"When Helen Lefkowitz said I was "such a creep" at Interlochen in 1956...

Nah, if you are a shy low status unattractive man, you failed your role as a man.

Just like it makes sense to hate fat unkempt women

right! this guy got it!!

>muh true men/true women

I hope you're baiting

It's insane how much of this describes me, and I'm scared shitless of that. I thought it was a problem I could just blame on modernity.

How about you provide some discourse instead of those
>meme arrows

But his whole argument is that it's an inborn fault that couldn't be corrected if he tried. Do you tell people with Down's syndrome that it's "their fault" that they can't understand abstractions?

You sound suspiciously like a male version of one of those "fat is beautiful, you go girl" landwhales.

>But his whole argument is that it's an inborn fault that couldn't be corrected if he tried
Maybe he should have tried harder, eh
If he can't overcome his inborn fault, and actually figure out a way to attract women, then why should he be rewarded?
>Do you tell people with Down's syndrome that it's "their fault" that they can't understand abstractions?
No, but that certainly doesn't change the fact that they can't understand abstractions

We can talk about women and men, or Women and Men. Biologically the former exist, but not the latter. There is no such thing as the proper "role of a man," just as there's no such thing as the proper "role of a woman." They are ideals, and exist only in the mind. Penises and vaginas, on the other hand, exist in nature, and in that sense "man" and "woman" are strictly defined. But to say that "you have a penis, therefore you must behave in such and such a way" is patently absurd.

Of course I recognize that to attract women I must behave in such and such a way, but to say that I ought to want to attract women is foolish.

Sadly, everything boils down to your looks:

If you're attractive and shy/asocial = you're mysterious, it's an expression of unconformity, you're very selective with who you hang out with
They automatically elevate you

Now, if it's the other way around. . .
I don't have to tell you. They regard you like an insect

Kys blackpilled pessimist cunt

>but to say that I ought to want to attract women is foolish.
Who said anything about that?
And yes, Males and Females have a distinct role in nature. You don't have to research for long to find out that men are more physically capable, have better reaction times and are better at spatial tasks. Women are better at emphatic stations, like raising children. From this is derived natural roles for them, such as in the hunter/gatherer societies.

Universally, regardless of society, you'll find that the vast majority of women take up female gender roles, and men take up male gender roles

>Sadly, everything boils down to your looks:
FUCK NO
You have never attracted a single girl in your life, that is quite clear.

Look up Patrice O'Neal and tell me everything comes down to looks

Lmao triggered

Is creepdom an escapable curse, or an inherent trait?

"You have failed in your role as a man" seems to imply that I ought to want to take up such a role.

Qualifications like "vast majority" point out the fault in your argument, which is, it doesn't account for the men and women who surpass their "distinct roles." Further, it doesn't account for societies that consider spiritual leadership (shamanism) an explicitly male domain.

Escapable. Start improving yourself, and stop thinking of women as anything other than fun, silly creatures, that you can build a life with if you have your own in order

Strong delusions my friend

Of course status is a factor in the equation of attraction. But a much smaller one, unless you want to attract gold diggers or nutcases who want you for your power. Weak substitutes for real attraction/love/lust

It's FACE
Your face is your fate. To a large extend. Unless you have a very strong will to excel and fight your way through life

Don't buy into the myth that men are more visual than women, women's shallowness knows no bounds

And I'm not even talking about attracting women alone. Beautiful people are incredibly privileged because of the halo effect. They get better opportunities in all areas of life

If you're ugly you're bascially handicapped

>You have failed in your role as a man seems to imply that I ought to want to take up such a role.
No, it seems to quite clearly state you failed your role as a man (I assume he means biologically), not whatever your stance on the matter was.
>Qualifications like "vast majority" point out the fault in your argument, which is, it doesn't account for the men and women who surpass their "distinct roles."
In that sentiment, you can't make an argument for anything as long as an exception exists. That's simply pedantic. Exceptions reinforce the general rule - a banal saying that you should be familiar with
>Further, it doesn't account for societies that consider spiritual leadership (shamanism) an explicitly male domain.
lol, what?

You're just incompetent, my man

Not really. Just lol if you think I'm just making this up as some elaborate cope to be able to life with my own failings

I'm not like you

You're the guy with the problem, not me

I don't have a problem friendo
I'm just facing reality as it is

Good luck with that

Cheers boyo you too

I think you say that less because you object to what he’s saying on a truth level and more because his evaluation of the world and it’s values makes you uncomfortable - you would prefer that success and failure are almost strictly problems of morality and competence.

No, I say that because I have a great example against his hypothesis - Patrice O'neal.
A big, fat, ugly nigger that pretty much controlled every woman he ever interacted with

I also speak from experience, of course

Eh, 1956 is already modernity.

But if you admit that I have no reason to care about such a role, no reason to ought to want to attain it, why would you even bother telling me I failed? I simply say, "OK," and walk away.

The banality of the assertion should give you a clue about its value. It's a truism that people use to try to dig their way out of a corner. If I say, "All trees have branches," but there is an entire group of plants that could, and after investigation do, contradict the claim (palms), of what use is the statement as presented? We have to amend it to include trees that have fronds, rather than proper woody branches. Similarly, if you assert that "female gender roles are empathetic," you fail to take into account the general prevalence of both men and women in the shamanistic domain. Unless you're claiming that "physical capabilities, reaction times, and spacial tasks" are spiritual in the same way that empathy is.

I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a good conversationalist to be a good hunter-gatherer

>The banality of the assertion should give you a clue about its value.
Are you trying to say that because it is a common phrase, pretty much universally accepted, I should disregard it?
>If I say, "All trees have branches," but there is an entire group of plants that could, and after investigation do, contradict the claim (palms), of what use is the statement as presented?
That's where "generally" comes in. Humans generally don't jump off bridges. Of course some do, but that doesn't change the truth of the statement that the vast majority don't.
I never said that all males and all females correspond to their gender roles. That doesn't invalidate that most of them do, which clearly says something about nature, since it happesn across multiple, isolated societies throughout countless ages.
>Similarly, if you assert that "female gender roles are empathetic," you fail to take into account the general prevalence of both men and women in the shamanistic domain
I fail to see the relevance to shamans
>Unless you're claiming that "physical capabilities, reaction times, and spacial tasks" are spiritual in the same way that empathy is.
You have completely lost me, my dude.

If nothing else, please respond to this:
Do you or do you not agree that men and women generally fall into their respective gender roles, and that they both have inherent biological differences that supports those roles?

>I'm pretty sure you don't have to be a good conversationalist to be a good hunter-gatherer
Whoever said that you do?

What the hell is this thread doing here?
It don't belong here.

Does Veeky Forums even have mods?

What is the point of even making this assertion? They obviously have inherent biological differences (genitalia), but these do not in all cases define their behavior, so the "general" here just means "on average." All you're really saying is that the average woman will behave in an average way. The hypothesis breaks down at both extremes of the scale because it only observes one type.

Again, to me, or a woman who doesn't care about how anyone else defines "her role," this just seems like a self-confirming hypothesis, since you are excluding all exceptions on the basis that they "prove the rule."

>since you are excluding all exceptions on the basis that they "prove the rule."
No, I'm taking them for what they are; exceptions

The vast majority of females fall into female gender roles, the vast majority of males fall into male gender roles. From this, we can learn something about men and women. What they are inclined towards. What they favor and resent. What attracts and repels them.
At this point, I'm not really sure what we're arguing about

Tfw when my friend/roommate said I act like a serial killer
Literally the most hurtful thing I've ever been called

Attracting women is really easy. You can pretty much use a cookiecutter strategy that will work most of the time. The real issue lies in the fact whether you want to do things you consider unethical and that go against your values of decency to attract women. Getting rich or into a position of power is equally as easy.

He was making a radiohead reference you weirdo

Thank you -_-

cool

But all of those assumptions will fail in practice. Are you really claiming that I can find perfectly average women and deduce all of their behaviors from female gender roles? Even the most common of common women can't be described completely in the understanding a priori

>But all of those assumptions will fail in practice
No, because it applies to the vast majority.
>Are you really claiming that I can find perfectly average women and deduce all of their behaviors from female gender roles?
You're making my position look foolish through hyperbole. The probability of that woman having a female gender role is far greater than her having a male one. From this, you can deduce general things about her based on the gender role and what you know of womens biology

You seem to be advocating that you can't form any conclusion as long as exceptions exist. It's fucking tedious, friend

I am saying that your deductions are only fully valid (which is the province of deduction as opposed to induction) if we work from the premise of the average woman, who does not exist. "She" is a collection of statistics, not a fleshy being. With regard to the latter, we must employ induction in order to form knowledge, since she exists empirically, not mathematically. Obviously after you get to know her you can say things like, "she has common taste" or "she's actually quite intelligent," and so on. But you have to get to know her first, otherwise you're abusing the statistics by projecting them into a space wherein they may not have applicability: you may incorrectly assume that a woman is average who is not.

We are fundamentally in disagreement, user

The anger is more at the dishonesty of the narratives presented to these men about women, sex, attraction and romance. Beyond that, it is the intense loathing, hate, negativity directed at them from those same people telling them "Just be yourself" when their advice fails to help them.

>Maybe he should have tried harder, eh
If he can't overcome his inborn fault, and actually figure out a way to attract women, then why should he be rewarded?
this is probably the most evil kind of double-bind i can think of, but I wanna see how deep it goes with you. Pray tell, what do they do if they are biologically incapable of overcoming an in-born deficiency in their character? what do user?

But we had this thread last month!

anal rape

>If he can't overcome his inborn fault, and actually figure out a way to attract women, then why should he be rewarded?

Nature already tells these men what to do. You don't think rape has an evopsych component as a mating strategy? Social alienation fosters it, and neurotypicals developed the Gift of Fear to counter it through thousands of generations.

Holy shit im glad to see a Flint thread on here, I met him a few weeks ago and he is a Chad philosopher/musician as an old man. Dude was swimming in artsy chinese-latino thot pussy.

What did you do that caused him to call you a serial killer?

Don't say that you fucktard that's why trannies exist.

No shitbird, he's a creep if he's shy and ugly, and an outright sex offender if he's ugly but outgoing. If he's attractive and shy he's adorable and needs a good fucking, if he's outgoing and attractive than he's a good fuck but doesn't respect women's position as the chooser enough.

An ugly guy who is outgoing and socially calibrated will do better than a good looking shy guy. Learn to socialize and build status.

thats some top banter, source?

stop arranging your alphabetti spaghettis in alphabetical order

Verwijder dit

Some girls have called me creepy, others have called me handsome. What does this mean?

>OMG u post the weirdest shit LMAO
>ew gross bro lmao
>omg ur so weird
>u make the dummest joeks xD WEIRDO

I-I'm sorry

Way to post one of his least interesting articles OP

henryflynt.org/

...

...

>Do you tell people with Down's syndrome that it's "their fault" that they can't understand abstractions?

I do, fucking retards

>evopysch

Burdens make some men strong but crush other men.