“I have written a wicked book, and feel clean and spotless as the lamb.” Thus wrote Herman Melville to a friend after completing his infamous whaling diary-cum-atheistic jeremiad. Well, this is a wicked post. I take no joy in its writing (finding it rather more of a release, if anything), but neither do I feel the slightest remorse or shame.
I don’t know what’s more gut-wrenching: watching women deny that they play cruel games… or seeing them acknowledge that, yes, we really are this cold-hearted and calculating. The latter is certainly more shocking.
Roissy is fond of saying that he’s not a “misogynist”; no, learning the unvarnished truth about female psychology has given him a *higher* appreciation for women. Not so for me. Sociosexual philosophy has disillusioned me beyond all reckoning. Peering deep into the psyche of woman has rendered me grievously scornful in feeling and mercilessly unscrupulous in behaviour towards these unholy, ungodly beings. I venture to say that… I hate them. Yes, I hate them! And how could I not?
Oh, the vile criteria by which women judge menfolk! O, abominable, loathsome beings! A creature so damnably constituted as to admire a man for his “social dominance” – by which is meant his ability to waltz through an absurd series of meaningless, contrived riddles – rather than his work ethic, his self-sacrifice, his affability, his charity, his honesty, his justice – in short, his righteousness and integrity; such a creature deserves to be used and abused like a cheap street harlot – or better yet, a vermin-ridden ass – and discarded appropriately. Nothing more; she merits nothing better.
Words like “honour”, “duty”, “kindness”… those things that define goodness and rightness… all meaningless, meaningless to this wretched, wicked half of the human race. And do women who profess belief in something “higher”; women who should know better, afford any solace? No. Instead they show themselves as fraudulent, fickle hellcats who think good men are “weak”. So alas, I can no longer view the distaff horde with anything besides revulsion and contempt. They perjure themselves by their own words; they are beasts, deserving nothing but callous treatment and damnation; and I can wish nothing upon them but furious hatred, ignominy and a miserable passing.
O, woman: to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.
I take no joy in penning the above – but I feel clean and spotless as the lamb. What else is to be said for a lot that believes black to be white, up to be down, and good men to be worthless? Poor Ashley Wilkes, and all good men.
Really, I think that most people’s behavior has very little to do with their professed morality. It’s easier for us men to see women’s foibles, since they’re operating with a different set of emotional machinery and we don’t share their blind spots. But really, everyone respects raw power, applies double standards, and cares more about looking good than doing good. Game was the first area that really threw this reality in my face, but if you read Robin Hanson and others you can see the same pattern of delusion and hypocrisy in everyone.
I’m still trying to figure out a moral framework that truly takes this into account. One thing is clear though – no sane morality would put any weight on what other people think of you, besides the instrumental value of popularity.
Actually AC, I think its the opposite.
Men know there own foibles only too well, they know their weaknesses (It is way Mallory made Lancelot’s son pure. A man can believe his son will go and do and be the man that the father was not).
Men have a huge blind spot where women are concerned. Part of it is societal. We are sold women as pure vessals. And part of it is biological. Men are tribal and naturally protective of the women and children of their tribe. (I think it would be an error to see men as naturally protective of all women and children, this is obviously not the case).
Being protective of someone is both a strength and a weakness. The strength is that it helps full, and enable a man to have a higher purpose, but it also allows those that are protected to exploit him.
Women do not have this instinct. The closest they come is to their children, but even there, they will often sacrifice a child for their primal drives.
Samson’s reaction is a natural reaction to taking the red pill. Some men will always be angry (and righteously so) when they discover the truth. (whether Samson is or is not is for him). Many will deny it. Some will revel in it (roissy).
I am reminded that some of our greatest religious writers were womanizers before they wrote about human nature. Society scoffs at them describing women as children, when that reality is so clearly true based on Neoteny alone.
Never trust anything that bleeds for a week and does not die.
I would suggest two books, Esther Vilar’s “The Manipulated Man” and Otto Weininger’s “Sex and Character”. Both books are freely available on the net, and it would be preferable if read in that order.(and if you can read through it, read Valerie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto before them)
somewhat related:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/raising-feral-females/#comment-5680
All this game-related material is just turning good men into raving hateful sexists, JUST LIKE THE FEMINISTS.
Men are just as bad. You need to unplug.
You hate all women because their sexual attractions tend to be dictated by shallow factors?
Have you never known a woman to behave kindly and compassionately outside the context of sexual attraction?
I admit that some of the men who give me tingles are not the same men who I would respect as being of noble character. It is a rather irritating aspect of our biology, to want to mate with some loser knowing that it would actually work against our long-term interests of wanting a stable family.
An entire half of the population is deserving of contempt because one blogger described the fictional Ashley Wilkes as “weak”?
I will admit that my biological impulses are not above contempt, but my mind and my heart are occasionally capable of goodness. I think the same could be said for most women.
I enjoy reading some over-the-top stuff every now and then. Especially if it’s well-written, as this is. Seriously!
“Oh, the vile criteria by which women judge menfolk! O, abominable, loathsome beings! A creature so damnably constituted as to admire a man for his ‘social dominance’…”
Being creatures so damnably constituted as to admire a woman for her “nice rack,” I’m not sure we men are really in a position to throw stones on this particular point.
Well, Samson is contentedly married, so he can’t hate all women. Something happen recently, Samson?
BTW, I admire your prose style in this post. As someone who hasn’t had time recently to read anything except medical literature, my literary talents have certainly declined.
I’ve read this post every day for five days now. There is something deeply compelling about it.
I don’t think it’s just a matter of learning the truth but the loss of trust. We can no longer trust women. Any of them.
It doesn’t matter if most of them aren’t going to screw us over, those nearest and dearest to us not only have the means to do so but can cook up a motive on a moments notice.
That’s the gut wrenching truth, not that women are hypergamous or get excited by thugs.
You can’t trust them. Not even your mother.
Samson, I understand completely.
Roissy is fond of saying that he’s not a “misogynist”; no, learning the unvarnished truth about female psychology has given him a *higher* appreciation for women.
So Roissy is pedestalizing women, but in a perverse way.
You can’t trust women carte blanche. You can’t trust men either. We are all sinners. Women no more than men.
If you think you can’t trust women but can trust men to always act sanely and virtuously you will be sorely disappointed.
agree w sean, compelling succinct post
romanticism and idealization/idolization of females is projection by males of their own god-inspired virtues onto females, who largely lack them (righteousness, honor, truth, etc)
some gnostic sects, troubadours, and later the medeival alchemists, codified this transference, and it’s now embedded into all western sociopolitical structures
redpill realization of the true nature of woman helps reverse the fall, leading us away from reverence of her and worldly things, and back to our father
“Peering deep into the psyche of woman has rendered me grievously scornful in feeling and mercilessly unscrupulous in behaviour towards these unholy, ungodly beings.”
(dabbing at eyes) golly i just love that kinda talk… sniff
hate woman’s behavior and ways, but try not to hate them, despite how malevolent they are to boys and men
aside from that i sure couldnt find anything wicked in this post, except possibly
“they are beasts, deserving nothing but callous treatment and damnation”
they and this earth are being judged now, make sure you are all serpent-wise and lamb-gentle
ray
Great post. I hate to admit it, but I share many of the OPs sentiments. Taking the red pill has caused irreparable damage to my view of women. How can it not?
It’s hard to feel so cynical at such a young age, but as I enter the prime years of my life, I’m grateful to this corner of the internet for enlightening me and brilliantly articulating a number of truths I could feel during my formative years, but could never properly define and put into words.
Well Samson, I can say that I’m glad you despise the foolish actions of women who deem good men as weak. But your overall dramatic post errs badly in grouping all women into one category. Any idea how tempting it’s been for me to damn all men into the one obnoxious group that Roissy, Vox Day, Tucker Max, other deep-as-tidepool men, and the worst of men like rapists and terrorists belong in? But I don’t; there are still good men and will always be. The Bible denies that either sex deserves any such mass grouping. But I still feel pure as a lamb myself when I put down Roissy, much to the butt-soreness of his troves of believers.
[...] This really surprised me at the time, because understanding women better has only increased my empathy for them. This is true dispite my continued willingess to call out bad behavior by women. In reality unless you are consumed by bitterness the object of calling out bad behavior should be at least in part for the benefit of those you are correcting. My improved understanding of and empathy for women has helped me when offering advice to women on the blog and at Yahoo Answers, and my wife regularly comments that while she loved the “old” me, she feels far more loved now and really appreciates the changes I’ve made. But Samson really did have a negative reaction to learning more about women. Back in March of last year he wrote a post on it: [...]
Over the top and blasphemous as well. You seem to be forgetting who made them.
The “Christian” women (i.e. Western churchgoing females) who comment on these blogs (and indeed write their own) are all experts at self-exculpation and simply reframe their filthy sin in new jargon — hypergamy, fitness testing, alpha tingles/hypnosis/paralysis, etc. — thereby obscuring their (Biblically clear) guilt and deep wickedness. They’re as lousy as the shameless sluts riding strangers in nightclub toilets (and most of them have been there themselves, and are not really repentant about it), but they’re more subtle in covering their tracks. With very few exceptions, American women have no shame, no faithfulness/loyalty, no honesty and no scruples. They’re vile.
@ron
Blasphemous? Really? I saw no blasphemy — the writer was lamenting how foul women truly are. Their foul character is not God’s work. It’s women’s.
…Unless you believe that women’s wicked nature is God’s handiwork.
Which would indeed be blasphemous.