When Morpheus first presents the red pill, he informs Neo that he'll discover "how deep the rabbit hole goes." In the anti-PC sphere, many individuals often evoke the red/blue pill choice as emblematic of society's falsehoods. In my own discoveries of man's hidden truths, I've often found myself going deeper and deeper into this "rabbit hole". I began by reading Sailer and HalfSigma and only after about 1.5 years of reading them did I discover Roissy and the attendant truths of sexual realism. Now, Roissy fashions himself a Game theorist, but he strays from the more PC adages of that cohort by gleefully couching his advice in amoral terms. Reading Roissy, you don't get field tested theory on body language or openers; you get the unvarnished truths of womanhood, the solipsism, the speciousness, and even the endearing idiosyncrasies.
But should one present Roissy-type analysis as the initial gambit for those stuck in the Matrix? Is his analysis too much all at once? Will the incipient anti-PC mind recoil at such an honest and controversial expression of truth?
The most "trouble" I've ever gotten into online was when I supported the notion that women actually like to be abused. Feminists blame the "confounding" behavior of abuse victims on patriarchy and this rather odd control abusive men have over women. For some reason, a reason feminists can not properly articulate besides interspersing their point with terms like "misogyny" and "small penis", abusive men seem to put a spell on their women. Now in the case of wives, there are external circumstances, primarily economic, that would explain why so many abused women keep returning, but why then do so many abused girlfriends return?
A new study says such positive feelings are quite common:
A new study by researchers in Toronto and New York suggests that many who live with chronic psychological abuse still see certain positive traits in their abusers -- such as dependability and being affectionate -- which may partly explain why they stay.In other words, despite getting beat up, women still like these men. As I stated above, I've yet to hear a viable argument besides feminist cacophony concerning the patriarchy and such. But the red pill takers know why: women like social dominance above all else and still hold affection towards dominant men even if that dominance manifests in violence. Physical abuse is the ultimate expression of dominance and women actually sort of like it. Of course, as a society we must understand this truth and do our best to oppose it through cultural and political initiatives, lest we endure the ramifications.
But a considerable number of women felt their abusive male partners still possessed some good qualities: more than half (54%) saw their partners as highly dependable, while one in five (21%) felt the men in their lives possessed significant positive traits (i.e., being affectionate).
Based on the survey findings, the researchers divided the male abusers into three groups: "Dependable, yet abusive" men (44% of the sample) had the lowest scores for controlling and generally violent behaviors, and the highest scores for dependability and positive traits.
Back to the gradual descent into the rabbit hole, imagine a possible convert learning this truth about women. Imagine the pristine image of women being undermined. Can he handle such a devastating blow to the prevailing wisdom? I mean, this isn't merely "play hard to get", this is "beating your wife might make her love you more." I'm not sure, but those that intend to spread anti-PC truths should understand this in attempting to win over others.
[Note: I don't advocate domestic abuse at all; instead, I merely understand that it illustrates a fundamental truth of female sexual attraction.]
34 comments:
There are certain topics that just have no upside.
"Hitler wasn't as bad as everything thinks", that's one of them.
"Women like to be pushed around a little bit", that is another.
I think the closest you can possibly come to this third rail, is something like "women don't really like nice guys", or "chicks respect a man who doesn't put up with their crap".
Anything beyond that, and you will come off as creepy and dangerous.
What about women who aren't in abusive relationships? Maybe it would be more accurate to say, some women like abuse and others don't. Why draw conclusions about all women, based on women in abusive relationships?
Why do battered men stay in those relationships? One could write a satirical post to show men like being slapped around, but it's not worth the trouble.
Some men do like being slapped around -- the internet contains ample proof of that.
One thing that I've found is that accurate knowledge of my own sexual nature makes me less likely to be led astray. I can say "I'm sexually attracted to this girl because she is hot -- i.e., has facial symmetry, a certain waist-to-hip ratio, etc. Don't get stupid!"
By the same token, if women understand WHY they stay in an abusive relationship -- it triggers something in their sexual psyche -- they may be able to think more rationally about the tradeoffs involved.
Nor does the fact that women -- some women at least -- kind of like it mean that we shouldn't have social norms and legal rules against it. In fact, it might actually strengthen the argument for such legal and social rules.
The study is based on a survey of ghetto black women with AIDS (45% are HIV+, and the average income is $300 per month), and much of the reported abuse is "emotional abuse." I wouldn't read too much into this...
Lots of these abusive relationships are made up of co-dependent people and the combat strategies are simply different; the women are verbally and mentally abusive, the men lash out in their own way.
Of course, some people take it to extremes and that's when the cops get called. Otherwise it's just a symbiotic relationship.
Drama, the adrenaline rush of drama is addictive and lots of folks seem to like it. I personally think they're off-kilter but I'm not in charge of other people's lives. It's spawned a pretty big industry though, plenty of people employed as counselors, advocates, academics, those who do yet another study, etc.
First of all - there should be nothing wrong with engaging with this topic. So I'm glad that you and social scientists are exploring it. True, the reactionary feminists will attack - so what? The 1960's school feminists are nothing if not predictable.
The dander of discussing this is in attracting those that want to use these findings to further their own misogynist views - they happily engage in the naturalistic fallacy and seek to make moral claims derived from the alleged innateness of this behavior.
Your earlier commenters made plausible explanations - codependence is a very common dynamic that goes a long way towards an explanation - as does the idea that this is just an extreme amongst a range of behaviors, the other side of which is women leaving abusive partners.
However I wouldn't write off taking the women in the study at their word - it's possible that for them the cost-benefit analysis favors them staying with the abuser due to some other traits he possesses - particularly in light of the other choices the woman may have given environment, class, etc.
There certainly be other, more marginal explanations that account for some of the behavior. Think about some Stockholm Syndrome like behavior.
I might say that male power was ultimately founded a hundred thousand years ago due their superior strength, physical dominance, and ability to rape.
I might even say that the vast history of males killing rivals and physically dragging females back to their caves to rape them was the standard operating procedure to procreate.
And I just might say that over the course of human evolution and natural and sexual selection, that women become more inclined to historically prefer abusive and dominant mates?
Maybe this is why there are so many women with rape fantasies? This is why women love jerks and keep going back to their abusive boyfriends?
But I was just thinking that. I would never SAY such politically incorrect thoughts.
Thoughts?
The anti-violence-against-women social milieu in which we American men swim in is nothing but a club to make all men guilty of SOMETHING just because they are men. It's no different than Holocaust indoctrination in schools. It's about installing the guilt matrix. Because Christians are all about killing Jews and men are all about beating women.
Hate to say it but a sound culture doesn't get its panties in a bunch because a woman gets smacked around. Seriously. You smack a woman, it's over the next day. But this misandry bubble is a nonstop torture chamber. The idiocy. The government. The lies.
Free America. Smack a woman today.
"Maybe it would be more accurate to say, some women like abuse and others don't"
Yeah, that is what Roissy says. A third go for alphas no matter what. A third are attracted, but it's tempered by reason. And a third actively avoid them.
Who, exactly, are these women who stay with their physically abusive men?
Most of the 611 women surveyed for the research study were African American. Their average age was 35 years; nearly half had children under age 18; and 47% had not completed their high school education.
Nearly three-quarters of the study cohort were poor, with a per capita family income of less than $300 (US) per month. Forty-five percent were currently HIV-positive.
Almost half of those surveyed (45%) reported that their male partners had experienced serious problems with the law, had been arrested for a violent offense, and had been in jail. Nine percent of the women reported that their intimate partners were both problem drinkers and used intravenous/street/prescription
That's exactly the women I would have predicted. Do no try smack down game with women with options.
This example is typical of "evidence" in the Manoshere. Do not address the methodology, not the subpopulation, not the methods of data collection. Just read a pop culture remix headline and twist it to fit ones' most denigrating description of women.
"women like social dominance above all else"
Thats a good succinct point a man can teach his son in adolescence.
We all have this intuition that females are more likely to fall in love with narcissistic, dominant males and we can recognize that in some cases these alpha traits are, in the subjects's mind, indistinguishable from an abusive personality. What you seem to be proposing here is that the latter corresponds to the rule, while the so called 'normal' women are deviant because of cultural factors - feminism and such.
That may or not be truth, and, lacking the empirical evidence, we may resort to evolutionary logic to prove the point.
That doesn't help for two reasons. First, evolutionary arguments are far from objective, since they are often based on huge assumptions and are seldom exclusive - one particular behavior can, and frequently does, have more than one evolutionary explanations. Second, it's really hard to tell nature from nurture and I'm not even sure it's a good thing to do. Culture is itself a product of human evolution and should not be neglected as a legitimate motivation and guide for human action.
That is to say: individual employment of Game tactics is reasonable since each is liable with his own libido for the choices one makes concerning the way to understand and handle women.
Objectively, there's not even a sketch of a valid argument here, being thus also reasonable to expect not only the feminists but society as a whole not to accept these 'elementary truths' on human behavior.
"women like social dominance above all else"
"Thats a good succinct point a man can teach his son in adolescence."
Moms can teach their sons that, too. I do.
The point is social dominance, not violence. Now, among naturally violent people, it is no surprise it is accompanied by violence. However social dominance doesn't require violence. It just requires assertiveness, competence, etc. Plenty of top dogs have never slapped a woman, despite being socially dominant. Wife beating is prole behavior. If he can't influence a woman without violence, he is not much of a leader.
Actually, I have had several female psychologists tell me over the years that it is very hard to diagnose passive/aggressive behavior in women due to the fact that women are, by nature, passive being. This, they explain goes to their biological nature.
There is also the whole Freudian (and biological aspect) that they are, sexually speaking, the receivers while men are the one's entering--the act of entering is itself an act of dominance and the act of receiving one of submission.
So, some women are simply more submissive than others, but all are submissive by nature.
OK so the study is horrible.
I shouldn't have been so trustworthy of an academic paper.
But the underlying conclusion is still apt even if the primary source of evidence in this post is extremely lacking.
(Is Latte Island back?!?)
But the underlying conclusion is still apt even if the primary source of evidence in this post is extremely lacking.
silliness like that only discredits you further.
Guys -- and gals -- let's try not to water this down. Women DO stay with men who abuse them, physically or otherwise, and they almost certainly do so for the reasons noted in this article: because at some primal, subconscious level, women equate aggression and violence with the quality they find most attractive in a man: dominance.
I suspect that that's why whenever the question of "why would a woman stay with a man who abuses her" comes up in public, women very quickly try to shift the focus of the discussion onto the (supposed) moral defects of the person raising the issue.
Failing that, they claim that asking the question is somehow "blaming the victim." No, ladies, it's not. It's just asking a simple, perfectly reasonable question.
But ducking the issue in one of these ways is a lot easier than acknowledging an uncomfortable truth.
My God people, why the hand-wringing? If the last 40 years have taught us anything it's that a few smacks to women along the way could have saved us a whole lot of grief. Who gives a crap if they like or not? The world they created SUCKS. PERIOD.
I've got a feeling smacking women when they got out of line used to be a fundamental part of Keeping the World in Line. That's why the Change Agents Against Truth (CAATs) found it necessary to launch a multi-billion dollar never-ending campaign against violence against women. It has more to do with the occasional bruised cheek.
No matter what, if somebody comes in the door with a gun, or lands on our shores, it's going to be the men who take the first hit. And for that responsibility damn it I'm taking the right to make the world as I see fit. And sorry men, that means keeping the women in line. And women know this. And they're grateful for it in the end.
Was it Kylie who was telling us about her abusive first husband? She must've loved that shit.
Mencius Moldbug described Ms. Island as "a racist Jewish woman" with a lot of integrity. Only with this post do I note that she once again has a public blog. (Dave the Kvetcher, Tribe of Ice, and Guy White are still all MIA or members-only blogs).
If you watch any interviews with Sean Connery he still has the old-time "hands-on" attitude towards "managing" his women. He'll just come right out and say "I don't see anything wrong with smacking them around a little bit once in a while." Of course, he'll try to backtrack almost immediately, but then he'll make similar comments a year or two later.
It's eye-opening.
Man you guys are dumb. Just because a significant number of low class black women in a survey still find some positive traits in the men who abuse them doesn’t mean that women like to be abused. No woman likes to be abused. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to see any positive traits whatsoever in their abuser. This is especially true if the women have low self esteem or are dependent on the men for food and shelter.
I wouldn’t expect any less from Roissyites. Your definition of a cad is any man who actually has a life and can show a woman a decent time instead of just going to work, coming home and going to bed at 8:00 every night. Somehow men who actually have lives are dangerous bad boys to you guys. You never mention the fact that men prefer women who can actually provide some excitement as well.
Oh, I am a total sieve-brain. I posted on latté island regarding Marine LePen barely a month ago. Then I forgot she existed all over again. I think this may mean that I am a patriarch and/or a men's rights activist. Also I could be a dirty ol' pickup artist.
(Naw just kidding, but I really did forget that I had rediscovered LI.)
The deep, dark secret is that men also respond well to 'abuse'. Passive-aggessive emotional manipulation works on both sexes, although women are more predisposed to passivity than men are.
Even if they weren't though, 'psychological abuse' would still work in controlling them as it works on men as well.
Love is Stockholme Syndrome.
Why do battered men stay in those relationships?
Battered men have obstacles women don't: they are not believed when they say they are abused; they are often the butt of jokes; they cannot gain custody of the children and sole occupancy of the household, thereby protecting the children from their mother, through allegations of abuse; when a battered man calls the police often it is he that will be arrested, due to "always arrest the man" policies pushed on police departments by domestic violence "experts".
This video is very fitting (and awesome)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsegTiuEoq8
If these are negro women than the results apply ONLY to them and cannot be generalized. They rate a "goot mayne" as one who is dependable. Obvioulsy they menan he actually provides a bit,here and there, for the baby.(Babies)I can just see Joe the IT guy coming home and bitch-slapping his wife around after reading this. ha ha ha ha !!!!
Whitey Whiteman, awesome video. Very apropos.
The fact that many women prefer jerks over "nice guys" makes clear the sociobiology that, by definition, invalidates feminism.
It was my dating experience in SoCal in the late 1980's that made clear to me that feminism was a null concept.
Steve Sailer said it succinctly went he pointed out that feminism does not work for heterosexual women.
> women like social dominance above
> all else and still hold affection
> towards dominant men even if that
> dominance manifests in violence.
I think that this explains why so many white women and comparatively efeminate "progressive" white men adore black ghetto thugs, treating them like precious little spotted owls or snail darters, and not the vicious feral overbreeding hyenas that they are.
"If these are negro women than the results apply ONLY to them and cannot be generalized. They rate a "goot mayne" as one who is dependable. Obvioulsy they menan he actually provides a bit,here and there, for the baby.(Babies)I can just see Joe the IT guy coming home and bitch-slapping his wife around after reading this. ha ha ha ha !!!!"
You're on to something here. Probably the supply of good black men is so limited black women are wiling to put up with more.
Not that ladies aren't attracted to thugs--there was pretty good reason for it back in the day. The preference seems a lot weaker in Asia, probably due to that part of the world's long history of urbanization.
Amen, Justin, and damn right.
STD or whoever, you are positively clueless. Emotionally dependent women are the ones who usually are in such relationships, and if evolution has anything to do with it, maybe it comes from years of their ancestors living with a horrible man they didn't have the ability to leave. In other words, yes: it would be partly a result of the asshole patriarchy.
Post a Comment