The Delusion of feminists pt2: Why they dont understand Feminine is actually good

It is a source of nearly endless hypocrisy that ‘feminism’ despite its clear bias in the movement’s name has little to do with equality or as the focus of this post being ‘feminine’.  Because being feminine is the complete antithesis to ‘feminism’ despite the very close sounding name.  Feminism is saddled with a strange mission of further female advantage, but meanwhile exterminating what it means to be female.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2012/10/24/can-feminine-women-make-it-to-the-top/ < the article boils down to ‘yes especially compared to overly masculine woman, but must show occasional “masculine” traits to be super successful’

What I really wanted to mention today was I have seen a lot of women on these type of blogs wonder how they can attract a good man.  I will spell it out, because it is very simple despite what feminists want you to think:

Act nice: No one wants a snarky bitch.  No guy worth anything wants a girl that constantly insinuates insults or complaints.  Tell us we look like we have been working out, tell us good job on that last thing we did.  Surprise us with something.

Dont talk just because your feminist inflated ego says you should: No one wants a ‘strong woman with strong opinions’ no, that is a complete feminist creation.  If you actually understand what is being discussed then your opinion is valid, but far far to often ‘liberated’ girls inject opinions into nothing they have any clue about.  Just because you are a girl you are not an expert in everything, and we do not need to hear your opinion.

I was discussing the merits of germany’s military decisions in world war 2 with someone else who understood history, how the breaking of the cease fire between USSR and germany affected the war.  A very nuanced discussion, to which a woman nearby us injects ‘but they were killing we had to step in.’  Never mind I was not even talking about America.  The break in the conversation was obvious, and she was forced to continue her emotional appeals ‘well its wrong to let people kill people right?’

Dress and look like a girl:  It is okay to wear a dress.  In fact most guys LIKE dresses/skirts.  I know feminism has demonized the dress, but just because they tell you its subjugation doesnt mean it is.  Short hair is a guy thing.  Long hair looks great on girls.  When guys see short hair it gives up a lot of bad clues about you.

Feminist? Not a doubt.

Look good and be fit: These matter.  The first can be controlled by more than first glance.  Have clean, combed hair for example, there is nothing sexy about a ‘liberated’ girl with dirty hair, especially girls with dreads.  My god what a waste.  Working out will put you at the 75th percentile or higher of females looks simply because of obesity.

Know how to cook: One of the ‘joys’ of feminism has been the utter eradication of woman knowing how to cook.  If you are a girl, learn how to cook, or if you can, cook food for guys, there is hardly a faster way to get them interested.  If you are a guy, find one who can.

 

I gave a lot of examples, even a girl doing a SINGLE one of things would be a welcome change in this fucked up world created by feminism.

https://eruditeknight.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/the-delusion-of-feminists-pt1/

Flower or ribbons in hair = large bonus points

 

Situational vs true alpha

This is something that has not been clarified to much among the usage of the term alpha vs beta.  There was a big debate about when general petraeus was found cheating with a women not really that hot.  A lot called him beta, and a lot defended him as a ‘leader of men’.

He is beta.  Obama is beta.  All of these ‘leaders’ are what I call ‘situational alphas’.  Just because someone is in a roll that is powerful is by no means an indication that this person someone is that way.  As an easy counter example take any of these so called alphas and throw them into a position their gilded life has not prepared them for, and watch them crumble.

Could you imagine obama in an intercity (without recognition of who he is) trying to get by?  Would he even become ‘leader’ of the local gang?  Not a chance.  He would be hiding and keeping his head down like everyone else.  Or how about patraeus that arguably never saw real combat, and his single mission: to occupy the countries we are currently in- has been on the largest military failures in recent history.  Even beyond the game he was raised in, would he stand a chance at bar, a local construction site, anywhere ‘normal’ people congregate and not be utterly laughed at?

In my mind a true alpha is not a guy who can pull any girl he wants.  While that indeed may be a side effect, is it NOT the end all be all.  A true alpha is someone adaptable, someone that will dominate ANY position he is in.  Especially in this economy it is possible to find true alphas working at this job or that job.  There is only one president, and only a few generals.

Further, jobs like the president, despite claims to the contrary, are really open to a very very select few who are groomed from an early age for their gilded lifestyle path.  Generally it is an undergraduate in economics followed by a law degree from a place like harvard. ALL major politics have followed this path, from obama, to ‘bussiness man’ romney, to pretty boy pau ryan.  When trapped in the bubble it is very hard to learn any adapting skills.

Swap obama and patraeus with some true alpha out there and the learning curve for the alpha will be much shorter than the reality shock of O and P realizing their power came from their posistion – and nothing to do with themselves.

Think a fake alpha would survive a real collapse?

Why truth hurts

Humans in our present state suffer from not wanting to know the truth unless one of a few things occurred in their life to make them want to pursue it.  It is a psychological phenomenon known as ‘cognitive bias’  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias).  Unless you take steps to rid yourself of this, you will never see things as they are.

The wiki is long as they usually are, but it comes down to this, we think one way, and even in the face of evidence our minds literally blank over that evidence or downplay it to the point that it simply isnt true.  It ultimately is a form of ego preservation as well as a form of reality control.  Because if at any moment something you thought you believed all your life was even considered to be wrong your mind would throw you into a tailspin and you could not function normally.  Kind of what would happen if feminists realized what they espouse has nothing to do with equality and will destroy our culture completely. (https://eruditeknight.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/feminists-do-not-understand-implications/)

What cognitive bias causes though is very insidious.  We have things like politics (which for the record I think are an utter farce, but I will talk about it later) where democrats and republicans have legitimate arguments they bring up to the other, but irregardless of which fact or which side the paradigm follows: ‘good fact 1 presented’ > cognitive bias literally does not understand implication and blanks this fact person 2’s mind> person 2: ‘counter fact 1 presented> cognitive bias blanks implications> ad nauseum

Anyone who argues politics knows exactly what I am talking about. Feminists are even worse because they have much much more ‘skin in the game’ so to say.  If their victim ideology was revealed to be the truth that it victimizes man why giving vast advantages to women their world view would fall apart.

The steps you can take to help lower your own CB are some of the following…and why most people, feminists especially will never cure themselves and allow themselves to see the truth.  The first is truly believing there is a ‘chance’ you might be wrong.  One of the most effective belief systems I have come up with in my own life is ‘I believe x,y,z, but show me sufficient evidence to the contrary and I will switch.’ And actually doing such.

I still shutter to this day recalling that my  BPD ex-girl friend once told me that of all the guys she knew, I was one of the few who understood feminists.  Disgusting.  If she could see me now her statement would be correct in a much different way, I am one of the few males who ‘understands feminists’- but in a way that would make her shriek in anger.

If you have children raise them to question everything.  They should respect authority if they deserve it, not simply because they are authority.  I would fully expect my kids to challenge teachers on ideology spewed as truth.  ‘You tell me I should girls need all these laws…but why exactly?’

Read things you do not agree with.  I know it is very hard to not get angry, or to just laugh.  But merely the exposure will broaden your horizons.

 

Lastly, I would say in general if you ever held a position, and now hold a different side to the issue you are probably on the right track, because it shows a willingness to change and you are looking at facts rather than just emotional appeals.

 

Until next time, keep your thoughts tranquil and pure

 

Get it through your head: Relationships are auxiliary to your life at best

A lot of people may wonder why I chose the name Knight when there is a lot of hate on ‘White knighting’.  I am not a defender of white knights, they have been destroyed by feminism taking advantage of it.  What I do want to defend though is the idea of a cultured man holding himself to a higher standard, THAT is the Knight I stand for.  A part of being a Knight is being self sufficient, and is this modern world, it is told to you you cannot ‘be successful’ without a woman at your side.

I point to things like the inconceivability of a President running who is not married.  The very idea carries so much baggage to the average trash on america’s streets that it will never happen.  ‘Oh something must bewrongwith him’.  This is not just males either, an accomplished female of 40+ running for president and is not married would be subject to different but similar ridicule.

Are relationships great?  Yes.  But they are also addicting and destructive.  There is a reason ‘unhappily married’ is a understood term.  I ask you to look at your friends in relationships, how many have a good relationships?  If it is higher than 1/5 that is pretty good.

The problem is we have been collectively fed this lie that you are not ‘complete’ without the other.  What is interesting is that as I illustrated with the president, neither sex could win without ‘the other’, but in general a single women who is successful without a man in her life is treated like some sort of living martyr of ‘how hard she must have worked to where she is today’ whereas a single successful man is ‘what is wrong with him, he must suck in bed’.  Male or female though…you do not need anyone else in your life to be successful, whether that is happy, a millionaire etc.

This was a very hard lesson for me to learn, I had gone through life without a relationship for a while, and when I was in one the magic was amazing.  What I did not know was the insidious effects it has on one’s mind.  Starting to ‘live’ for the other was something I succumbed to, and I see in so many others.

Your mind must be a tireless beacon of focus and stability.  Life itself is hard enough, when drama and games begin as they almost inevitability do, unless you have done your work beforehand you will be consumed.  You will find yourself among the ‘unhappily’ married or in a relationship where you are not getting what you want.  I have a lot of good male friends that were awesome bachelors, ‘stallions’ so to say, now utterly degraded by females that somehow wormed their way in and changed them into something they will come to despise.

A relationship is something that should ONLY benefit you.  There should be no downside, or any downside should be vastly outweighed by the perks you are getting.  There is nothing wrong with going it alone.  In fact you need the strength from going it alone to be able to be strong enough to leave bad relationships.

The strength must always come from within

The delusion of feminists pt1

I am sure there will be a lot of these ‘delusions’ posts, here is the first.

http://jezebel.com/5971265/5-ways-itll-suck-even-harder-to-be-a-teenage-girl-on-the-internet-in-2013?utm_source=jezebel.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation

‘Ways it will suck even harder’  This demonstrates a perfect example of the delusion of females in this brave new world.  First is the implication it ‘sucks’ to begin with, and that somehow this cruel world to females is going to get even worse.

I am utterly convinced that if the average girl was forced to live the life of an average guy for 1 month she would like commit suicide out of depression.  No one would pay attention to ‘him’ no would cares about anything ‘he’ does, his phone would never ring, his facebook posts would go unliked and uncommented.  To anyone reading this, you inevitably probably get it, women do nothing and get huge accolades dumped on them, take any facebook post of inane ranting and likes and comments follow.  I am not on facebook but I have seen and been told that for males it is the exact opposite meaning thoughtful comments and picture get no response unless its another male.

(from link)’ it’s exponentially more traumatizing to go through puberty these days thanks to social media’

The ‘traumas’ females go through are much different than males.  A female might be traumatized by some comment someone makes, a male will be constantly traumatized by either loneliness, being picked on etc.

Women in general unless they grew up in a male household have very little clue to the world around them.  It does not even register that you havent talked to them in a week, a month, a year etc unless you are at the top of their list.  Becoming the top of their list suddenly the world is different, they ‘care’ about you. You get texts, you get calls, compared to the early world it is mindblowing.

See, this is where the differences really shine.  Girls have been given everything they wanted their whole life, thus a male buying flowers, commenting on photos etc does not except likely lower your value in her eyes.  But when you have demonstrated value and you are ‘what she cant have’ it sends her into a tailspin.  Girls have so little practice with patience, denial and so on you see them for the children they often are.  Here is something they WANT BUT CAN NOT HAVE, and to their untrained minds they are unable to handle what is logically not a good conclusion.  Thus we have hot women returning over and over to abusers or chasing that aloof male that is always so mean to her, while her ‘bestest friend ever’ wonders why he has never even kissed her despite how nice he is to her.

 

 

Does clothing provoke rape?

Here is a story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252955/Rape-provoking-miniskirts-crop-tops-banned-king-Swaziland-offenders-facing-months-jail.html?ICO=most_read_module

where ‘sexy’ clothing is being banned for provoking rape.  What I am struck by is that his article takes a very condescending tone that ‘no way clothing provokes rape, look at these african savages’ type tone.  The article is framed in such a way that we get enjoyment out of how ‘backwards’ they are.

(from story) “The tiny beaded dress worn when maidens dance semi-naked for the autocratic King Mswati III does not fall foul of the new law” This is not an unbiased statement at all, from the words ‘tiny’ ‘seminaked’ etc helps demonstrate the articles slant.

Here is a high rated comment: “Anything which makes you less of a target for depraved men is a positive”  So we have this half truth where this poster agrees with the no sexy clothing but it is still under the guise of feminist-centric thinking.  ‘Depraved’ men.  As if men can not be anything else.

The widely accepted falsehood of ‘clothing does not provoke rape’ is a very bad feminist convention.  Essentially it boils down to this: ‘I can wear whatever I want and it has zero effect on males around me.’  With a subtext of ‘If i get raped it was going to happen anyway regardless of my clothes, because thats just how males are.’

If you think about this for a moment it becomes clear why this cognitive dissonance occurs: one of women’s primary drives is to provide safety and provisioning.  Thus a belief that her choices do not hurt her fulfills that first roll of safety, if the world can be changed to one less choice she faces in the same of safety, it will be done.

As a result we have this dystopic country of ‘slut walks’ and girls with short dresses claiming a ‘real man’ isnt effected by such things.

 

A ‘real man’ would see her for the beauty within

Intermittent reinforcement on girls – the key to success

A simple lesson a lot of people fail to understand in relationship dynamics, and especially male/female dynamics is the idea of not always being there.  Planned or unintentional absence is a HUGE BOON to relationships and should be used often.

So many people, take the stereo typical ‘beta male’ he showers the girl with endless, unremitting attention.  He either then stays in this constant orbiter position never allowed to progress closer to the inner sanctum, or attempts to force his way in and gets ‘lets just be friends’.

This does two major things when someone endless is ‘there for you’ and showers attention.  The first is that this person begins to be taken granted.  ‘Oh he is always there for me, but I havent heard from jack in a while…’  In truth even if you were granted this much mental space it would be surprising.  It is because if you always give attention you become part of the scenery that is expected to be there.  The second is that as a male, this establishes your position in her mind for a high degree of permanency.  You become the ‘friend she can always count on’ -namely the one she will cry to after being pumped and dumped by some other guy.  Thus when you decide ‘Ive shown her how great I am, time to make a move!’disgust fills her face and a response ‘oh…I thought we were just friends…’

Girls have two slots in their mind with guys: guys they are friends with, and guys they will have sex with.  Being emotionally available gets you in category 1 very, very fast.  You cannot jump from 1 to 2 very easily if at all.

Intermittent reinforcement

In psychology there is a proven behavior pattern that is related to intermittent reinforcement.  I.R. is essentially if something is only occasionally available you will seek it much more readily and possibly to the death compared to something always there.  Catch the similarities to dating/relationships already?

If on a slot machine every time you pull you win: WIN, WIN WIN WIN, this is great, but now next time you pull, LOSE, hmm, you pull again, LOSE, LOSE LOSE, well this machine must be broke and you move onto something else.  You move onto a new machine, LOSE, LOSE LOSE LOSE, screw this machine.  Now you get to the third, LOSE, WIN, LOSE LOSE WIN, WIN LOSE.  No pattern.  Just when you are about to give up you win, hooking you in again.

This is a demonstrably fact, when you only occasionally ‘win’ at anything it keeps you around much, much longer.  Addicting you.  That’s why there are hundreds of old people plugged into slot machines.  But this applies to everything.

I had a BPD girlfriend that subconsciously did this, and almost utterly ruined me.  I would not hear from her for a few days, I would gather up strength and ‘finally be done with her!’ but then like clockwork in a few days it would be ‘hi~ miss you~!’ and I would spiral down again.  The fact I ever escaped I hold as a good achievement in my life.

This was over a year ago and I have since learned this lesson well, applying it to girls I bother with even talking to now.  Here was a response from a girl I sexted hard then went silent for days:

‘You drive me insane when you dont talk to me you know that?’

Planned absence is a very useful move in all your social interactions.  Only occasionally reward those you deal with.

Only occasionally