Don’t Praise Your Daughter for Being Intelligent

… or your son, for that matter.

When I was a kid, my parents and teachers used to say I was smart. “You’ll win a Nobel prize one day”. “You’re so smart there is no way you’d fail at any subject”. Well, I’m 25 and I failed at lots of things. And paradoxically, failure was a step in the right direction.

In the recent years, I’ve found several psychology articles confirming my feelings – praising a kid’s raw IQ can be very harmful. The kid learns to value what you praise. If you praise talent, they will value their talent. If you tell them they are so smart, they will have that as a part of their core identity. If you teach them their qualities are innate, they will think they are innate. A talented smart person has it easy in school. If school is hard and there are challenges, a person is not smart. That’s for average kids.

So what do you think will happen when they reach a schooling level where they can no longer breeze through the material and still get good grades?

“Kids who were praised for their intelligence tended to avoid challenges. Instead, they preferred easy tasks. They were also more interested in their competitive standing–how they measured up relative to others–than they were in learning how to improve their future performance.

By contrast, kids who were praised for their effort showed the opposite trend. They preferred tasks that were challenging– tasks they would learn from. “

That’s right, they might have an identity crisis. Or try to preserve their “bright student” identity and public image by giving up hard tasks and only doing easier ones. Or else where will they get their praise, if appearing innately intelligent is getting harder and harder?

The result: an insecure, ego-preserving, image-preserving adult with a badly developed mind compared to their lower IQ classmates. At worst. But most likely, the kid will fail a few times, realize how stupid this mindset is, and drop it in order to adopt an effort-based one. In any case, the kid will have to fail some.

I was never one of the best in my class, but I was very near. I had easier time learning than most kids, but there were always a few genius kids who had it even easier. I used to envy them, because it was pretty obvious they had naturally higher IQs. Now, however, I feel grateful for what I have, and wonder if their hardships were even worse than mine. Did they feel shocked when they entered a hard major in college and it no longer felt easy to get straight As? I know it was hard for me, and took several years of university to start using good studying techniques and get my first A. It didn’t help that I still suffered from perfectionism and often spent time on details I should have ignored in favor of more important things.

I can’t totally blame my parents or teachers. Even if they praised me for effort only, I was still predisposed to perfectionism and could get stuck in a rut. Despite their mistakes, my parents did a great job. I’m still a fairly good student, and got two science degrees. Lets just say I could have done better if things were a bit different.

However, I have cured about 70% of my perfectionism and got rid of the toxic mindset brought on by praising intelligence. Things aren’t bad, and I’m proud of my effort and achievement in the areas where I was naturally weak. I sometimes sit and regret I couldn’t fix more of this sooner, but past can’t be changed, and I can only look forward, towards more self-improvement. Failure is just the death of my old, toxic mindset, not a tragedy. The world is full of possibilities.

Is this a female problem?

I never thought it was a girl-specific problem, as I have seen some guys admit they fell into the same trap. But some say  girls are more often praised for smarts, and boys for effort:

“She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up–and the higher the girls’ IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than give up.”

“Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.

How do girls and boys develop these different views? Most likely, it has to do with the kinds of feedback we get from parents and teachers as young children. Girls, who develop self-control earlier and are better able to follow instructions, are often praised for their “goodness.” When we do well in school, we are told that we are “so smart,” “so clever, ” or ” such a good student.” This kind of praise implies that traits like smartness, cleverness, and goodness are qualities you either have or you don’t.”

I can relate to the way girls are praised. But are boys really praised for effort? The article is kind of feministy, insisting that women are less accomplished in careers simply because of different praising patterns.

“Even if every external disadvantage to a woman’s rising to the top of an organization is removed–every inequality of opportunity, every chauvinistic stereotype, all the challenges we face balancing work and family–we would still have to deal with the fact that through our mistaken beliefs about our abilities, we may be our own worst enemy.”

Natural risk-aversion and less motivation for leadership have just as much to do with fewer women being at the top. However, if girls are praised for smarts more, it’s probably a factor.

Matt Forney implies Western women get too much praise, and are told they are smart. He talks about a girl who was arguing with him on twitter:

“I initially ignored her, but when she continued to harass me, touting her “4.0 GPA” and how smart she was, I clicked through to her profile and did a little research. Turns out that this oh-so-intelligent young lady was spending $58,000 a year to major in acting. Furthermore, while she was not unattractive—she had a good bone structure, a cute face and huge… tracts of land—she was at least twenty pounds overweight, so several of my followers started calling her fat. What was her response?

She started sending pictures of herself to me in an attempt to prove she wasn’t fat.”

Knowing what I know, I wonder if such arrogance is false. When someone is so personally touched by the words of a stranger on the internet, are they actually confident? Is it really an overabundance of self-esteem she has, or is it an attempt to appear smart, because she knows picking a harder major would ruin it? I don’t know about this girl individually, but who knows. Maybe Matt Forney’s arrogant intelligent girls with high self-esteem are actually insecure, intelligent (but unwise) girls with shaky self-esteem.

Posted in Personal emo stuff, Science&studies, Women | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments

Most Beautiful Women Ever (A List)

Nobody wants to know, but I will now present the women who have impressed me with their beauty the most. I’m only taking into account the outward beauty. Here they are, in no particular order.

1.Brigitte Bardot. Needs no introduction.


She kind of looks like a Persian cat, but no one ever complained about that

2. Jessica Biel. As much as I love the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the first remake was disappointing. But at least you get to see Jessica Biel.

Jessica Biel

3.Bryce Dallas Howard. So far I have only seen her in “The Help” and “50/50”. In both, she plays that character you love to hate. Totally good movies, btw.

Bryce Dallas Howard

4. Kim Kardashian. I don’t care if she’s kind of trashy, I always thought she was gorgeous and had a perfect butt.

Kim Kardashian at the Sierra Mist Beach House

5.Natja Brunckhorst. The only movie I have seen her in (she hasn’t done much movie acting, I think [EDIT: oops, mistake made, she actually did do more acting, I misremembered what I read about her once]) was “Christiane F”, a movie based on the life of a real teenage heroin addict and prostitute, who hangs out with others like herself. It’s kind of a preachy movie (pretty much “Don’t do drugs, or you’ll become a prostitute and an addict”), but it’s deep, kind of disturbing and has David Bowie in it.

Natja  Brunckhorst

6.Mira Craig. She beat up her boyfriend once, because he cheated, saying “I’m against violence, but men must know the consequences of their actions”. She said she believes in the Law of Attraction (the idea that you can attract whatever you want by wishing it hard enough). And she had her fangs lengthened on purpose. She’s kind of like a female Chris Brown in some ways, but she’s hot and has a great singing voice.

Mira Craig

7. Heidi Montag. I dunno, there is something special about this half girl, half work of surgical art.

Heidi Montag

8.Christina Hendricks. Have nothing to say about her, her look speaks for itself.

Christina Hendricks

9.Rachel Hurd-Wood. Was great in Peter Pan and Perfume. Not a fan of her terrible new short, blond haircut though.

Rachel Hurd-Wood

10.Victoria Manas. When it comes to figures, this is my 10. Rarely is there a fat girl who is both pretty fat and proportionate.


What are your 10s? Lets be shallow together.

Posted in Beauty | Tagged , , | 23 Comments

I Hate Overdone Photoshopped Celebrity Images

There is something very anti-beauty about photos where a beautiful female celebrity is wearing tons of makeup and is photoshopped to death. I have seen this several times on magazine covers, and my reaction is momentarily “Who the heck is this?”, even if it’s the most famous actress in the world:

kinda-Kate Winslet kinda-Catherine Zeta Jones
Extraordinarily beautiful women are rare. Whoever says “beauty is common” is talking about above average cuteness, like that of Britney Spears. They are the girls with optimally cute features you get if you superimpose 100s of regular women onto one face, and mix them. You always end up with a cute face with no flaws.


But most amazingly beautiful women are more than just cute. They often possess one unusual feature or two – far from the averaged result you get when you mix photos.

sophia loren

She kind of looks like a Persian cat, but no one ever complained about that

She kind of looks like a Persian cat, but no one ever complained about that

Makeup is used to exaggerate pretty features and disguise the flaws. It’s also used to exaggerate femininity. It can bump you up 2 points on the SMV scale, or do the opposite if you do it wrong. Roissy once wrote an article where he predicted 6 and 7s get the most out of makeup, while the ugliest and the most beautiful get the least. Since makeup disguises deviations from the averaged result, it makes us look more the same. Less “deformed” if you will. But women with unusual beautiful features just end up having their beauty hidden by overdone makeup and photoshop. And I just hate when they do that. It’s like if National Geographic editor decided the Afghan girl’s eyes are too bright and her expression too tense, and photoshopped brown eyes and a smile on her for the sake of pleasantness. It’s a crime against art.

Afghan Girl

This is also the reason why I abandoned the manga drawing style. Not saying it can’t be great art, but most fan artists make it look samey and boring.

Posted in Beauty | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments

The Circular Pursuit of Happiness

How is happiness achieved?

Method 1: Hedonism
Doing what you like, enjoying life, maximizing pleasure. According to the hedonistic principle , that’s what we’re fundamentally motivated by – avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. And in many people’s imagination, that is how Heaven looks like – you live forever and everyone gets a mansion.

You might like what life has to give, but you are restless. You don’t feel at ease sitting still, doing nothing meaningful and not moving forward. From what I see, there are a lot of restless people around . Even if we know deep down that our achievements aren’t necessarily more meaningful than simple pleasures in the long run, we feel as if they are. We want something to push against, something to apply our strength to and move. In empty space, we’re goalless and disoriented. Even if you aren’t super ambitious, you might still gain extra happiness and confidence after overcoming something, instead of simply living for pleasure. This leads us to the next method of achieving happiness.

Method 2: Achievement
Here, instead of simply enjoying life, you seek to achieve as much as you can. Perfect for those restless people, and good for the laid-back ones. The self-determination theory states that we have innate needs for autonomy, competence and belonging. We need to be able to make our own choices, we need to become competent at things and overcome challenges, and we need meaningful connections with other people.

There’s an old test for checking if what you are doing is meaningful. “If you were lying in bed, dying, would you say “I wish I spent more time at the office”?”. And it’s true. Achievement is all good and great, but requires sacrifice of time and certain pleasures. If you aren’t careful, you could die too quickly and wish you stopped to smell the roses more often. Or less dramatic: if you’re not careful, you could end up focusing all your time on achievement, without replenishing your energy by proper hedonism and relaxation. And then you could start feeling sad, depressed and not understand why.
Another potential danger is basing your self-esteem on achievements. Achievement, if it’s to mean anything, is not easy by definition. And there will be failure. Your confidence and self-esteem should not fall into the gutter every time you make a mistake or fail. They should not hit rock bottom or make you suicidal when you are too ill, handicapped or poor to achieve anything at the moment. And your conscience should not subject you to great suffering because you have a few flaws, like everyone else.

Method 3: Self-acceptance
I don’t believe a person without self-acceptance can achieve anything and be happy. Even if they don’t like themselves, a person with self-acceptance will think themselves worthy of improvement. They will not do it for others (not for the purpose of making everyone like them and find them more acceptable), they will do it for themselves. If, on the other hand, a person doesn’t recognize any inner worth and improves just to please others, they will most likely feel empty when they do improve, although the feeling might be masked by initial shallow sense of pleasure.
Self-acceptance is like a very good inner friend, who whispers “Hey, don’t cry, I know you’re better than that” in your ear when you are down.

Even your best friends can make mistakes. What you’re convinced is an innate part of yourself, could be just a bad habit – something you learned as a kid through your parents or from society’s dysfunctions. It’s good to defend our interests, personal boundaries and quirks. But sometimes, something from the outside (and not at all in our interests) sneaks in, acts like a part of us, and we defend it, not realizing we would be much better off unlearning this treacherous habit AND have the capacity to do so. And then we miss out on increasing our happiness by achievement.

These three methods are like rock, paper and scissors to me. I wouldn’t use any single one on its own. But together, when properly balanced, they lead to a pretty good life.
How do you achieve happiness? :)



Posted in Personal emo stuff | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Women Have No Honor

There are lots of things I learned from the Red Pill subreddit, and women’s lack of honor is one of them. In this post, I will discuss what honor is and who has it.

The Red Pill Views On Why Women Have No Honor

First, the subreddit says that honor is a male abstraction. Lots of men have no honor, but only men can have it. It is something that often is found in warrior culture. If I understand TRP views correctly, lack of honor makes women only loyal to their feelings, while men can be loyal to principles :

“Honor is a male abstract, and women are only loyal to their emotions. Sure, you feel like you’d never cheat or leave your man, but if his frame slipped for whatever reason you’d naturally start evaluating other options. Granted, if he corrected the issue and restored attraction it would probably salvage the relationship. This is hypergamy in a nutshell, and being that it is an evolutionary trait it is neither good nor bad. RP men understand this and maintain a strong frame in order to balance it out. Many relationship issues originate when a man gets too comfortable (Betas out) and stops gaming his woman.”

I tried to find a good definition of honor, and found this.

The article says honor has two components. One is horizontal honor:

“Horizontal honor is defined as the “right to respect among an exclusive society of equals.” 

Horizontal honor = mutual respect. But don’t let the term “mutual respect” fool you. We’re not talking about the sort of watered-down “respect-me-simply-because-I’m-a-human-being” kind of respect that pervades our modern culture. For horizontal honor to mean anything, it must be contingent upon certain unyielding standards in order to maintain honor within the group.”

To remain in this group, you have to follow specific rules, or you will be dishonored and be kicked out of the “club”. But once in the club, you can gain what the writer calls vertical honor:

“To add on to my club analogy, vertical honor is like the awards and trophies that clubs bestow on members. To even be considered for the award, you need to be a member of the club; you need the membership card (horizontal honor). But being a card carrying member isn’t enough. To win a trophy, you must distinguish yourself from your peers by outperforming them and achieving excellence according to the club’s code.”

Here, anthropologist Julian Pitt-Rivers is quoted:

“Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellence recognized by society, his right to pride.”

Women can, at least according to this writer, have honor, but it’s different from the male honor:

“While honor is universal to both men and women, its standards have historically been gendered. While codes of honor have varied across time and cultures, in its most primitive form, honor has meant chastity for women and courage for men.”

To me it appears that those gender norms are promoted because they are good for society. If men are courageous, they can defend their country. If women are chaste, men feel like being courageous in the first place. I suppose men are still expected to be courageous nowadays (they are drafted), while promiscuity is no big deal for women anymore. In this way, I suppose women really don’t have honor.

This type of honor is different from the one most people think about when they hear the word. It’s not merely staying true to your principles. It’s society’s way to hold people in check, even when their own principles are lacking or badly developed. Having honor is staying true not to your feelings, but group rules.

Morality of Most People

How do most people decide what is right and wrong? The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg found we have three stages of moral development. The pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. In the pre-conventional stage, we are motivated mainly by self-interest, avoiding punishment and getting rewards from authority figures. People in the conventional stage of development tell right from wrong by looking at social norms and conventions.

The post-conventional stage means independently deciding what is fair. These people understand that laws and rules are not always fair. They put principles first instead. They can sometimes be confused with people on the pre-conventional level, because their actions are not in accordance with the rules of society.

Pre-conventional moral thinking dominates when we are children, conventional when we’re teenagers, and post-conventional is only reaches by a minority of the population.

Most people appear good when everything is well and social norms are not unreasonable. But once social norms and authorities demand something unethical, the majority of people show the darker side of the 2nd level of moral development. When authority tells us to do something and reassures us that it’s okay, we often do it. It was shown, for example, in the Milgram experiment . People were repeatedly told by the experimenter to electrically shock a guy hidden behind a wall, even after he started complaining of being seriously hurt and screaming. 65% reached the end of the experiment, where the strongest voltage is applied (although they were pained by having to obey):

“In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment’s final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1]

If you’ve heard of the banality of evil , you probably understand what this implies.

“Arendt’s book introduced the expression and concept “the banality of evil.”[1] Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.”

Now, I don’t know if most atrocities are performed by ordinary, authority-obedient people, but in my view, they enable a lot of it. They go along with lots of evil stuff that becomes obviously evil if you thought about it, and cheer when authorities do them.

There are also such things as deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility, in which people temporarily lose themselves and identify with their group:

“In 2008, a 17-year old man jumped from the top of a parking garage in England after 300 or so people chanted for him to go for it. Some took photos and recorded video before, during and after. Afterward, the crowd dispersed, the strange spell broken. The taunters walked away wondering what came over them. The other onlookers vented their disgust into social media.”

This is one thing that I noticed about feminism – it was supported and helped by men. And today men throw other men under the bus to “protect women” from “rape”, “abuse” and other evil male actions, even if abuse is loosely defined or unproven. And onlooking men and women don’t care about it, unless it bites them directly in the ass.

Does evolutionary psychology say women are disloyal?

Hypergamy is often cited as the cause of women’s lack of loyalty – they say women like to trade up. But I’m not even sure hypergamy is the strongest natural force here. Monogamy is usually seen as useful for beta males. Without it, lots of men would remain mateless. But if you think about it, monogamy serves women too. In the times when reliable birth control and welfare didn’t exist, would it really be wise for a woman to swing from branch to branch so much? As she only gets less attractive and less fertile with age, she can’t really upgrade so much. She can trade down and let some desperate omega make use of her in exchange for his recourses, but it’s not in her best interest. It’s in her interest to stay with the same guy she got in her youth, let him grow in SMV as hers drops. If he “drops his frame”, it only makes sense to switch to another man if she’s worth a better man.

How modern environment affects our actions

We shouldn’t forget that we aren’t living in the same environment we evolved in. We’re living in a pretty unnatural time. We have birth control, welfare, abundant energy and technology. We’ve gotten way too comfortable. And not only that, but we have feminism. Only the discomfort of one sex’s natural role has been addressed, and the other one was left as it is, except for some benefits which rubbed off as a result of women’s liberation. As women were liberated, men’s behavior was also restricted and demonized. An inequality of responsibility resulted. Usually, women’s sexual power is balanced out by men’s earned public and financial powers. Considering most people never reach the principled level or morality, is it surprising that men appear better and women worse? If there is banality of evil, I’m sure there could be a banality of good. The TRP reddit is full of former “good boys”, who found the hard way that society’s rules and laws are disadvantaging them.

One proof that is usually used to show that men are more loyal, is who applies for divorce more often. That is women. But considering their sexual and legal power in marriage, they hold more cards. The one who has more power should also be able to abuse it more often, initiating divorce robbery and divorce in general. Would men do any better if they had that kind of power? I don’t know. To check it out, we would have to find a time and place in history when men had the power to toss their wife out for any reason, take the kids and then be paid alimony. I’m not sure men ever had that kind of power. But in general, it’s easy to look moral when one has no power.

 “We don’t hate women, we just don’t expect much of them”

This is a common saying. But can it be true? Can you decide that someone is irreparably solipsistic, disloyal, only capable of being a good partner if kept constantly in check, AND still think it’s a good idea to spend your life closely connected to them? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t let that kind of person into my close circle of friends. There is a saying that goes “it’s better to go alone, than to go with just anybody”, and I’ve found the hard way that it’s true. I was better off alone than with shitty friends. But being with good friends was, of course, best.

Posted in Women | Tagged , , , , , , , | 43 Comments

My Thoughts on Red Pill Isolation

I read this article: . It speaks of something I suspect a lot of people from the manosphere could relate to:

“There’s a common misconception in our little corner of the webz. That exposing yourself to the truth, essentially going down the rabbit hole, is going to make your life better. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now I’ll admit that being exposed to the truth is going to make you better with women but you’ll never trust one again, will probably make you more successful in your career but will make you want to never work again and probably make navigating this piece of crap society we all live in easier but there is a tradeoff that most don’t think about and that’s this:

You are going to become isolated. Most notably socially but also with your thoughts, opinions and your ability to finally see what surrounds you in this crumbling society. “

I’m not as pessimistic as that about society and humans, but I can see what he’s talking about. Believing something most people don’t believe can create lots of problems.

1)It can get you socially excluded if you reveal your beliefs. Especially if those are things most people are taught is backward. It’s one thing to believe in angels and make your own angel school (a princess here did that and was kind of made fun of, but it’s not an “extremist” belief), it’s another to question progressive ideals.

Social exclusion can make you feel awkward and lower your confidence. Let’s not pretend we’re not social animals and don’t feel uneasy about being massively excluded by everyone except those who know us closely. Some people are not affected by this at all, but I wouldn’t say that for the majority of the population.

2)It can make YOU avoid others because you’re practically living in different realities. How to talk to someone who is likely to close their mind to you once you say what you really mean? Is it even worth it?

3)You can also be considered dangerous by the state. They might start watching you, arresting you “just in case”, and in general threaten your life.

4)The psychiatric “care” institutions in your country might consider you insane and try to save you from yourself. If you’re new here and don’t believe me, know that my boyfriend was arrested for unpopular opinions about political strategy and the police attorney made unsavory comments about his mental health to the media. Later, it was clear that he’s been arrested illegally AND the appointed psychiatrist evaluated him as normal and healthy.

It’s also true that right before the arrest, the Utøya massacre has happened and the cops were humiliated because of their own poor rescue efforts. They made sure this wouldn’t happen again and chose to overreact rather than to underreact, so this was an important factor. However, they are refusing to pay compensation for illegal jailing, and that tells me freedom of speech is not as respected as I thought when I first entered this country as a 13 year old.

To deal with problem number 1 is not too hard when you think about it. I wish I could go back to times when I believed there were no consequences to my opinions and self-expression beyond some social exclusion. Those were happy times. As a teenager, I learned that even if you’re weird and read scary books like Mein Kampf in a typical politically correct school (lol, done that, but only out of curiosity), you will still be respected if you don’t act like an apologetic, spineless wimp about your nature and interests. If you DO act like an apologetic spineless wimp about it, people will think of you what you already think about yourself. “Here comes that crazy awkward guy/girl. Man they are creepy and weird”. Fact is, creepy and weird is cool if you present it right, and unpleasant if you present it wrong. “Weird” is where new inventions, ideas and art come from. Same with expressions of negativity – you can get away with it if they come from a position of strength. Those PUA and red pill guys are onto something – “alphaness” works. And not only for men. It worked for me in high school. Don’t fret. Enjoy life. Don’t think about it so damn hard. Treat problems as challenges and opportunities. You’ll die one day anyway, so what have you got to lose? Remember that you’re in the right, and it’s technically your attackers that should be ashamed, not you. As you know, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

I dunno about you, but I hate all this strenuous pretending. Pretending to be positive about everything, not having negative feelings, pretending you agree, pretending there is absolutely nothing about you that deviates from the acceptable norm. It doesn’t make you respected. It’s soul-killing. It’s completely unnecessary unless it’s to avoid jail or starvation. And you will live like that for the rest of your life if you keep doing it. Because if you say nothing, old norms will stay and soul-kill you and others just like you. If you continue pretending and isolating yourself, you will either feel this:


Or this:

On the other hand, if you decide to show yourself as you are, you might end up convincing people. You might inspire others to open up too. You might make the whole thing popular. Unless, of course, you come dangerously close to seriously aggravating the authorities and getting arrested. Don’t do that.

I recommend looking at this as an opportunity, rather than a huge depressing problem. Take the challenge if you can. Of course, it can be intimidating because a leader job is never easy. But with big risks come bigger rewards, no?

I especially recommend it to women. There is likely less risk of being seriously hurt (I mean, you’re a woman, so appear to be less dangerous), AND women are the bigger consumers of stuff, including media. They popularize things. So popularize it.

There are some things that help me deal with problem number 2. Well, there is optimism. Maybe I’m just young and haven’t tried everything there is to try and failed. But unless you have done this, you can’t complain that things are hopeless and people are irredeemable. You can quit trying if you’re too tired, but that’s different. I think I can make people see my point of view without freaking them out forever. People are capable of truly horrible things, but they are also capable of truly great things. Gotta appeal to the latter.

Why do I know that? Because I used to be a very unempathetic person who used to believe in goodness of modern feminism and affirmative action simply because that’s the norm. I used to read FSTDT for fun. If I got so much better, why can’t they?

Perhaps if you were always so smart and never swayed by modern lies, you can feel very pessimistic about people. But I just can’t.



Posted in Personal emo stuff | Tagged , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

Something to Think About Before Using Feminist Tactics Against Them

“It’s tempting to think that you can defeat this sort of thing by turning the tables on the feminists and using the law against them. That strategy, however, will never work. All you would accomplish is to give credence to the very apparatus that feminists use to assert their agenda. You are essentially making their points for them, “See. Men need feminism/anti-bullying laws/revenge porn laws/hate speech laws too!”

You can’t out-victim the professional victims. Better to not play their game at all.”

- j r,

If you’re feeding the beast, “actively black knighting” for justice rather than for self-defence, you have no one but yourself to blame when those feminist laws you’ve been indirectly supporting bite you in the ass.

Posted in Feminism, MRA | Tagged , | 9 Comments