This is really an argument about how the Amish control their females. As a non violent group they obviously treat their females quite well but their females are not feminists, so how do they control them. One aspect is that they are against phones. They do allow phones for outgoing calls only but they place the phone in a shack out in a field so that it's use is inconvenient and uncomfortable.
I found this which is feminist:
and I will quote the abstract here:
Integrating mobile technology into women's everyday lives has rendered fantasies (and realties) around enhancing one's personal safety in multi-tasking while fulfilling the often gendered expectations of constant contact, accessibility, and responsibility. Mobile intimacy changes the user's perception of their current social environment. A survey study was conducted using 197 female college students from a large US public institution to investigate whether women imagine their mobile phones to be weapons of self-defense. Significant results indicate that not only do women imagine their mobile phones to be weapons of self-defense, they view mobile phones to be more effective than a more traditional weapon, like pepper spray. Mobile phones do promote personal safety and disaster relief, yet over-reliance on mobile phone use can be detrimental.
So imagine two women walking down two streets. One has a mobile phone while the other doesn't. The one with the mobile phone is arrogant and treats people badly because if she encounters any opposition she can just call for help using her mobile phone. The one without a mobile phone treats people well because she feels vulnerable. If she caused trouble she would not be able to call for help. She realises that her inferiority would result in her loosing if she were dumb enough to insult a male on that street. So she behaves much better.
The recommendation here is that if you have a female that behaves badly, instead of becoming violent which would be illegal, instead you should confiscate her mobile phone for a couple of weeks to see if her behaviour improves. If you have an arrogant daughter take her mobile phone away.
So if the inferiority of the female is corrected in some way then they will argue for equality, and the mobile phone is an example of something that is doing that. If you want a female who behaves better then look for one that does not have a mobile phone.
One of the problems here is that the term Feminist is a very false term. It has no accurate definition and therefore no opposite meaning. In the context of the above it appears that the term means:
Feminism = Opportunistic Female
In this sense the word Feminism means: unscrupulous, resourceful, unprincipled, devious, cunning, adaptable and in general what we see is exploitative. The women's rights aspect is just tacked on. To understand the male of the species in this context is to say that the male is none of these things. So the decent man is not, unscrupulous, resourceful, unprincipled, devious, cunning, or adaptable, (if he was then perhaps we would call him a liberal).
The opposite of this is then: Principled (which in this context is a failing strategy)
What I am seeing here is (the unpopular view) that male superiority is not that great, and with the simple addition of some technological fix the female can achieve the appearance of equality or superiority. So what you have is a very fine balance between the male and the female, which can be easily disturbed. The eco system will accept either male or female superiority but what it won't accept is equality. The mobile phone has simply replaced the shaman's drum that allowed the female shaman to establish a Matriarchy, a different form of contacting the spirit world.
If you do anything to undermine the female, to weaken her position such as by alcohol, drugs, hypnotism, general weakening in some way, thus making her more inferior - this is deemed to be illegal. If she herself does anything to augment her position of weakness to make herself stronger, then this is seen as legitimate because it's a change that she is choosing to produce within herself (learn Karate for example). It has been clearly argued that the male of the species needs to change but if that involves treating the female badly or expressing superiority through physical means that impact the female directly, then this is deemed to be illegal. In conclusion the male needs to increase his superiority by augmenting it in some way to make himself even stronger. It's also clear that this needs to be visible.
The view then is for an opposing group of men whose aim is to enhance male superiority and to argue for that superiority but in such a way that is not specifically with respect to females. A kind of elitism bordering on the satanic. Instead of men being described as spooky or creepy they really need to be scary and more horrifying than they are. At the same time there needs to be some kind of functional superiority such as increased efficiency or a brutal materialism.
The way forward appears to be to study how these feminists are using or exploiting technologies to make themselves feel equal or superior and to then enhance these techniques (or use similar techniques) in a way that only men can handle. Visibility is an important issue here. The taller male is superior to the shorter male because increased visibility implies this. So again these technologies would increase the visibility of the male.
I must ask the question, why does a feminist think that she is equal, and then look at all the techniques that she is using to fake this impression. How can the male produce better results (without becoming a liberal)?
But the sad reality here is that if you remain the principled decent traditional man then you will loose. It would be nice to have a name for this opposite to feminism? So I'd like to propose:
Dominism = A Male Puppeteer
This has all the nice connotations that we need. It implies not only domination but the domino effect. This domino effect may be seen in the context of being co-operative with other guys. The puppeteer angle works well in the context of politics. Instead of being opportunistic in grasping what comes along the puppeteer is deliberately setting up the entire sequence of events. The context as well, is a more general context and not just in the sense of the PUA. The puppeteer is a superior individual?
Heck ShaunS, you have worded my way of life that I have so far lived and explained with different words. This that you call "dominism" ande I understand what you mean by "satanic" as I am acquianted with satanism and the writings of LaVey. I consider myself a satanist in that sense.
I have sent you a personal message, please see it.
"The puppeteer is a superior individual? "
of course, anything that is the result of superior skill is undeniable actual superiority and proves the superiority of the individual to people who don't have the same skill.
Dominism is kind of off topic for this thread but I did work up this example:
A female in a pub is asked by a guy "Who will you be having sex with tonight?". She says "Someone else". Then a short time later another guy comes up to her and asks her exactly the same question. She gives the same answer and assumes that they must be brothers. During the next 2 hours another 20 guys all ask her the same question and she gives the same answer. Eventually she's thinking of leaving and looks around the room but realises that every man in the room has asked her this question - except for one guy sitting in the corner. "He must be the only good guy here" she thinks, not realising that he is the Dominist who has paid all the rest £5 to ask her this question (total cost £100). So she takes a liking to him and eventually sleeps with him not realising that he rigged the entire situation.
Consider the side effects here. Although the Dominist gets what he wanted his actions are well liked because the other guys earned some money helping him. Secondly some of these guys would never have dreamed of putting this question to the most attractive female in the room and only did so because they were paid to, and their standing has now improved. Thirdly all the other females in the room have been dropped down a notch because they now have the realisation that this one female is better than they are, so they have all become inferior to her and at the same time inferior to all the males in the room who would be viewing them as second best (from their perspective). The only risk is that the attractive target female may pick one of the other men but given the inherrent arrogance of such females this seems unlikely.
Now this isn't the PUA, because this guy is the only one not chatting up the female. Her prejudices and uncooperative nature is being used against her. After all if she agreed at once, then this scenario wouldn't work at all.
I'm fairly old these days so if I chatted up women the police would probably arrest me on the spot. The other area of interest is the money angle and this 'Dominism' is a Pie that everyone can have a piece of, and it's at least worth as much as all the books on feminism. So even as an invented topic just a little bit of work could make it into something very lucrative. To have your very own piece of this pie all you need to do is to agree to the term Dominist, Dominism, as it's title and you can write anything you like. If what you write becomes popular and makes you lots of money then you will also become the authority on what the subject is. The 28 Domino pieces can make rank or structure and are good for logo's and insignias and the uniforms have the option to be white spots on black, or black spots on white, for visibility or stealth etc.
The hard part will be in developing workable and functional strategies.
A man must accept he can never understand women's logic due to its inferior nature, as much as he can't predict or makes sense by human standards the moves of an individual monkey (only the collective ones). They simply think on a different - INFERIOR - level.
It's harder to understand inferior things than superior ones. Superior stuff follows a LOGIC, stupidity doesn't. It's impossible tuo understand stupidity because it has no PATTERN, and this is the reason why men don't understand most women's behavior and all women of better intelligence I've met agree most women are stupid and they themselves don't understand them.
Understanding doesn't mean superiority, not understanding doesn't mean you're inferior. Success isn't value. Result is irrelevant - what matters is inherent reality; substance that is independent from result, since result in this world is RANDOM.
Judge things from inherent value, not results. Results aren't a testament to the quality of the object in examination.
A successful man is usually a moron, an unsuccessful one usually a genius. This is the world we live in and anyone who denies it works this way is ignorant.
One of the problems that I have been looking at is the nature of problem solving itself. Many people on this forum have called me many names but none of them have nailed it:
I am a Nerd. Which probably means that I am not qualified enough to be a Geek. So you have 'Normal' and you have 'Nerd' and the difference here is one of speed. The nerd is like a car driver while the normal person is like a pedestrian. The nerd solves 10 problems while the normal solves one problem. Elliot Rodger was a nerd and he had a car! You can see how that interaction works out.
But there's a problem. While it may seem great to solve 10 problems when the guy next to you is still solving problem number one, what you have is a quality difference. Certain types of problem cannot be solved in the 'Nerd' way but only in the 'Normal' way, and relationships are one of those problems.
While the 'Nerd' is solving his 10 problems the 'Normal' guy is putting ten times as much effort into the one problem and he achieves a very high quality result. This is similar to playing a musical instrument. The 'normal' guy is putting in ten times as much effort while the 'nerd' switched to using a computer instead (and gets a better result). The 'Nerd' is working with facts, but the 'normal' guy is working on the nuances of the result.
So you have quick sudden answers based on simple factual reality, then move on to the next problem.
Unfortunately some classes of problem require this quality time and the slow malingering of the idiot to make sure that it all works. The female dates a footballer not a computer programmer because she is after the quality answer. My view then is that the female has to be played like a musical instrument.
The general solution here is to use some kind of camera recording gear:
The reason why the feminist needs to opportunistically use her mobile phone to call for help is because the male that she was treating badly now appears to be harassing her. However the superior male (a dominist) isn't opportunistically using a mobile phone, instead by design he has a covert camera that records everything that he does. So after she calls the police and makes her complaint he will show the police the camera recording of what happened and she would then be charged for making a false complaint.
So the feminists mobile phone gives way to the dominists covert camera system, and the male wins by design.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|