Tags
Children
Okay last time we left off with a comment about some mothers wanting or having the urge to kill their new born babies - we were discussing how girls do not have as in-depth of feelings or attachment as men have. Meaning, girls basic biology is self-preservation mainly due to the child rearing needed for her to succeed. Rotating partners to procure offspring from a dominate male naturally defuse deep attachments to her sexual partner in order for her to sleep around in hopes to get knocked up. For this same very reason her evolution of her emotions have evolved to become deceptive and detached from her inner being – seducing or making herself attractive to the alpha males, making the provider males feel loved or cherished in order to help protect the child and herself. Historical evolution has led girls to use her feminine traits for self-preservation only. Her affections evolved over time to appear only on the surface, and would need to be able to change at the first sign of danger, loss of child(ren), loss of alpha seeds or lack of alpha males, loss of provider or tribe. She must ensure that she fulfills the only true deep urges she has – to bear children.
The urge to kill her newborns is not common, but does occur throughout history. In China they will purposely do it with girl babies because girls can’t carry on the family name, and they aren’t as useful in warfare or farming (oh yeah and that one child policy.). But historically, over time, there is a more truthful reason that the majority of these urges come from. From Psychology Wiki:
A number of academics attribute it, both modern and historical, to psychological inability to raise children. Contemporary data suggests that modern filicide is sometimes brought about by a psychological unreadiness to raise children.[How to reference and link to summary or text] It could also be exacerbated by schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. It is also attributed, in some cases, to the desire of unwed, underage parents to conceal their sexual relations and/or avoid the responsibility of childrearing
To conceal their sexual relations… or as I am guessing, to conceal their cuckholdery or failed cuckholdery. Women who slept with an alpha in order to garner the best genes for her offspring plop out an infant that looks like the beta provider she was trying to cuckhold. Her urge is to kill the thing. Why? They say the bond between mother and baby is the strongest bond in the world. Why would this matter? The bond is only strong if it’s the child she desired. If it is not, it is a repulsive burden. If she let’s it live, it will be harassed with her spite for its entire growing up phase.
A child may be loved by its mother unconditionally, but only if it benefits her. So yes, the child she wants, will receive unconditional love. The spite comes in when the child is a bitter reminder of her inability to procure her desired seed. She will have the feeling of a failure of a woman.
The child to a girl is a placard of herself to be shown to the world, a direct result of the highest quality genes she was able to have deposited in her. Her and the children are no longer separate entities, the children are the extension of her. In truth a woman is not complete until she has children. A boy with an alpha, sexy kid to procreate with the most females, a girl, a biological extension of her to procure the highest alpha she can get.
Men on the other hand, their children are their legacy. He wants them to be the best they can be, carry on traditions of the family, or to carry on the nobility he partakes on them. His affection for them runs deep, he is the fierce protector of them, he cares about their development of them as people, prepares them for the world that he knows exists on a wider plane than girls do. He understands the world as it is, that it is not for his personal enjoyment, but something larger, something to give to. His self-esteem is based not on what he is, but what he does, it is not how his kids look, or perform, but how capable they are to contribute to society. A man bonds with his kids as human beings with a new set of attributes and traits – he wants them to be better than he was, he wants them to surpass him. No man will ever be good enough for his little girl, in fact the more alpha the more he will protect her from him – a boy will become something transcendent of him – a potential that he could not fill. He will want them to be better than the couple that birthed them.
Girls cannot help but be what there are, no more than men can be. Biology speaks for itself, girls evolved out of necessary to be selfish and subversive. Using the only powers she has to ensure she procreates and her children will survive.
She may have friends, they may seem to do everything with one another and tell her friends everything, but her relationships with other girls is undermined by her fierce competition with every other girl. She will not hesitate to cast her friends aside, or scratch their eyes out if there is an alpha competing for her and her friends affections.
To be continued…
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Alluring Edition
Biological self survival is easier then popping out kids and needing to kill them if they don’t kill you in the process of forming and pushing them out. The chick with no kids will always be more attractive then the one who had some and killed them.
Don’t read too much evolutionary biology and uncritically accept it. Our ancestors didn’t know or care about gentics. They didn’t know what triats would eventually be desirable, attractive, or defective (remember not all traits are detectable). Mating is a crap shoot and always will be.
Farming has historically been womans work until men invented machines to supposedly make it easier thus accumulate wealth and create vast in equalities ever since. Woman have a long history of being both useful in warfare and the prize of warfare. Men are most insecure when they feel useless, therefore the need to belittle woman and their ablities. Populations are easily reconstituted with few men hence why they can be spared in war much more readily then woman.
Psychology …hysterical as usual. Anyone who deviates too much from norms of the society is damaged and ill. Never mind questioning who it benifits to have childern, then you might act in your own interest. While a support society I also support peoples right to make decisions to their own benifit that doesn’t harm society. If I personally choose not to have childern society will not crumble tomorrow.
His self-esteem is based not on what he is, but what he does
Did you just admit man don’t care about their inner character but what they can ‘do’? Terrible can be useful but they are still terrible people( psycopaths). Useless people can still be great people (retards for example). Do correct me if I misinterpeted what you were stating in that sentence.
Cuckold doesn’t have an h in it. I like this series of posts.
You know Robert, you make me think I am a man..
I find some of your truths a bit one-sided.
“Dominate” is a verb, you meant “dominant.”
ENDING misogyny in boys and men EVERYWHERE
Anon @ “first”:
you must be intentionally trying to NOT understand.
Don’t read too much evolutionary biology and uncritically accept it. Our ancestors didn’t know or care about gentics. They didn’t know what triats would eventually be desirable, attractive, or defective (remember not all traits are detectable). Mating is a crap shoot and always will be.
Traits are not “detectable” as you mean it – IE, we cannot SEE the trait with our eyes – but the basic traits that are “desirable” are those that denote fitness – muscularity in males, for example; firm butts (both sexes); wide hips in females; supple, transluscent skin (females); broad shoulders (men); etc. Think about it – while “health” isn’t broadcast, we LOOK better when we eat a healthy diet, get good exercise and sleep, and aren’t stressed out of our minds. Secondary sexual characteristics are triggered by hormones; hence, neotonous trends in females, and larger size in males.
You don’t SEE that she’s got good genetics – you see evidence OF good genetics and good upbringing. (Note also that an aggressive shrew can manifest that aggressiveness – evidence of high testosterone or mental imbalance – despite a good upbringing – but she’ll soon LOOK aggressive, and possibly ugly due to picking fights, even if she wins.)
And BY DEFINITION, the traits that survive are “selected for.” In a Safe, Cushy society … Puffy-nippled stick-figure males can still get women. In a survival scenario? Not so much. In a cushy society, with law enforcement and moral codes, an aggressive, cantankerous, nasty, brutish woman is still able to cruise the bars and bring home drunk men. Survival situation? Nasty, bigger, stronger male (or even female) bashes the bitch’s brains out of her skull, and no one thinks twice. (See how the traits BECOME detectable…? And selecting for certain traits over centuries = “animal husbandry” or “selective breeding” by definition…)
Some things ARE visible – jaundice, for example, is a symptom of a bad liver, or disease. Cataracts indicate blindness indicate bad eyes indicate poor survival genetics. An inablity to STFU means you starve to death, or get beaten to death by the neighboring tribes.
What survives is, by definition, DESIRABLE. It’s only in a society of comfort and plenty that we can afford to be less selective. Where we feminize males and masculinize females. Make a mess of the whole thing.
Farming has historically been womans work until men invented machines
**COUGH** BULLSHIT!
Farming took multiple people – often men first, then draft animals. Without a draft animal? Woman can pull the plow – but she cant get it into the ground to till the soil. (I asked the same thing a while back.)
to supposedly make it easier thus accumulate wealth and create vast in equalities ever since.
You’d argue that the horse or ox and plow made it harder? Ok, Ok, i’m INTENTIONALLY confused to mock you. The machines are not a SOURCE of wealth; they allow ONE man to do what required HUNDREDS before. They save LABOR. Marxist term LABOR = HUMAN CAPITAL. Means LABORERS. (And the accumulation of wealth part is correct, in so far as that goes, but neglects the financial capital investment required to put things together – buy land, buy machines, buy seed, etc.) Inequalities actually on matter when we talk about machines instead of people. Before the machines, no man could manage the sort of farms we see these days – even those who came close employed workers by the hundreds at least (exaggerating slightly). The inequality comes from OUR envy. But that’s another story – talk to an immigrant Indian for good information, they’ll explain why there are office boys to do such trivial things as adjust the A/C knob in the boss’s office. No joke. (And it’s because that way the boy has a job, which feeds the family. Same as sweatshop labor – we demand nike close the factory so those poor overworked, underpaid slaves can go back to STARVING TO DEATH… Ooops!)
Woman have a long history of being both useful
Sorry, known too many – mom, sister, cousins, aunts, friends, grandmothers (and even when they were “useful” it came with a price.)
in warfare and the prize of warfare.
In warfare? This is feminist miseducation at its finest. Molly Pitcher and the Maid of Orleans notwithstanding, women didn’t do the fighting and dying. They followed the Alphas (at all strata) – cooks, seamstresses, nurses, assistants, whores. they weren’t might Amazons beating evil patriarchs at every turn.
The prize of warfare? Less so these days, though true even in the US “civil war” (War of northern aggression seems more accurate any more, as I learn more. Or, war of enforced association, maybe even better.)
Men are most insecure when they feel useless,
True. Also makes men malleable, keeps them fighting for the Apex Alpha spot. the fight is more important than the result, as it keeps most of the rabble FIGHTING. Note the women are not engaged in this fight; they just sit back and let the victor “win” them. The insecurity drives men to do more, and better, and strive – which attracts female attention… and the cycle keeps going until plague, war, famine, religion, civilization, whatever slows it down.
therefore the need to belittle woman and their ablities.
Other than the ability to give birth, suckle that new mouth, and nag a man to death, I have yet to see any abilities. An my mother was a professional ballerina, on Lincoln Center Stage, Prima Ballerina. As in, one of THE names, back in “the day”. Mikhail Baryshnikov was a friend, first-name basis, get the idea? Lotte Berk? Etc. But useful to society, as in irreplaceable? Sorry, no. (And one of the worst things in the world is to have a toxic mother. but that’s another story. Suffice to say, I know the hatred women feel for men, ALL men, because it started young, even with a woman who was “happily married”.)
Populations are easily reconstituted with few men hence why they can be spared in war much more readily then woman.
Actually, women aren’t much more important until the disparity is so great that the population is teetering on the brink anyway. Numerically, this argument sounds great; in reality, not so much. 1 man and 99 women sounds like it would work – but he still has to FEED those 198 mouths, and he alone can’t do it, even with the women’s help (say, tending fishing lines and snares.) Some will die in childbirth; some will break a leg; children will wander off, get eaten, drown, fall and die; things happen. Disease, too, will be rampant. That society will likely snuff out. OTOH, 25 women and 10 men could do fairly well – the “extra” men can handle things while the women are unable to move. (Genetically, the society may still die out, but odds of survival are at least better for a few generations due to extra hands and strength.)
Further, a woman can’t compete with a man TODAY, when women are encouraged to work out, and men are discouraged from working out (en masse; jocks will, and men enjoy physical work more than women, plus sports are often male-oriented due to combat natures involved: throwing a football or baseball is analogous to throwing a spear, for example, making it ritualized combat.) But even a female bodybuilder or crossfit enthusiast can’t compete with the majority of men. She hits me 5 times, I look at her, bearpaw her ONCE… She’s down. I outwight most women by 50-100 pounds, and even at my 30% body fat – it’s too big a force multiplier for her to overcome. Add in such designs as armor, swords, axes, maces, staves, flails, etc – let alone the 50+ pounds of old musekts – it wasn’t until the era of lightweight, reliable handguns that women became CAPABLE of inflicting massive harm on someone three times their size. Be realistic! There’s a reason more women tend to be poisoners, for example.
Let alone a Spartan shield, spear, and sword combo. woman as archer? sure. Protected by infantry. Infantry protected by cavalry or chariots or cannons. But most women didn’t have a TASTE for war anyway. though, i’d guess from the rest of this, you’ll say they were SOCIALIZED into being non-warriors….?
Moving on, as to your disiniterest in having children, and your assertion that society won’t fall: True, as it stands. Spartan women weren’t seen as women unless they had children. I’d wager most other females had similar conditions, in Greece, Rome, Russia, Japan, china, Sweden, et al. It’s the ONE thing men CANNOT do, after all – and what makes a woman MOST valuable. Doesn’t mean women are dumb, incompetent, incapable, useless, etc (that’s really a modern phenomenon of instant communication of trivia with the mindless narcisisstic masses). Women have simply ascribed to the culture of narcism more readily (men are catching up.)
But that omits something else: Males were not seen as MEN until they had a wife and children! It wasn’t a WOMAN-ONLY thing; propagating the civiliztion was seen as EVERYONE’S duty. Male AND female.
Lastly, self-esteem. Woman’s Self-Esteem: I AM GODDESS, SERVE ME.
Man’s self-esteem: I can hunt, dress the meat, and feed my family. Damn, I’m good!
See the difference? HE can DO SOMETHING; She merely IS. She has the pussy, so she is SPECIAL. He has to WORK to feel good about himself. And he is workign to take care of OTHERS – the FAMILY – which women USED to do. Now, they’re too busy paying the nanny to watch the children, or leaving the child on his/her own with a TV babysitter, while they go do “what’s important.” (Might include such truly important things as buying dinner – but often includes such life-affirming activities as girls’ night out, coffee at starbucks, shopping trips, boffing the mailman… No accountability, you see…)
Please, in future: Make sure BRAIN is engaged before opening mouth.
Your post reinforces the truth that all womanizers/puas/losers have to have a prerequiste, and that is a very low opinion of the opposite sex. Spiritually and emotionally constipated men incapable of rowing into mature human beings become successful pussy suckers and mother fuckers!