PATREON EXCLUSIVE (Full Video): Loyalty is not a feminine value
Added 2024-09-02 10:00:07 +0000 UTC
Comments
@E C - I'm deeply DEEPLY flattered. đ
Joseph Omega
2024-09-16 04:04:07 +0000 UTC@E C - Thanks for the frank admission -- the old @E C would just slip into reactive denial. I'm so proud of how far you've come lately!
Joseph Omega
2024-09-16 04:00:41 +0000 UTC@E C - Was that a "yes" out a "no"?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-16 03:51:04 +0000 UTC@E C - I would not recommend her either -- I was primarilly interested in the comment. Do you agree or disagree with it?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-16 03:07:48 +0000 UTC@E C - Much. đ
Joseph Omega
2024-09-16 03:02:35 +0000 UTCI recently found this TRULY inspired quote under a Pearl YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAjwnuiHmhU): "A man will sacrifice his own happiness for his family. A woman will sacrifice her own family for her happiness" - @lander77477
Joseph Omega
2024-09-14 23:17:34 +0000 UTC@E C - Which meaning did you have in mind: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cleave#:~:text=Cleave%2C%20a%20verb%2C%20has%20two,sticking%20to%20something%20like%20glue.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-12 18:48:46 +0000 UTCkinda had the same ngl
Raphael
2024-09-12 04:49:54 +0000 UTC@E C - It DOES take some time, effort and patience to coax ChatGPT to come to its senses and be balanced and reasonable. Sound familiar? One can almost say "endothermic".
Joseph Omega
2024-09-12 03:56:18 +0000 UTC@Joseph - I agree with pretty much everything you said. I agree about the female susceptibility to social contagion. Iâve even seen it in some family members. We might be seeing the advent of a new technology to combat the excesses of the radicals. I had heard over the past few years that things like ChatGPT were getting infused with a healthy dose of feminism and wokeness. But you have shown that even when the answers may start out that way, you can just continue to ask questions; and somehow the technology chooses facts, logic, and wisdom to come out with the right conclusions. There may still be hopeâŠ
Eric Linden
2024-09-10 05:53:46 +0000 UTC@E C - I only recently started using this metaphor following the posting of what @Eric Linden calls "E C's Smallville clip". I thoroughly enjoyed your article on the Chemistry of Relationships. I get the impression that you concluded from it that Exothermic = good, Endothermic = bad by way of relationships. I can see why you would immediately gather this, but I hope you also got the implied caveat that, in SOME (if not MANY) cases, Endothermic reactions have GREAT benefit especially in the INITIAL creation and structuring of relationships. Consider this metaphor: Though combustible materials like oil and coal, when consumed, result in low energy (high stability) products when oxidized (burned), you have to remember the great effort and sacrifice that someone, somewhere and at some time ago (like the ancient carboniferous flora and fauna that created the fossil fuels in the first place) made UNDER HIGHLY ENDOTHERMIC CONDITIONS. Sacrifice, at SOME point, is always ALWAYS key to relationship success. PS. Happy to hear that you have been "red pilled for some time now". Does this mean your once uncompromising commitment to fanatical Feministic ideology has finally passed its zenith? Dare I hope?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-10 05:48:49 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - I agree that men have tended to assume that women thought like them for much of human history, but the converse is ALSO true: That women have tended to assume that men thought like them for much of human history as well. But a VERY key word here is "tended". In so-called "healthy" relationships, the man and woman instinctually seem to know and accept that the other is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT agent (although the temptation is always there -- especially under "trying times" -- to lapse into forgetfulness). And yes, I agree that men have traditionally always tended overwhelmingly to be the "true romantics", yet the PRIMARY focus, clientele, consumers or objects of their "romance" has ALWAYS been women: https://chatgpt.com/share/d65c0b32-a492-435c-af25-de0e262174f1 The way you so casually and continually refer to the video as "E C's Smallville clip", seems to illustrate how NATURAL this understanding is for all of us. And yes, times may have changed, but (especially gendered) human nature seems not to have much, even among devout and otherwise commited Feminists. As you say, go figure. Men "hating on women" is just as inherently self-defeating as women "hating on men", but at the risk of sounding unduly juvenile "THEY started it": Feminism was ALWAYS a conceptually bankrupt ideology, based as it was, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, on the premise that women have historically and traditionally been LESS INFLUENTIAL than men in the development of functional societies, thereby INSULTINGLY discounting the very real and POTENT effect of "soft power". This exchange with ChatGPT may be a little longer than my usual, but you may find its narrative trajectory to be of significant interest on this topic: https://chatgpt.com/share/094b808d-10ba-4561-92e2-dcb52dd5a727 The Internet has just (hopefully temporally) fed the particularly female susceptibility to "social contagion". My hope is that SOON some new generation (and technology) will REBEL (as they naturally tend to do) against the excesses of those that recently came to ascendance, and destroy the Feminist cancer BEFORE it kills its "Western" host.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-10 05:23:11 +0000 UTC@Joseph - I think a perfect relationship has both partners releasing and taking in energy equally. Of course there is no perfect relationship. But if there were, they would each constantly give off their own energy, and take in their partnerâs energy at the same time.
Eric Linden
2024-09-10 05:08:23 +0000 UTC@Joseph - The endothermic vs. exothermic analogy does work well. I agree that modern feminists have ruined TV and movies by taking the romance - like in E C's Smallville clip - out of everything new. However, it's the RADICAL feminists that have done it. They have moved up the corporate ladder and taken over in media and politics. Many women THINK they align with modern 4th wave feminism, but would actually swoon when watching E C's Smallville clip. Go figure... Modern women do virtue signal. Their concept of love and loyalty is different than ours - conditional vs. unconditional. Men are the true romantics. But some of that isn't just modern women; it's always been that way. The internet has brought it out in the open. Men didn't know 20 years ago. If only I had known when I was younger. But hating on women isn't the answer. Were they really trying to hide it all this time? Was there a conspiracy? No. We are all just discovering that the opposite sex has thought differently about things all this time. They thought we saw things like they do. Knowing how the other team thinks is a good thing. For all the negative things about the internet and technology, this is one good thing.
Eric Linden
2024-09-10 03:27:01 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - I never watched that many episodes of Smallville, but the "Chemistries" often involved in heroic tales (such as for superheroes and in the classic fairytales) usually are, BY FAR, the most engaging when involving the relationswhip between males and females. This is among the very ESSENCE of "Romance", a concept currently frowned at by modern Feminists -- so everything from Snow White to Barbie is now subject to "girl boss" logic and sentiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsKaK4SJNI All the evidence seems to suggest that modern women FAR MORE prefer to VIRTUE SIGNAL love, than to ACTUALLY succumb to its "romance" as in times past. Still, and I know you've seen this before, but posting again here for anyone else interested: https://youtu.be/GFMHX1eBmAg?t=179 PS. How would YOU personally interpret/apply the concepts of endothermic vs. exothermic reactions to HUMAN Chemistries?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-10 00:16:52 +0000 UTCGotta say I love that clip from Smallville. Wish we had shows like that today. If I had seen that episode back then, I would have been hooked. Also liked the endothermic vs. exothermic reactions/interactions.
Eric Linden
2024-09-09 14:29:53 +0000 UTC@E C - Well, as far as CHEMISTRY is concerned, there are TWO main types of interactions: https://chatgpt.com/share/c8f84721-5503-4b0f-a28e-e7a66186eb75 It is usually QUITE easy to tell one type from the other. But, let me leave you with this for tonight (meaning, give yourself AT LEAST 12 hours BEFORE responding): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x3Lhg3j4oc
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 07:07:53 +0000 UTC@E C - Oy vey ... đ€Šââïž Now it may be time for ME to let YOU "cool off" (sans blocking, of course).
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 03:46:41 +0000 UTC@E C - Alas, that's what words DO. Hence the importance of watching what you say BEFORE you say it.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 03:37:20 +0000 UTC@E C - But it was YOU who taught me the difference between being "nice" and being "kind", with the latter more consistent with "stoic strength" (e.g., "tough love"). Did I misunderstand?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 03:30:50 +0000 UTC@E C - "Nice"? I assure you, that was COMPLETELY unintentional.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 03:21:16 +0000 UTC@E C - Au contraire, more than ever now I believe you have become a LOT stronger of late. Relapses notwithstanding.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 03:14:38 +0000 UTC@E C - Oh REALLY?! đČ I thought you were just off throwing a tantrum. Glad to know that I have been proven wrong. It never even OCCURED to me that you would EVER think that a "stoic" would need to "cool off". PS. Have you unblocked your other nemeses as well?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-09 03:00:13 +0000 UTCSome of the points about loyalty. I see how 3 of the women Iâve had relationships with, had few old friends and at the same time they werenât loyal. There does seem to be a correlation there
Mack T
2024-09-09 00:27:26 +0000 UTCThat theory assumes the winning army was aking them
Mihai Bratulescu
2024-09-08 01:26:41 +0000 UTC@Peter - Can you better clarify that to which you disagree about "loyalty" in either my or ChatGPT's comments? Though I think I understand the sentiment to "not discount a woman's ability for loyalty", I remain unconvinced that the usage of the term across genders is entirely the same: If a woman's loyalty is to "her emotions", then this seems to CLEARLY represent to me a "loyalty to [an aspect of] ONESELF" -- I get trouble seeing any other interpretation -- which VERY FEW men I know would recognize as in any way consistent with their OWN interpretation of the meaning of the word. However, I ENTIRELY agree that it is unhealthy to "engage with the narrative 'women are inherently inferior and selfserving und untrustworthy'â. If you got that impression from anytihg I said, I would like to clearly dispel that perception -- you must have heard me say often enough, words to the effect that "men and women are perfetly equivalent" (in the original meaning of the word that "equivalent = equal in VALUE or STRENGTH or WORTH": https://chatgpt.com/share/20634de5-2a92-4c44-bdd2-e56db323efa7). And as humans, women are no more or less INHERENTLY "selfserving and untrustworthy" than men -- but much depends on the CONTEXT, as men and women have quite distinct strengths and weaknesses, and hence exhibit "selfless and trustworthy" characteristics under differing environmental conditions: Men in CLASSIC "loyalty" mode can largely be depended on to "keep their promises" given to people, causes or principles despite even logic or circumstance, whereas women in CLASSIC "empathy" mode can largely be depended on to "show compassion" to individuals often despite even logic or circumstance. And yes, I can WELL understand the burden you describe of adopting the negative narratives often spewed by many in the Incel and MGTOW communities in their anger and frustrations -- I would not enjoy that either. We are a DIMORPHIC species DESIGNED to work together as a seamless team, but never forget our genders are often DISTINCTLY different in operational effect.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-07 20:41:53 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - Though I agree in principle that "facts are facts" and that women are not inherently inferior, I'm not at all convinced that if a majority of any group see things a certain way at a certain point in time, that these things cannot still be a "defect". Have you ever heard the ironic aphorism: "One million Frenchmen can not be wrong"? Social contagions, more often than not, lead to VERY negative and harmful opinions, ESPECIALLY those spawned by Feminist ideologies. Also, keep in mind that these VERY opinions, currently held as popular, were considered QUITE the OPPOSITE for the VAST majority of human history by BOTH sexes -- if they were considered defects back then, there is very little to suggest they are no longer to be considered defects today, despite their current popularity. Keep in mind what we all know, that women are DISPROPORTIONATELY succeptable to social contagions. As such, it seems VERY logical and prudent to adopt a goal of first discovering the flaws in a system prior to accepting its precepts as gospel. Also, as you know, I am NOT a fan of "affirmation therapy" so, in my opinion, if the goal of understanding people does not include ANY effort to address any identified and proven defects, then one has failed in one's responsibility to genuinely help them. "Helping them to understand" is certainly ONE way, but it is not the ONLY one. This is particularly evident when dealing with young children -- "Western" culture's response to the rather obvious phenomenon of "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria" represents a particularly egrecious case of "parental neglect" at a societal level.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-07 18:42:55 +0000 UTCI know this was a response to the other much longer comment. Appreciate the discussion đ€
Peter
2024-09-07 05:20:57 +0000 UTC@Alisha - Thank you for elaborating! This REALLY explains a lot! I agree with your assessments of the nature (and trajectory) of normal relationships. Coupled with your earlier descriptions of your childhood environment (both the nature AND conditions under which you were raised), I conclude that, contrary to many MANY others of your age group (ESPECIALLY women), you are no stranger to both hardship AND responsibility, which has "pre-tested" you (or "pre-stressed" you, to use the engineering expression) for life's challenges. I detect suprisingly little (if any) of the "sense of victimization and entitlement" seemingly inherent in modern women weened on "Western" Feminist Ideology. From your previous comments and postings, I also detect a high degree of "emotional regulation", consistent with your ability to consciously and consistently OVERRIDE your natural emotional instincts (as evidenced by "I didnât think positively of him and it took a lot of efforts to control my temper with him"). Also, from what you have described of yourself so far, as well as the way you have conducted yourself in conversations here on the Patreon, both Alexander and I (as well as many or MOST subscribers here) would likely be inclined to assess you as one of those rare "high-quality women", capable of blending both Feminity and Loyalty (male defintion) into one singular resilient package -- the very stereotypical (via Hollywood) image of a "Strong Scottish Highand Woman" (or a "Frontier Woman" in the North American context). For the meanings of a couple of my references, see: https://chatgpt.com/share/49de19e3-a290-45f8-a604-9970dcfd5afe PS. The only thing I did not understand was the "sorry to be that person" that prefaced your posting. Perhaps it was not important to the rest of your message.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-06 20:31:26 +0000 UTCWomen arenât inferior or untrustworthy or self serving in general. Some are, yes. But some men are as well. The goal isnât to discover what is wrong with the opposite sex. The goal is to understand how they see things differently, and to understand why. If the majority of them see things certain way, how can that be a defect? Too many of us want to change other people. Understanding them and helping them to understand us is a better goal.
Eric Linden
2024-09-06 16:33:12 +0000 UTCCan you trust women? Which ever answer you just thought of now . Perhaps that is a litmus test for how far along your journey you are. Food for thought . Iâm not actually asking you to tell me.
Peter
2024-09-06 13:12:14 +0000 UTC@Joseph sorry to be that person but it really depends on how you define positive feelings, obviously when most relationships start out there is the honeymoon period where everything feels amazing and then eventually it tapers off, some people brake up at that point because they like the strong positive feelings too much and feel like the natural state of just feeling at peace in a relationship feels wrong or not passionate enough for them. Iâve felt contented for all of my relationship most of the time apart from the semi long distance times that lasted two years and when we first moved in together he did no housework and we were both at uni and I worked more hours than him (his parents gave him a monthly allowance) so it did cause a few fallouts at the start of us moving in together (we were 17 and 18). I admit at this point I didnât think positively of him and it took a lot of efforts to control my temper with him. This is no longer an issue in our relationship. I think the reason it affected me was because we moved in together and there was no proper discusssion of who is going to do what and then things wouldnât get done and I would assume it was up to me. After we both really sat down and discussed a fair arrangement with the housework and other duties it was all resolved in the end, it seems to be a common reason for couples falling out xxx
Alisha
2024-09-06 08:38:00 +0000 UTC@E C - In your neverending efforts to SIMPlify in this Patreon, may I point out this video from one of your favourite YouTubers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtF3cCp3GDY ? Update: Great! The fact that you deleted your post SO quickly suggests that my message was received LOUD AND CLEAR. đ
Joseph Omega
2024-09-06 05:00:57 +0000 UTCEdited for clarity but not contents i donât know how healthy it is to engage with the narrative â women are inherently inferior and selfserving und untrustworthy â Nor do I know if itâs actually true. For arguments sake, There are definitely women out there, maybe even a large portion, where that maybe true . That they are fundamentally snakes out to get you.. Not having experienced much healthy , I mean truly healthy, connections to people. (not only were the circles I ran in a bit of a haven for some manner of messed up people. Meaning that they by definition of being around me we werenât in the healthiest of places. I wasnât in the healthiest of places and therefore a mutual healthy relationship by definition wasnât even possibleâŠ) At times I do get swept up in some version of the narrative ( If you perceive that you have been kicked a lot, itâs sort of rational to think that there might be a bit of latent anger or salty feelings . Iâm not saying itâs right. Iâm just saying I can understand it ) but i recognise engaging with someone, when that is the underlying and unspoken premise of the interaction,. i could not bond to a person i feel that way towards. it would be a constant burden in the back of my mind. I would never let my guard down and that for me goes against real inner peace If im in a healthy place to genuinely connect with someone. To meet someone on the same level. As just said in the sentence before the same level, I need to be healthy myself too. Maybe you can do both. be in a healthy contented place for yourself and still have that baseline distrust of a woman. I think, if i were always on edge and on my toes around someone that says a lot⊠And I wonder how much i will be my authentic unburdened self⊠strong in that inner peace. Also, if my general feeling towards an entire sex is that of distrust and resentment and fear and condescension ⊠I donât know if I am in a healthy enough place to be able to interact with them in a way conducive to producing a healthy relationship. A meal cooked with disgusting ingredients doesnât really have a good chance of turning out yummy . Just one ingredient might put off the entire dish.
Peter
2024-09-06 03:35:04 +0000 UTC@Joseph Omega , ChatGPT ok right Loyalty: no not really. Saying I meant that would not be true to the original statement. If I changed course then I could say so. The tldr:â i think one shouldnât discount a womanâs ability for loyalty â Further i donât know how healthy it is to engage with the narrative â women are inherently inferior and selfserving und untrustworthy â There are definitely women, maybe even a large portion where that maybe true I get swept up in some version of the narrative but i recognise engaging with someone with that as the underlying and unspoken premise that i could not bond with that. And it feels its a constant burden in the back of my mind. You never let your guard down and that for me goes against real inner peace It breeds a resentment in me. Iâm not sure if that is the honest feelings I have towards someone. If im in a healthy place to genuinely connect with someone. To meet someone on the same level. Maybe you can do both But I donât know if i could .
Peter
2024-09-06 03:34:47 +0000 UTC@Peter - Yes, I provided ChatGPT with the transcripts to BOTH videos.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-05 19:21:39 +0000 UTC@Peter - Perhaps when you call a particular woman "emotionly HEALTHY", you are referring to an "emotionally HAPPY" woman? Implying that the "loyalty" you see may ACTUALLY again be just their being "true to their feelings"?
Joseph Omega
2024-09-05 19:20:47 +0000 UTCInteresting and now I have to rewatch both. Did you provide gpt with both video links?
Peter
2024-09-04 04:10:01 +0000 UTC@Eric Lindner. Hmm i watched the dr o talk again and I had forgotten the caviat stipulation of âwhile she is 11/10 attracted to himâ Yes loyalty to their feelings is probably the majority Anna jorgensson and stastics.: Maybe there has been a shift in recent times. Maybe previously women only took care of the husband because it was socially demanded of a woman to be subservient. Maybe it was not out of choice.. now where more women feel liberated from any consequences. They are able to their emotional impulses without hindrance. Those cases where the man gets help too late was that clearly because the spouse hampered efforts to get help? Or was it perhaps something like pride or ego to push through? Perhaps in my comment, I should have specified that emotionly healthy women can be loyal. Apparently, emotionally healthy humane women are a minority and the attribute of loyalty should only be applied to those If that is the case and I am far too aware of the unrepresentative nature of personal observations. And the tendency to carry a negative bias as well as the group being sampled being in some sort of bubble. Do you have any references. I would be curious to. Either way the supposed virtue of universal self sacrifice that men have to carry is unfair inhumane and irrational. Rational loyalty, not blind loyalty should be applied to everything except maybe your own children . Men should advocate for themselves . Never ever letting a woman stand between him and his health. If he is feeling some kind of way he should seek help. And if she hampers him in any way, He should divorce himself from her right there and then. Well maybe offer a 1 strike leniency. For that moment she has truly shown you in times of need you donât need her . Just thinking it already makes me angry . Intolerable!
Peter
2024-09-04 04:06:54 +0000 UTC@Peter - So, if I understand Dr. Taraban correctly, a woman is, in effect, loyal to HERSELF, while men are loyal to OTHERS? Certainly SEEMS a variant of the defintion of "loyalty" to which I am accustomed. Not sure why bother to use the word "loyalty" at all though. I decided to ask our friendly neighborhood oracle, ChatGPT: "Applying the term 'loyalty' to one's own feelings can be somewhat unconventional, as loyalty traditionally refers to a commitment or allegiance to someone or something external, such as a person, group, or cause. Loyalty usually implies a relationship or duty to something outside oneself. "When someone is described as being 'loyal to their feelings,' it may be more accurate to say they are 'true to their feelings' or 'authentic to themselves.' The idea here is that they prioritize their emotions and personal truth over external commitments or obligations." ME: The expressions "true to their feelings" or "authentic to themselves" indeed DO sound rather female, I'd grant you that. ChatGPT went on to compare Alexander's and Dr. Taraban's conceptualizations: "Both Dr. Tarabanâs and Alexander Grace's videos explore the concept of loyalty through a gendered lens, but they do so with different tones and conclusions. Dr. Taraban takes a seemingly more balanced and constructive approach, emphasizing understanding and mutual learning, while Alexander Grace adopts a more critical and cautionary stance, particularly toward womenâs loyalty in relationships. Both agree on the differences in how loyalty is experienced by men and women, but they diverge in their interpretations and the implications for relationships. "However, Dr. Tarabanâs redefinition of 'loyalty' to include loyalty to oneâs feelings may weaken the logical and reasonable foundations of his argument. While his approach seeks to promote harmony and mutual understanding, this reinterpretation could be seen as a compromise in logical rigor and clarity. In comparison, Alexander Graceâs stricter adherence to traditional definitions might be viewed as more logically consistent and reasonable, particularly for those who prefer clear and precise arguments."
Joseph Omega
2024-09-03 21:12:06 +0000 UTCThey are saying the same thing. For women it is more a temporary, emotional loyalty. Once her man is no longer on a pedestal, the loyalty is over. No thick and thin, better, worse, richer, poorer. To men, that is not loyalty. Also, you are wrong about women being there for men when they are old or sick. Women like Anna Jorgensen have been telling us that for years, and weâve been buying it. When women have a heart attack or stroke at home, men take charge and get them help. When it happens to men, women tell them they complain too much and belittle them. If you worked in healthcare like me, you would see it. Too many men donât get the help they need until itâs too late.
Eric Linden
2024-09-03 15:08:23 +0000 UTChttps://youtu.be/5EIpRGPH6Ns?si=7UTCZnq5nUz0OIhN Dr. Orion Taraban from @psychacks
Peter
2024-09-03 14:14:12 +0000 UTCI havenât watched the video yet so this comment might be mute, but I would think that there is a binary to loyalty in women itâs not a fluid distribution, well may it is but with strong groupings towards the extremes You get those people who are high on novelty requirements are they not going to be loyal? But then you have women on the other extreme Once theyâve chosen a man, they will stick by that man if he has lost at sea for 10 years they will stick by that man , they will move city country and continent to be with that man, they will change their religion to be that man. A lot of women will take care of their husbands in their old age for years and years.. or even think about that lady from nasa that wanted to see her man and she drove across the country wearing diapers that she didnât need to stop the car ever.. And statistically, I know that if a woman gets sick men are more likely to leave then the other way round(I find the statistic hard to believe myself but hey) Anna Jorgensen speaks about this when describing her own mother and sticking with her father . Dr. Orion Taraban has a short talk specifically about this. That some women are crazy loyal. Letâs see what this video Alex says
Peter
2024-09-03 14:10:25 +0000 UTCI think Alexander needs to elaborate a bit more on what he thinks "rational and sensible" loyalty -- presumably the only kind to expect from and look for in a woman -- ACTUALLY looks like, and how is it different from the ("irrational and senseless"?) loyalty that men exhibit. In addition, to me, there is a GLARING and DISTURBING similarity between the "Be true to yourself" EXCUSE ("convenience") of WOMEN expressed in THIS video and the "Be nice to yourself" ADVICE given to MEN expressed in the PREVIOUS video (on "Nice guys").
Joseph Omega
2024-09-03 06:25:05 +0000 UTCA woman who stays at a job long term and gives notice when quitting. A woman who has elementary school friends, high school friends, and current friends. These women are more likely to be loyal. A woman who gets a new dog or cat before the current one dies. Less likely to be loyal and stick it out for better or worse; for richer or poorer.
Eric Linden
2024-09-02 23:10:44 +0000 UTC@toto bibi - Yes indeed. đ
Joseph Omega
2024-09-02 22:19:09 +0000 UTC@Hyperion - Again, surprisingly well said! Agree đŻ%!
Joseph Omega
2024-09-02 22:17:20 +0000 UTC@Eric Linden - Every single attribute you list as quintessentially male is đŻ% correct, as well as the conclusions and implications for leadership in intergender relationships. However, I WOULD be rather hesitant to ascribe the assessment of either 100% absolute superiority to them -- they are just rather UNIQUE to masculinity. As a DIMORPHIC species, it takes more than just one set of moral and intellectual skills to manage the reality and totality of life and existence. Females (as "boats") possess EQUALLY valid and useful skillsets in their sensitivity to emotional environments, as well as their ability to adapt to COMPLELELY ALIEN mindsets, such as comes in handy when BERTHING to and adopting the rules associated with BRAND NEW "islands", as well as in BIRTHING and management of BRAND NEW "islands" (AND even "boats") to be their own independently functioning agencies. In essence, the very CONCEPT of the elevation of "virtues" themselves as "superior" may be inadvertently prejudicial. Expecting women to hold and revere MALE values as we would ourselves may not be either fair nor advisable. A "high-value man" and a "high-value woman" may necessitate different standards. When WOMEN claim that MEN are "afraid of commitment", they are being STRICTLY correct, as MEN "think twice" before entering into such relationships as opposed to how totally alien the very CONCEPT of "commitment" is to them (women). The irony is that women seem COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to their remarkable lack of commitment even while berating men for their fears of it.
Joseph Omega
2024-09-02 22:11:33 +0000 UTCHistories are more full of examples of the fidelity towards men of dogs than of women. Women are loyal only to her emotions and offspring. Accept female nature for what it is, as you would other species.
Hyperion
2024-09-02 21:52:27 +0000 UTCWouldn't the leader be loyal to his country by sacrificing to win the battle? By the same token, husbands, fathers, and sons make sacrifices for their wives, kids, and extended families due to loyalty. It is a virtue, it is smart, and it aims to achieve a good outcome for those around them.
Eric Linden
2024-09-02 20:12:41 +0000 UTCWomen i.e. child bearers are to always prioritize their offspring and their own survival first for the sake of our species. A sexualised man-woman relationship is biologically a protector-protegee relationship, even if only potential. Therefore according to Nature, a woman's loyalty is to stop where concerns for her own and children safety begin since otherwise it would nullify anyway the reason why she is with that man to begin with. A female mate is not a buddy but the one who pays you the fee for the protection you provide through her body. If it comes that her safety requires lack of "loyalty", a man can only blame himself for failing in his protection role.
toto bibi
2024-09-02 19:40:08 +0000 UTCSingle dads - 5 rules. Strict enforcement. Single moms - 300 rules. Enforced occasionally, sporadically, and randomly.
Eric Linden
2024-09-02 19:26:06 +0000 UTCThat sounds really off. I am a man and I NEVER understood how anyone could ever be loyal. Like it's complete lunacy. You are loyal to your country until the evidence requires you not to be. The only reason Nazis were even possible is because of men turning off their brains and being "loyal". Loyalty = Stupidity. And indeed I always thought this was a female trait, because it is actually irrational and stupid. It makes no sense whatsoever. There is no loyalty just as there is no unconditional love. If the trade doesn't work out in your favour, you attempt to fix it and if it can't be fixed you move on. Simple as that. I don't think this has anything to do with being feminine and masculine, but rather with intelligence. Loyal people are stupid. Is my only explanation. And generally women are smarter, and probably thus less loyal on average. Men scatter much more across the gauss curve and there are more stupid men than there are stupid women and more smart men than there are smart women. This is likely the explanation for this relatively low skew of loyalty. Same as honour. Honour is another sign of stupidity that you will find a lot more among men than in women. Isn't it obvious? Most soldiers are loyal and honourable and soldiers generally are stupid by design, if they weren't stupid they wouldn't be good at this job. It's something even the military knows which is why they don't even hire you if you are "too smart". In fact loyalty actively clashes with other masculine traits and undermines them. Loyalty and honour cause bad decision making and bad outcomes in general for the individual and everyone around them. This is why only front-line soldiers are stupid. The officers and generals actually need to be disloyal. They need to make decision to sacrifice entire battalions or even tens of thousands or millions of people on a whim. This is something you can not do if you are loyal or honourable. You need to be highly rational and make decisions detached from any of that.
Mara
2024-09-02 18:01:55 +0000 UTCLoyalty, history, commitment, honor, logic, standards, consequences, teamwork, integrity. All things men care about more than women. Virtues. Men are dedicated to working through a conflict. Women are more likely to throw in the towel. This is why, in most relationships, men need to be the leader.
Eric Linden
2024-09-02 10:44:04 +0000 UTC
