NapoliPizzaPie
Banned
-
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2021
- Posts
- 233
Today I was trying to rationalize the way men and women perceive the world - I was reflecting on the discussions I've read on the Purple Pill Debate subreddit, discussions between men and women on the nature of sex and relationships. One thing's for sure - there is a profound disconnect between men and women in the way they analyze values - morality, justice, importance, "goodness", "badness", love, etc., and have come to a conclusion that I would like you guys to discuss. None of this is verified or tested, but it's a theory I came up with while I was reflecting on these discussions.
And this disconnect is not something that is necessarily irrational. Both men and women seem perfectly rational in their value judgments, but it's just that men and women use that rationality in vastly different ways.
I think that men have psychological "anchors", usually events that occur during adolescence / childhood that defines who the individual is at a deep psychological level - these "anchors" are a product of one's environment, culture, social relationships among peers, literature exposure, religious exposure, hedonistic restriction, etc., and these "anchors" remain permanently imbued in the male psyche, from whence all perceptions and value judgments stem from. These anchors are "deep psychiatric" principles which the male uses when he calculates a judgement on something. If I make judgment on something, it needs to be compatible with this anchor, otherwise I feel as though I am violating some deep principle of what it means to be me.
As an example, I may have been raised in a Libertarian working class family, gone to a Catholic grade school, and read 1984 by Orwell when I was in 4th grade. That will fundamentally anchor me with a worldview in which strong government, the collective over the individual, and autocracy are "evil" that need to be avoided. A worldview where religion is viewed as a good. Additionally, this may lead me to value individual liberty in terms of morality, a sympathy to laize faire economics, and an ascetic form of love, life, etc that values platonic relationships over hedonistic relationships. All of this stems from this Libertarian - Catholic "anchor" that resonates in my psyche.
One of the things which men do when they analyze the world is not only interpret the world through these anchors, but they will try to look deep into the psyche of other human beings and determine what their anchor is. Men will look at a purple haired waitress at Applebees and make a snap judgment about her values, her core convictions, and who she is as an individual. It may very well be possible that this purple-haired waitress is actually a TradCatholic wife who didn't have sex until marriage and attends Church every Sunday, but men will not care about the objective truth of that statement until it's proven to them. Why? The idea of purple hair violates any anchor which coincides with not having sex until marriage and attending Church every Sunday. Can you name a conservative religious group that will shame you for having sex but allow you to have purple hair? No such anchor likely exists.
Women do not have these anchors. For whatever reason, they just do not. A woman instead will look for her self interest and the interest of her peers even if the values are contradictory. For example, AOC every single f***ing day whines about straight white male privilege, yet she is in a relationship with a 6'2" white soy boy.
All of us get thoroughly offended by this image, we find it morally revolting. Why? Because it violates an anchor which she established. She established an anchor which emanates a worldview in which white men are oppressive and evil, and the idea that she would date someone who is white and oppressive violates whatever deep anchor she has.
But she has no anchor. She simply looks out for the best interest of herself and her peers. For her, it is true that straight white men are oppressive - but it doesn't mean she will turn down the self-benefit of a relationship with a straight white male. The contradictory value system is irrelevant for her - because there is no deep, psychiatric value anchor to be had from whence intrinsic values emanate.
Women will fuck around in college and then want a stable man to betabuxx, but us men get horribly revolted at that fact. Why? Because an anchor which is conducive to valuing a stable man for a serious long term relationship is not compatible with a purely erotic physical relationship. If as a man I value long term relationships, it would violate a deep principle of "who I am" to have one night stands. If I as a man value pumping and dumping, I will pump and dump and find betabuxxing a violation of a deep principle of "who I am." But for women, that doesn't matter. What is to my benefit or to my friends' benefit. And in college, it was to her benefit to have as much sex as possible with as much cute guys as possible. Now, as she's gotten older, it's no longer to her benefit to have short swings, its to her beneift to have a serious ltr.
And this disconnect is not something that is necessarily irrational. Both men and women seem perfectly rational in their value judgments, but it's just that men and women use that rationality in vastly different ways.
I think that men have psychological "anchors", usually events that occur during adolescence / childhood that defines who the individual is at a deep psychological level - these "anchors" are a product of one's environment, culture, social relationships among peers, literature exposure, religious exposure, hedonistic restriction, etc., and these "anchors" remain permanently imbued in the male psyche, from whence all perceptions and value judgments stem from. These anchors are "deep psychiatric" principles which the male uses when he calculates a judgement on something. If I make judgment on something, it needs to be compatible with this anchor, otherwise I feel as though I am violating some deep principle of what it means to be me.
As an example, I may have been raised in a Libertarian working class family, gone to a Catholic grade school, and read 1984 by Orwell when I was in 4th grade. That will fundamentally anchor me with a worldview in which strong government, the collective over the individual, and autocracy are "evil" that need to be avoided. A worldview where religion is viewed as a good. Additionally, this may lead me to value individual liberty in terms of morality, a sympathy to laize faire economics, and an ascetic form of love, life, etc that values platonic relationships over hedonistic relationships. All of this stems from this Libertarian - Catholic "anchor" that resonates in my psyche.
One of the things which men do when they analyze the world is not only interpret the world through these anchors, but they will try to look deep into the psyche of other human beings and determine what their anchor is. Men will look at a purple haired waitress at Applebees and make a snap judgment about her values, her core convictions, and who she is as an individual. It may very well be possible that this purple-haired waitress is actually a TradCatholic wife who didn't have sex until marriage and attends Church every Sunday, but men will not care about the objective truth of that statement until it's proven to them. Why? The idea of purple hair violates any anchor which coincides with not having sex until marriage and attending Church every Sunday. Can you name a conservative religious group that will shame you for having sex but allow you to have purple hair? No such anchor likely exists.
Women do not have these anchors. For whatever reason, they just do not. A woman instead will look for her self interest and the interest of her peers even if the values are contradictory. For example, AOC every single f***ing day whines about straight white male privilege, yet she is in a relationship with a 6'2" white soy boy.
All of us get thoroughly offended by this image, we find it morally revolting. Why? Because it violates an anchor which she established. She established an anchor which emanates a worldview in which white men are oppressive and evil, and the idea that she would date someone who is white and oppressive violates whatever deep anchor she has.
But she has no anchor. She simply looks out for the best interest of herself and her peers. For her, it is true that straight white men are oppressive - but it doesn't mean she will turn down the self-benefit of a relationship with a straight white male. The contradictory value system is irrelevant for her - because there is no deep, psychiatric value anchor to be had from whence intrinsic values emanate.
Women will fuck around in college and then want a stable man to betabuxx, but us men get horribly revolted at that fact. Why? Because an anchor which is conducive to valuing a stable man for a serious long term relationship is not compatible with a purely erotic physical relationship. If as a man I value long term relationships, it would violate a deep principle of "who I am" to have one night stands. If I as a man value pumping and dumping, I will pump and dump and find betabuxxing a violation of a deep principle of "who I am." But for women, that doesn't matter. What is to my benefit or to my friends' benefit. And in college, it was to her benefit to have as much sex as possible with as much cute guys as possible. Now, as she's gotten older, it's no longer to her benefit to have short swings, its to her beneift to have a serious ltr.
Last edited: