feels like love). Fail to provide it, and goodbye! The cat has moved in with the neighbor, and The Woman You Love doesn't love you.
The extreme radical 3rd-wave Feminists are right about one thing: marriage really is an elaborate, formalized form of prostitution (actually, it's the other way around: prostitution is a raw, stripped-down, bare-bones-essentials version of marriage). Indeed, almost all sex between men and women is an exchange, one way or another, of sex for goods.
This, too, goes back tens of millions of years, even before Homo Sapiens descended from the trees. It is well known among primate researchers that exchange of food for sex is common among chimps and others (baboons, if I remember correctly). This is not a Bad Thing; it is nothing to be ashamed of: it is simply the way we are.
We men constantly fall into the delusion that "if a woman has sex with me, she loves me." Because that's the way we view sex. But it isn't true, most of the time. To her, it's "a response to love" (according to her definition of the word, not yours). In other words, it's a business transaction. She's rewarding you for something she's getting from you, or something she expects to get shortly.
The delusion works, most of the time. Men think they're being loved because someone is willing to give them sex. Women usually get what they want out of the transaction because most men are more than willing to give them the fruits of their labor (with a little bit held out for beer and toys of course). It has worked, and worked well, for ten thousand years.
So this is what I mean when I say that women are incapable of love. Not that all women are; see, for instance, Ayn Rand -- who admired men, and even understood men (see Chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged). It means: in general, women don't even understand what we mean by "love." They can't grok the constant danger of Death, risk of Death, and fear of Death that's still in our DNA. They can't grok it because it's not in their DNA. They can't grok (non-Alpha) men's deep-seated need for admiration, validation and encouragement because it's not there in their psyche. If they can't understand it, how the Hell can they ever give it?
Yet a few do. A very, very, few. And that is what King Lemuel meant by: "Who can find a [good] woman?"
Men: most of you will never be loved by a woman - except possibly your mother, and even those are rare.
Women: most of you will never understand your man's deepest emotional needs. For one thing, we don't talk about them. For another, it's outside of your Life Experiences.
Everyone: traditional gender roles are the result of ten thousand years of cultural evolution(2). They are not arbitrary: they exist because they work, and have worked better than other arrangements. And yes, there have been "other arrangements." There still are. We refer to them as: "primitive cultures." Most never even got around to inventing the Wheel. Our culture is successful because it works better than the alternatives.
So ignore traditional roles at your peril. In the Current Year, we are ignoring them with reckless abandon.
1. good, strong, great et. al.
2. see: The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, F. A. Hayek
Well, sure. Who hasn't been hurt? But some of us learn from our pain. Today is a good day to lay out my argument.
"Love" is a word that means whatever one wants it to mean (and is therefore meaningless) but know this: it does not mean the same thing to women as it does to men. I speak here according to what it means to US [men].
A few cliches might be useful, as they represent views on the topic that are widely held:
"Behind every successful man is a __(1) woman."
"Men think that sex is love; to women, sex is a response to love."
And of course King Lemuel's famous paean to "a virtuous woman" in Proverbs 31.
We shan't debate whether these are true; what matters here is the insight they give us into the human species. True or not, they represent what we believe in the deepest, most primal part of our nature.
So let us begin to parse them. Not the literal meanings, but the primal drive, driven by DNA that is over fifty million years old, that they explain.
The first cliche speaks of a very deep-seated desire that most of us men don't want to admit. It probably doesn't apply to Alphas. But most men aren't, cannot be, and never will be Alphas: that's one dog per pack. One elk per herd. One man out of dozens. This post is about the others, which are the majority.
So what does "Behind every successful man..." really mean? It means that most of us have self-doubts (this is normal). We need: validation. We need someone in our life who believes in us. Because Out There is a world that doesn't. Ecosystems are brutal and don't care if you live or die. They don't care about your pain, your fatigue, your exhaustion. Fighting whatever you had to kill that day to feed your family - and fighting the saber-toothed tigers to whom your family is food - is exhausting. Though we don't do that anymore, it's only been 10,000 years since we did, and evolution doesn't move that fast: all of this is still in our DNA.
So, deep within our souls is a primordial need, after a long day of killing food while avoiding being food, an exhausting day in which one almost died - not once, but twice - a hunt that wasn't as successful as one wanted, a day of being mocked by the brutal forces of Nature for one's puniness and weakness... is a primordial need for validation. A primordial need (not a nice-to-have) for someone at home who believes in us, encourages us, makes us believe that Yes, We Can...
-- because tomorrow you have to get out of bed and go out there and almost get killed again. The "almost get killed" part is still literally true after all these millennia: more than 90% of workplace fatalities are: MEN.
Men need a reason to get up in the morning. A woman who believes in her man, who validates him, encourages him, strengthens him -- is, literally, the reason that a hell of a lot of us get up every morning. Without her, we feel like the old Emo Phillips joke: "Sometimes, it hardly seems worth it to chew through the leather restraints in the morning." Because Life is brutal. Every day, men die. And every one of us (soyboys excluded) knows that: today might be my day to die.
This is what the cliche means. Not that men can't make it without a woman; many do. Not that we need a woman to succeed; the Red Pillers warn men against that mindset all the time. No, it's a statement of what men want. And what the word "love" means to a man. Validation. And sex is the greatest validation of all (or at least, the greatest of all that a woman can give a man). It means everything (well, almost everything) to us. Which is why, to us, sex is love.
The second cliche is one that my sister told me, when I was struggling with relationships. I was seeking to understand women: what they want, how to please them, etc. There is a great deal there in her words. I've already explained the male half, now let's parse the female half: "To women, sex is a response to love."
"...a response to love." And right there, men, are some of the coldest words ever spoken by a woman. A rare instance in which a woman actually told the Truth. It means: payment, and not payment for what we call love. It means, payment for what they call "love." Payment. Not love. To her, it's a business transaction and little more.
She doesn't give a damn how many times you almost died today to bring in food for the table. She doesn't give a damn about the stabbing pain you're suffering after slipping and falling while you speared that fur-bearing animal so that she could have a nice pair of fur slippers. She cares about the food. She cares about the slippers. And oh, by the way, she wants a pony. Which you will feed.
Women are a lot like cats: Food is love. They don't care what it took to get that food; they only expect it to be there when they need it. Keep the food coming and Pussy will "love" you (meaning: it feels like love). Fail to provide it, and goodbye! The cat has moved in with the neighbor, and The Woman You Love doesn't love you.
The extreme radical 3rd-wave Feminists are right about one thing: marriage really is an elaborate, formalized form of prostitution (actually, it's the other way around: prostitution is a raw, stripped-down, bare-bones-essentials version of marriage). Indeed, almost all sex between men and women is an exchange, one way or another, of sex for goods.
This, too, goes back tens of millions of years, even before Homo Sapiens descended from the trees. It is well known among primate researchers that exchange of food for sex is common among chimps and others (baboons, if I remember correctly). This is not a Bad Thing; it is nothing to be ashamed of: it is simply the way we are.
We men constantly fall into the delusion that "if a woman has sex with me, she loves me." Because that's the way we view sex. But it isn't true, most of the time. To her, it's "a response to love" (according to her definition of the word, not yours). In other words, it's a business transaction. She's rewarding you for something she's getting from you, or something she expects to get shortly.
The delusion works, most of the time. Men think they're being loved because someone is willing to give them sex. Women usually get what they want out of the transaction because most men are more than willing to give them the fruits of their labor (with a little bit held out for beer and toys of course). It has worked, and worked well, for ten thousand years.
So this is what I mean when I say that women are incapable of love. Not that all women are; see, for instance, Ayn Rand -- who admired men, and even understood men (see Chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged). It means: in general, women don't even understand what we mean by "love." They can't grok the constant danger of Death, risk of Death, and fear of Death that's still in our DNA. They can't grok it because it's not in their DNA. They can't grok (non-Alpha) men's deep-seated need for admiration, validation and encouragement because it's not there in their psyche. If they can't understand it, how the Hell can they ever give it?
Yet a few do. A very, very, few. And that is what King Lemuel meant by: "Who can find a [good] woman?"
Men: most of you will never be loved by a woman - except possibly your mother, and even those are rare.
Women: most of you will never understand your man's deepest emotional needs. For one thing, we don't talk about them. For another, it's outside of your Life Experiences.
Everyone: traditional gender roles are the result of ten thousand years of cultural evolution(2). They are not arbitrary: they exist because they work, and have worked better than other arrangements. And yes, there have been "other arrangements." There still are. We refer to them as: "primitive cultures." Most never even got around to inventing the Wheel. Our culture is successful because it works better than the alternatives.
So ignore traditional roles at your peril. In the Current Year, we are ignoring them with reckless abandon.
1. good, strong, great et. al.
2. see: The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, F. A. Hayek
posted by Ken | 4:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home