I genuinely marvel that you can stay in this space for so long when nobody ever changes. Everyone complains they're not winning, while doing nothing to change. I could have felt sorry for her if she was one year in. And still had her job. But FOUR? And she made herself an unemployed dependent to a boyfriend? Girl, please.
It's odd, but the consistency gives me some comfort. No matter how bad things gets, you can always go back a decade and see the same chicken little sky is falling doom and gloom
I'll be honest here: things do change, but maybe not in the ways we might idealize. For me, the conditions of my upbringing could most charitably be called evangelical blue pill conditioning coupled with some genuinely horrific shit. At a point that I was struggling trying to understand why I wasn't getting the results I understood should have been reasonable by saying and doing the things I'd been told were the right things, I started exploring. Fairly quickly, I discovered Rollo, then Aaron, and then Rian. The stuff I learned from them helped my to contextualize the very gynocentric indoctrination I'd absorbed in my youth, dispense with the titanic amount of corollary assertions that attend the whole 'good man is servant leader' evangelical bullshit and so on. Anyway, I was asked a couple years ago if I'd rather be right or be happy as regards to trying to understand the true nature of modern intersexual dynamics. But that person never understood and still fails to understand that happiness wasn't the point nor that happiness cannot be the ultimate goal, that things just don't work like that. I was seeking genuine truth, congruent understanding, peace competency and contentment. Their work - Rollo Rian and Aaron - has been a path to those goals, and my quality of life has improved tremendously.
It’s a pretty good point about happiness. Ignorance is the only happiness. The truth is a burden and once you know it the only way you can be happy is to play the game to an absurd level or if you’re truly lucky find someone who you’re so compatible with that none of it matters anymore.
"So I guess the question for you, the reader is: do women have agency, or don’t they? Do they get to make decisions and have consequences, take calculated risks in who they date and hope to marry, and possibly get strung along? Or do they want some kind of soft sharia law where they are coddled before being passed from father to husband without any of the risk of making the wrong choice?"
I think this is beside the point, this particular round of discourse is about warning women, not shaming men. Women are exercising their agency as authorized.
A lot of people seem to have very little agency. They wander through life doing what other people tell them to do or what they think other people would do. NPCs.
I skimped over the linked article, didn't have the patience to read it thoroughly, but the impression I got is that the guy is retarded for discussing red pill topics with a woman, and she's retarded for sticking so long with a retard. They deserve each other, match made in heaven. Wish them luck.
My ex wife strung me along knowing I wanted kids and eventually I kicked her out and had kids with two other females and they too fucked around on me. Now I seek the technology to have more children but without a female cause I won't be used again for as you say I have agency.
Truth/fact... Those are tools. Happiness is only ever temporary. Contentment? (Not as a pejorative substitute for stagnation) Equanimity? Those are the real goals. And they can never be possible if your mental model of the world is constantly crashing against reality. As as far as truth's real utility? I think Sun Tzu said it best: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every Victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you will succumb in every battle.
1. I don't recall Helen using the term abuse? It is manipulation, though, if the story is accurate. If he were a real man that loved her he'd have wifed her up already. Now he's moving goalposts. (If the story is accuracte.)
2. You're forgetting sunk cost fallacy. Asking, "Why doesn't she just leave?" Or, "Why didn't she leave after a year?" is like asking, "Why do you keep pouring money into this lemon car when you could sell it?" Humans are wired for long-term investment, and it takes a lot to get them to scrap it. Add on the oxytocin attachment and the fact that she's built her life around this guy, and of course it's hard to leave. She's asking Helen Roy because she has a nagging feeling already that she should, but leaving a live-in relationship is very very hard.
3. Abuse that doesn’t meet legal standards is still abuse. This rigid stance opens the door for all kinds of foul play to get whitewashed. There's abuse you can prosecute and there's abuse you can't but is grounds for divorce even in conservative Christian circles. Not all abuse is the same level of evil. We can be adults about this.
We kind of agree then. She made a choice. She prioritized things and has the consequences of it. we've all been there.
As for the abuse stuff, that's mostly the people commenting. Emilie in Paris had a lot to get off her chest e.g. and used the word liberally. I didn't write this to dissect her or Helen, but moreso the audience.
I get it. I also wish people understood the potential consequences of shacking up before doing it. It's easy to slide into a shack-up, and slide out of financial independence (a job), without any of the requirements and commitments that marriage demands. You can just blame it on love and convenience. Any reasonable older woman would tell her not to give up the job, and if the boyfriend demanded it, to make it a deal-breaker.
Like I've said, make Christian sexual ethics great again.
The little mermaid loses her voice (and can't walk on land), handless girl is self explanatory, Cinderella is worked by her step mother and not allowed to the ball, etc.
A maiden must integrate the masculine to become a mother. She will be saved by the prince (a psychological allegory). She will prick her finger on the spinning wheel and come to conscious by pain. She will marry as the death of the maiden. And beginning of motherhood.
This is the proper development of female agency. But it is limited by women's evolved role as child carers. Women generally require more resources than they can produce.
Just as a foetus parasitises her life blood by placenta drilling into her arteries, she acts as a leech on a man, and other male kin. And a succubus to satisfy her dual mating strategy of enriching her children with bad boy alpha DNA by cuckolding her beta provider.
So do women have agency?
The only way to come to consciousness is through pain. So give them responsibility and you'll get psychological and moral development.
But generally girls sprout secondary sexual characteristics as a teen and stop moral development.
They top out at Erikson's identity formation psychological level as teens. Hence never know who they are and have identity disturbance.
They top out at Kohlberg's good girl stage of moral development as an early teen and never go higher.
It just makes more sense as a strategy for them to manipulate instead of build character. Since male suitors immediately appear and fall over each other to compete to maintain her and take Daddy degree psychological responsibility of her external locus of control. It's like she has a play station controller and gives it to an owning father or husband to work her.
Sadly, female supremacist Marxism manipulates women to hate themselves and blow everything up. Feminist jurisprudence enforces their power over men. Men get the consequences. It's tyranny that's extincting us.
I genuinely marvel that you can stay in this space for so long when nobody ever changes. Everyone complains they're not winning, while doing nothing to change. I could have felt sorry for her if she was one year in. And still had her job. But FOUR? And she made herself an unemployed dependent to a boyfriend? Girl, please.
It's odd, but the consistency gives me some comfort. No matter how bad things gets, you can always go back a decade and see the same chicken little sky is falling doom and gloom
I'll be honest here: things do change, but maybe not in the ways we might idealize. For me, the conditions of my upbringing could most charitably be called evangelical blue pill conditioning coupled with some genuinely horrific shit. At a point that I was struggling trying to understand why I wasn't getting the results I understood should have been reasonable by saying and doing the things I'd been told were the right things, I started exploring. Fairly quickly, I discovered Rollo, then Aaron, and then Rian. The stuff I learned from them helped my to contextualize the very gynocentric indoctrination I'd absorbed in my youth, dispense with the titanic amount of corollary assertions that attend the whole 'good man is servant leader' evangelical bullshit and so on. Anyway, I was asked a couple years ago if I'd rather be right or be happy as regards to trying to understand the true nature of modern intersexual dynamics. But that person never understood and still fails to understand that happiness wasn't the point nor that happiness cannot be the ultimate goal, that things just don't work like that. I was seeking genuine truth, congruent understanding, peace competency and contentment. Their work - Rollo Rian and Aaron - has been a path to those goals, and my quality of life has improved tremendously.
It’s a pretty good point about happiness. Ignorance is the only happiness. The truth is a burden and once you know it the only way you can be happy is to play the game to an absurd level or if you’re truly lucky find someone who you’re so compatible with that none of it matters anymore.
"So I guess the question for you, the reader is: do women have agency, or don’t they? Do they get to make decisions and have consequences, take calculated risks in who they date and hope to marry, and possibly get strung along? Or do they want some kind of soft sharia law where they are coddled before being passed from father to husband without any of the risk of making the wrong choice?"
I think this is beside the point, this particular round of discourse is about warning women, not shaming men. Women are exercising their agency as authorized.
A lot of people seem to have very little agency. They wander through life doing what other people tell them to do or what they think other people would do. NPCs.
I skimped over the linked article, didn't have the patience to read it thoroughly, but the impression I got is that the guy is retarded for discussing red pill topics with a woman, and she's retarded for sticking so long with a retard. They deserve each other, match made in heaven. Wish them luck.
It’s a woman having baby rabies and everyone turning it into abuse.
My ex wife strung me along knowing I wanted kids and eventually I kicked her out and had kids with two other females and they too fucked around on me. Now I seek the technology to have more children but without a female cause I won't be used again for as you say I have agency.
Truth/fact... Those are tools. Happiness is only ever temporary. Contentment? (Not as a pejorative substitute for stagnation) Equanimity? Those are the real goals. And they can never be possible if your mental model of the world is constantly crashing against reality. As as far as truth's real utility? I think Sun Tzu said it best: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every Victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you will succumb in every battle.
Immediately thought the "letter" sounded fabricated by somebody with an axe to grind
I can't know for sure, but it's not uncommon
Surely someone as intelligent as her could figure out that she could always accept her agency & *propose marriage*?
Woe for the plague of 'Strong Independent Women who don't need no Agency'
1. I don't recall Helen using the term abuse? It is manipulation, though, if the story is accurate. If he were a real man that loved her he'd have wifed her up already. Now he's moving goalposts. (If the story is accuracte.)
2. You're forgetting sunk cost fallacy. Asking, "Why doesn't she just leave?" Or, "Why didn't she leave after a year?" is like asking, "Why do you keep pouring money into this lemon car when you could sell it?" Humans are wired for long-term investment, and it takes a lot to get them to scrap it. Add on the oxytocin attachment and the fact that she's built her life around this guy, and of course it's hard to leave. She's asking Helen Roy because she has a nagging feeling already that she should, but leaving a live-in relationship is very very hard.
3. Abuse that doesn’t meet legal standards is still abuse. This rigid stance opens the door for all kinds of foul play to get whitewashed. There's abuse you can prosecute and there's abuse you can't but is grounds for divorce even in conservative Christian circles. Not all abuse is the same level of evil. We can be adults about this.
We kind of agree then. She made a choice. She prioritized things and has the consequences of it. we've all been there.
As for the abuse stuff, that's mostly the people commenting. Emilie in Paris had a lot to get off her chest e.g. and used the word liberally. I didn't write this to dissect her or Helen, but moreso the audience.
I get it. I also wish people understood the potential consequences of shacking up before doing it. It's easy to slide into a shack-up, and slide out of financial independence (a job), without any of the requirements and commitments that marriage demands. You can just blame it on love and convenience. Any reasonable older woman would tell her not to give up the job, and if the boyfriend demanded it, to make it a deal-breaker.
Like I've said, make Christian sexual ethics great again.
One can hope
Fairy tales of girls lacking agency abound.
The little mermaid loses her voice (and can't walk on land), handless girl is self explanatory, Cinderella is worked by her step mother and not allowed to the ball, etc.
A maiden must integrate the masculine to become a mother. She will be saved by the prince (a psychological allegory). She will prick her finger on the spinning wheel and come to conscious by pain. She will marry as the death of the maiden. And beginning of motherhood.
This is the proper development of female agency. But it is limited by women's evolved role as child carers. Women generally require more resources than they can produce.
Just as a foetus parasitises her life blood by placenta drilling into her arteries, she acts as a leech on a man, and other male kin. And a succubus to satisfy her dual mating strategy of enriching her children with bad boy alpha DNA by cuckolding her beta provider.
So do women have agency?
The only way to come to consciousness is through pain. So give them responsibility and you'll get psychological and moral development.
But generally girls sprout secondary sexual characteristics as a teen and stop moral development.
They top out at Erikson's identity formation psychological level as teens. Hence never know who they are and have identity disturbance.
They top out at Kohlberg's good girl stage of moral development as an early teen and never go higher.
It just makes more sense as a strategy for them to manipulate instead of build character. Since male suitors immediately appear and fall over each other to compete to maintain her and take Daddy degree psychological responsibility of her external locus of control. It's like she has a play station controller and gives it to an owning father or husband to work her.
Sadly, female supremacist Marxism manipulates women to hate themselves and blow everything up. Feminist jurisprudence enforces their power over men. Men get the consequences. It's tyranny that's extincting us.
All women are on the BPD spectrum.