When a woman hears another woman say something, she doesn't think, "Is that true?" Nor does she think any kind of equivalent, nothing that could be steelmanned to true vs. false. She thinks, "Why did she say that?" Reality is irrelevant. It's all about subjective motivation. Whenever a woman says something, it's because she wants something. She has some self-absorbed goal she's trying to satisfy.
The problem is that women have very poor social skills. She's trying to manipulate you, but she's bad at manipulation. You can't just do the obvious thing. If you like her, you have to help her manipulate you. Have to figure out what she wants. Have to figure out the motivation behind her words. Then you have to transmute the words into something that would manipulate you into doing what she wants, then imagine she said that instead of what she actually said.
If you don't like her, you can say, "Ah, you're trying to get me to [x]." She will then deny it, which is how you know you're right. You then ignore her denial and announce your intention to not do it.
Some say this is training for children. Children are also self-absorbed, have no ability to and thus no interest in knowing the truth, and (unlike women) have deep, important cravings they need help to satisfy. They will try to manipulate you because they have no other option, but they haven't even hit puberty yet and are awful at manipulation. You have to help them manipulate you, or you functionally neglect your children.
Another theory states women are plain incompetent due to aeons of misbreeding. Bad arranged marriages. Women are in fact not trying to manipulate you. She hates it when she can manipulate you. She's trying to attempt to manipulate you and fail. If women were into boxing they would deliberately and only pick fights with guys twice their weight because they love getting beat up. Liking victory is masculine, thus liking defeat is feminine. [[[Polarity]]]. She loves being reminded that you are far more powerful than she is. The more forcefully she can make you remind her, short of permanent injury, the happier she is. Meaning, if she likes you, most of the time she's trying to manipulate you into getting into a conflict with her so you can win. The manipulation is incompetent on purpose. It's supposed to fail.
It would make sense that women would want to filter out mates that functionally neglect their children, but in mortals women don't get to choose their husbands except in the most degenerate societal hellholes. The filter should have no effect and hasn't for at least a million years.
You can tell it's dysgenic due to how incompatible mothers are with sons. She will try to manipulate him into getting into a fight with her so she will lose. Even 8-year-old males are more powerful than [[adult]] females. I just now said defeat is feminine, but it bears repeating.
He reads it as his mother being needy and, being a filial son, tries to fulfill her (semi) overtly stated needs. If the father doesn't protect the son from his mother, the son will become twisted, depraved, and weak. Self-hating and vulnerable to incompetent manipulation. An [incel]. She tries to make her manipulation even more obvious, he notices her needs aren't being met and thinks he was incompetently disobedient, so he doubles down...
Secondly, it never occurs to her to go meta. She could learn to manipulate men into wanting to get into conflict with her. She could bait men with manipulations they actually see through. She could use pavlovian conditioning to ensure men find winning against her rewarding. She doesn't, though. She triples down on making the incompetent manipulation sound sincere. She makes your victory as unpleasant for you as possible. Femoids are retards.
Thirdly, manipulating a man into making him win against her is sexual. When a mother tries to fail-manipulate her son she is flirting with him. All mothers do this if their husband doesn't prevent them. Utterly revolting.
No comments:
Post a Comment