Educated Women & Vapidity

Education & Womanly Vapidity

“Women are considered deep – why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Contents:
1.) The Disappointment
2.) The Hypergamy of Academia at a Glance
3.) Vapidity, Depth & “Female Intelligence”
4.) In Closing

1.) The Disappointment:

Education neither imbues a woman with reason nor surgically eviscerates her vapidity. The educated woman is just as vapid as the uneducated, for vapidity is symptomatic of solipsism. Women’s reputation for petty gossip is the most accurate cultural memetic highlighting the vapidity of the feminine.

And yet it is oft thought that an educated woman is an intellectual woman, and that by merit of such intellect, such women are not vapid. Of course, this notion falls flat on its face when we discover that education does not give the unreasonable, reason, or the unintellectual, intellect. At its best, education makes philosophers out of thinkers and artists out of drawers. The philosopher may draw, but he will never be an artist. The artist may think, but he will never be a philosopher. And so we must resign ourselves to a most immutable conclusion: education cultivates latent talent, it does not imbue absent talent.

If personal experience teaches anything, it is that although men expect educated women to be less vapid than uneducated ones, such expectation yields little but disappointment. Only in the most fortuitous of circumstances will such an expectation be fulfilled. I’ve known many a man to frequent the company of erudite women, some even more learned than he. And yet, a common complaint pervades – “these women are well-educated, yet somehow they lack self-awareness and appear dense.” Her level of education deceptively led the man to expect greater intellect, yet in spite of her education, she disappointed the expectation.

And so to an intellectual man, the educated woman is a most curious creature. She is educated, yet comparatively dim. Who naturally associates education with knowledge bereft of self-awareness, or erudition devoid reason and intellectual curiosity? Aren’t such things the root of all knowledge? Indeed they are. And yet, via rote memorisation knowledge can be passed on without a more than superficial understanding of it. The fundamentals of intellectualism are necessary only for innovation, not repetition. A fast learner is not necessarily a good thinker, one need only look at the Chinese to see emulation rather than innovation; women, Chinese or not, are much the same.

Man’s folly lies in his conflation of education with intellectualism. Intelligent men infer that education can only be obtained if one is rational, analytical, and above all, intellectually curious. As such, these men wrongfully assume educated woman possess these qualities for they think it impossible to succeed without them.

Of course, this line of reasoning is false. Even the humblest of experience will quickly reveal that the majority of educated women are nothing more than adequate rote learners. Well versed in the memorisation of how complex processes work, but quite unable to reason independently of what they were taught. And so it appears dedication and memory supersede intellect in matters of educational attainment, for if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have the number of highly educated women that we do.

If education demanded independent thought, there would be a degree shortage, and the number of women graduating? It would plummet. There’s a reason women make great accountants; accountants memorise processes to balance assets and liabilities, there is marginal innovation at best.

2.) The Hypergamy of Academia at a Glance:

For all the prior stipulated reasons, men who expect educated women to be more interesting and rational will find naught but disappointment. It matters not how much you educate a woman, her lack of logical rigour and vapid obsession with the petty will remain. Pettiness being a symptom of solipsism, it is wise to consider it an immutable element of female nature.

When a woman’s hypergamy speaks, it sounds like this: “why should I have to lower my standards for anyone?” Women typically seek education to acquire status and increase their access to high status men, rather than to indulge any sense of innate intellectual curiosity. With the acquisition of education, a woman’s already high expectations become ever higher. Quite wrongfully, she believes her education increases her attractiveness to men because being an indicator of status, she finds it attractive in men. This is of course no more than projection confused for reality, a common hiccup among the solipsistic (people poor at abstraction) and the deludedly narcissistic (people who have no rational basis for their elitism.)

IM MAXIM 101:

Education and status acquisition increase male dating options, but decrease females’. The reason for this is women date up or across, whilst men date down or across. If you are hypergamous, you’re only attracted to people better than you. If you reach the top-level as a woman, only the men at the apex will do. If you reach the top-level as a man, you have all the women beneath you to choose from. As a function of both hypergamy and sexual economics at the macro level; as women’s collective hypergamic need increases, the pool of subsequent men capable of satisfying this need decreases.

And so in an age where men of intellectual disposition avoid university, and even the most inanely vapid women are ushered in by the insanity of affirmative action, the quirks of hypergamy begin to surface.

If a woman can’t find a suitable mate at university, she will still graduate. Only, undergraduate men will no longer seem quite so attractive. Why? Because she’s an undergraduate too. Undergraduate men could only satisfy her need to upgrade when she perceived them as superior. Now she doesn’t, only men with higher calibre white-collar degrees (eg: doctors, lawyers etc) will do. And should such a woman obtain a master’s degree and fail to meet a suitable partner? The process repeats with even higher stakes until such a woman effectively prices herself out of the market, condemned to decrying men as intimidated by her financial independence rather than repulsed by it.

Repulsion you say, why would a real man™ be repulsed? Well the more educated a woman, the greater her standards and entitlement, and thus in turn, the lesser her attractiveness. Higher status makes people behave more narcissistically, now whilst narcissism is a suit well-worn on a man, it is one ill-fitting for a woman. Whilst women are inherently drawn to male narcissism as overconfidence is the linchpin of good masculine game, female narcissism is unattractive to the majority of men. In women it manifests as bratty, spoiled “hot girl behaviour” and men, especially top-tier men, don’t want to feel like they’re babysitting an overgrown child.

Men seek polarity and femininity in long-term relationships. And so women seeking a misguided sense of equality through education only harm their chances at attracting top-tier men. A woman who thinks she’s the equal of men she dates solely due to their greater status is thus, at least psychologically, an unattractive idiot.

This is the inevitable stupidity that occurs when a woman takes a “different but equal” approach to men rather than a more traditional perspective that better complements reality. When a woman reaches the heights of professional status, such heights no longer seem all that attractive. The balcony looks more impressive when seen from the street than when stood on, if she can’t look up to him, he can’t (with some benevolence) look down on her. Without that dynamic, there is no attraction and thus no love.

Summarising this chapter:

Better educated women means more dissatisfied women. By employing a male strategy and seeking prestige rather than cultivating femininity, women quite literally price themselves out of the market. Why would a sane, successful man wish to endure the insufferableness of a self-important female academic? When society’s women become more educated than it’s men, the male aversion to hypergamy-fuelled narcissism is heightened in unison with the feminine reluctance to date down. The result? Spinsters and a lot of animosity.

3.) Vapidity, Depth & Understanding Female Intelligence:

More than anything, I believe if there were something that could destroy female vapidity it would be education. Education gives women the most potential to develop an intellectual curiosity into the mechanisms behind life’s curtain. And yet such qualities are so incredibly rare amongst women it leaves me questioning what exactly education does to women.

Vapidity is likewise a product of sloppy or poorly thought out notions (normally rattling off however one feels, making superfluous observations etc) rather than original thought or scepticism stemming from curiosity and enquiry. Vapidity being an effect of solipsism, this makes sense. Education does not override solipsism.

Education instils women with knowledge to create a simulacrum of intellect, but this knowledge seems all but divorced of any innate intellectual curiosity. And it is these basic women who deem themselves the intellectual superiors of men who possess no degree, although many such men possess the innate intellectual curiosity that the majority of degree holding women lack. An incredible perversity if there ever was one; stupid educated women and intelligent uneducated men, how about that?

There are more women than men in higher education nowadays, and yet I would argue with an emphatic conviction that your average uneducated man is more cognisant and intellectually curious than his better educated female counterparts. It is simple: woman’s innate fixation with the social, a herd mentality and a need to be liked/accepted is what drives vapidity, and no amount of education seems to eradicate it. Ergo, if a woman is not vapid, it is probably more an effect of her natural biological makeup (eg: she’s an autist) rather than a product of formal education.

And yet, despite the educational achievements of today’s women, said success seems to have had minimal effect on female hobbies and interests. Education hasn’t made women interesting. Education hasn’t given women hobbies distinct from the uneducated, nor has it imbued any sense of noblesse oblige. Education hasn’t disconnected women from the social hive mind and given them any real intellectual autonomy, it doesn’t seem to expand the female mind, but rather, it just fills it. And that is sad, because in an era where “everything is a social construct,” if anything could manage that, it’d be education.

It seems counterintuitive that the average woman with a law or biology degree would even give two remote fucks about Kim Kardashian or whittle on with infantile fascination about shoes, whilst having close to zero passion for more important and intellectually stimulating topics such as philosophy or politics, but there you go. Much about women is counterintuitive at a glance, counterintuitivity runs through their veins. If it didn’t, there would be a less dire need for the red pill.

There will always be a woman who will pipe up and say she hates Kim Kardashian and loves Nietzsche, and I’m sure such a woman exists, but she is atypical rather than typical. To not realise she is an outlier, and to make such a solipsistic assertion as a counter-argument in attempting to disprove my sentiment, there is great short-sightedness if not disingenuity. We are after all talking about the predilections of women at large, not the impassioned snowflake who’s read all of Nietzsche and prefers to meaningfully debate abstract topics with men rather than gossip with women. I suspect the female readers of Illimitable Men lean more toward the latter, but perhaps not. I can only speculate.

Women tend not to be intellectual people at their cores, but rather they possess the necessary IQ to go through the motions, to rote learn and pass tests – and many do exactly this in order to access men with higher earning potential (as outlined in section 2.) Thus a woman can look great on paper, but remain entirely dull as an effect of absent intellectual curiosity. The core nature of women would appear to persist in spite of any educational programming. Simply put, in matters of the mind – education does not make women more like men; it imbues neither additional reason nor curiosity, only knowledge.

You would be surprised just how many women are “educated” and yet lack an intellectual bone or original thought in their entire body. They are expert learners, clearly focused, disciplined and “smart” in so much they can grasp ideas and processes, but they manage to achieve all this without any semblance of intellectual curiosity or original thought; a fascinating phenomenon. I liken it to the transmission of knowledge into a non-aware robot, intelligent, synoptic, but by its very nature devoid of self-awareness. It expertly follows instructions, repeats what it is taught and emulates what it is shown. But if you stop giving it knowledge, it stops looking for knowledge; it never becomes anything more than it is. It never learns to think for itself and do so with any degree of accuracy or credibility.

It is with a certain earnestness that I believe men would be ecstatic if education made women more interesting or innately curious – it’s not that I want these assertions to be true – but rather, that my experience and observation suggests it simply is. It is easy to read literature such as this and fall under the impression that the intent is to simply talk women down. In earnest, my only intention is to decipher how women so smart can appear so stupid and then explain this disconnect to men. The sentiment is one of realism rather than pessimism, although I am privy to how the two can appear synonymous.

4.) In Closing:

The majority of women are vapid, vapidity being a symptom of solipsism and thus a core sentiment of AWALT. This is something men have to learn to accept. Wishing they weren’t is futile, for it changes not the reality. Women are unwise to try to convince us otherwise, for we have both eyes and ears.

Rather matter-of-factly, the vast majority of women are passionless, vapid and devoid any real hobby or interest beyond socialising and shopping.

Where more socially driven men find women’s impulsive self-absorbed quirks cute and exhilarating, the intellectual man is bored, despondent and underwhelmed. As much as women, even educated women, find intellectual men who have not immersed themselves in the study of game to be dull, such men find the banality and phatic social-driven conversation of women to be equally boring.

The rational man is, sex notwithstanding, bored with women as an effect of the great intellectual chasm between his depth and her lack thereof. The educated woman is rarely an intellectual in the truest sense; a woman of both reason and curiosity. And so men are wise to seek intellectual stimulation and social connection from male company, for it is there they will find greater wealth.

An educated woman as such confers no additional benefits to a man by merit of her education alone. If anything, her education fortifies her narcissism at the expense of her personality. Not quite what the intellectual man looking for “an intellectual equal” expects, truth be told he’d have better luck discovering Santa’s grotto. An intellectual connection is not what women excel at, sex is.


98 comments

  1. I can’t even begin to understand how you are able to :

    1) deliver such great content regularly

    2) post on TRP or on your twitter everyday

    3) work out

    4) take the time to live

    And work for a book at the same time. My logical mind tells me you must sacrifice one of those things. If I’m correct, that means that the book is not a project anymore. That would suck.

    Like

    1. I don’t post on TRP or tweet as much as I used to. Likewise I have foregone workouts numerous times to make sure I got a post out on the day rather than the following. Often it’s a choice between one or the other.

      As for the book, you’re right; I can’t live life, keep the blog updated and write an entirely new book. Because there is demand for a book however, I’ve set to work on compiling something from my pre-existing essays, polishing the prose, ordering the content and structuring it for a book format.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I’ve seen your blog name mentioned in several places. Having read some of your articles, I would look out for your forthcoming compilation, in the hope buying that will bring you what you need to write further. Good luck.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I was just thinking of this today while at hospital. I observed the nurses as they worked. Their learning is rote; they’re entirely incapable of deducing what needs to be done in a novel situation. If they didn’t learn about it in school or if the doctor hasn’t left explicit instructions on what to do, they’re lost entirely. I’d be terrified if more women were surgeons. How would they handle novel situations with a patient lying on the operating table? Excellent post.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Plenty of women are going into surgical subspecialties. For the very reasons described in the post – status signaling. And entry is competitive, but as this post mentions, women look great on paper. And present themselves well. They’re like blacks, and the opposite of East Asians, in many ways.

      Like

  3. Great article.

    At my university in Denmark, the main learning which is being taught in all studies there, is that objective rationale science is bad.
    A scientist should be inclusive and take factors such as race, sexuality and .. yeah, feeling in regards when doing science. Positivism is a bad word to use, literally, it’s a swear word.

    Besides, there’s a main study called Feministic Science, which has a part in all studies at the campus. I’m at a loss.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You hear some horror stories about the extent of feminism in Scandinavia on the internet, but I find it abhorrent they would create a “revisionist science” to placate state dogma. Sounds like feminism is the state religion in Denmark when they have the kind of pull to overtly fuck with science and keep a straight face.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I’ve always struggled with this a lot. Still haven’t really figured it out. No matter what I bring expectations, especially because a lot of women I date or whatever are in the same schools, programs, etc. as me. And I associate intellectual conversation with pleasure, and women with pleasure, it feels natural to me to have both at the same time . . . but this expectation always, always comes to frustration. I don’t know what it is, instinct keeps creeping in when I talk to women, the hope of something really good.

    It’s always a huge mistake.

    You should read Schopenhauer on women.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s certainly bizarre and jarring. Remembering a medieval trade history book I picked up for a penny, simply from sheer curiosity. A degree-educated woman, who saw me reading it wondered, “What profit will you derive from that?”
      Well that social interaction left me at a loss.

      Like

  5. I detest women for all your reasons, and find even the educated ones….lacking something…depth. I have never had close women friends as I am different…..the things they speak of do not at all interest me. Men may be threatened …..as my traits are more like theirs. I am not a lesbian or even interested in it. Violent crime, that is an interesting comment…..I have done things that men are more prone to do. Men find allies and connections, a woman like me finds no one to be behind her. More later after I read some more of your posts.

    Like

    1. I know (a few) women who are truly and genuinely accomplished in terms of intellect. As I’ve proceeded down the “red pill” path and started to accept that I would never be able to find a woman who was “equal” in the sense I formerly imagined, I wondered whether I would feel differently about smart women.

      To the contrary every time I find a woman who is smart, I’m thrilled. So I doubt that you should expect men to be “threatened.” The irony is that men are always appreciative of women who actually, successfully display male virtues. What pisses us off to no end is women striding in with a very unmanly, but very womanly, sense of entitlement.

      I think what women interpret as men being “threatened” is a response to women entering male domains with a sense of insecurity and a feeling that they have to prove themselves.

      An only tangentially related aside: I’ve noticed that women in the gym are a huge pain in the ass. Men are constantly engaged in negotiating space and equipment to make sure everyone has a fair shot to use it. No woman has ever, ever asked me if I wanted to work in. Ever. But men always do — the stereotype of the asshole gym bro notwithstanding. Another way that reality doesn’t conform to imagination.

      In fact I’ve hovered for long periods of time, waiting for equipment as women sit on it and chat to each other and play with their cell phones between sets, to the point that other men were turning to ask me if I was waiting for their machine. While the ones I’m most clearly waiting for are making no effort whatsoever.

      It’s a great example of female entitlement combined with invading male space.

      I finally get on and lift literally 3 times the weight for about 5 times the volume.

      Another hilarious observation is that I think women have absolutely no idea what strength is. They literally don’t have any idea. Everyone is now deluded by absurd, vain media images. Sadly, I find a lot of guys increasingly don’t work out for strength either, but for vanity. Ironically a symptom of their weakness, of letting girls dictate to them.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You’re getting solipsistic and silly. Pushing yourself in the gym for some mythical “strength” is what retards do. Strength is subjective and solipsistic – everyone is strong in their own little way. There is zero difference between the guy who spends hours and hours mountain climbing in solitude, and the nerd who spends hours and hours playing obscure board games with fellow nerds.

        Go to the gym to look good for the ladies. That’s objective, the amount of tail you can pull. Work your upper body more than your lower, because that’s what people associate with strength.

        It doesn’t matter what the truth is, what matters is what your target audience thinks the truth is.

        Like

      2. What a nonsensical comment.

        So instead of working for some mythical ‘strength’, you work for some mythical status of ‘having a lot of women’? Frankly, that sounds like a total slave mindset. To work oneself just into the thing that others – women – want you to be.

        In fact, it sounds pretty narcissistic. To maintain appearance, and then to only do it so that others associate one with strength, not to actually be strong by any individual standard.

        With strength – depending on the form – you can move with ease, lift things (and girls), intimidate others, feel great, be believably dominant. Only a fraction of the life satisfaction of strength comes from having women.

        Your relativism is despicable; just because there is no absolute mythical strength, that does not mean that the word is completely meaningless.

        Like

      3. I don’t know why, but the blog has been setting your comments to auto remove. Luckily I was going through my spam folder and told WordPress to take you off the spam filter.

        Like

      4. Is this supposed to be some sort of satire? Probably, but I’m going to assume it’s not just in case. “Strength is subjective and solipsistic . . . ”

        First of all, stop overusing the word solipsistic. Do you even know what it means?

        Strength is not subjective, dumbass. If I’m strong enough to throw you across a room, that’s pretty objective. I could go on, but is that really necessary?

        Like

      5. No edit function, but I had to comment on this too:

        “It doesn’t matter what the truth is, what matters is what your target audience thinks the truth is.”

        Talk about “rock-solid frame”!

        Like

      6. Liked your gym anecdote. I find the majority of men are as you say. Co-operative and unassuming. The exceptions being the narcissists that have multiple pairs of dumbbells strewn around their chosen bench. Apparently this selfish usage is an essential part of consecutive sets that unfortunately have to inconvenience fellow gym-goers. One guy I saw was hogging no less than 5 different pairs of dumb bells.
        My favourite incident so far goes to the fellow who saw me standing by an empty bench press and literally strode from adjusting his machine on the other side of the gym to lay claim to said bench with, “I’ve got another set to do”. Which gave me a hearty laugh. More than enough equipment to share, but only one centre of the universe.

        Like

    2. VeraD:

      “Men may be threatened …..as my traits are more like theirs.”

      Vera, I’m glad a woman is taking the time to read this type of material, but it would really behoove you to lose the “men are threatened” thought groove that’s been hammered into you by the feminists. This is very basic shaming language to get men to short-circuit their natural instincts.

      As IM said in this post, it’s not that men are “threatened” by women who display or ape male traits, it’s that men are repulsed.

      It’s a mirror image of the natural female repulsion to men who display feminine traits.

      Think about it.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. The rational man, sex not withstanding, bored with women as an effect of the great intellectual chasm between his depth and her lack there of…Now that’s what i call hitting it out of the park! Good one

    Like

  7. Yet another intellectually stimulating piece. You tell it like it is. Btw, 2nd section, 1st sentence, “…to BE more interesting…” Forgot the “be”

    Like

  8. I speculate that feminism is the result of a few smart women dismayed with the vapidity of most, making the wrong assumption – perhaps to buffer their disappointment – that all women would be the way they are, if only someone supported them. From my limited observation, they are really outliers.

    Some years ago, I was writing letters with a rather intelligent chick. She reveled in curiosity and abstract thought just like I did. What repulsed most chicks, she liked. She told me about her suspicion of having Aspergers. One day, I visited her and fucked her the same night. I enjoyed the day with her. Months later, when I became more game-aware and started to be more aggressive and sexual in my messages, she lost interest and rarely replied anymore. (Un)fortunately, her face was ugly, so I it was not a great loss. A cute body, though, and an expert disciplined guitar player.

    Hollywood and all the model photographs portray women with serious faces. It gives them the apperance of depth. From my experience, it is just a show, to be exposed at the first conversation for what it is.

    I once saw a studious girl sitting at her laptop in a cafe, looking attentive. I was intrigued and started a conversation. She told me she studied politics and morals or something like that. I tried to start a conversation about the Krim crisis. She became – even more – insecure and seemed like she was only trying to say the right thing and threw some slogans and generic judgments of the situation at me. As you note, she seemed to lack any personal interest in the matter whatsoever. My interest waned within seconds, replaced by disappointment. Where I had hoped for a challenge, only … vapidity … was found.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Another brilliant article! Just one observation- The late Patrice O’Neal’s strategy of dealing with women involves brutal honesty delivered with a touch of humor and I know you are a fan of Patrice but inferring from your articles you tend to favor Machiavellism which is at its core, lying. Now that’s interesting !
    I would love to hear your thoughts about switching from brutal honesty to machiavellism and vice versa while dealing with women. Keep up the great work, pal!

    Like

  10. Brilliantly written. This post makes too much sense and is 100% accurate. As someone with experience in the accounting field, I can verify your statement above, as these women rarely speak and socialize, just number crunch and follow the logical order of A/L and balance sheets. In practice with women I have met, I do find that the more educated do in fact have a greater sense of entitlement and superiority complex. One must wonder if education even makes such women feel better about themselves, if they are truly being honest.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. As someone currently married to a PhD in the brain sciences and previously having dated a neurosurgeon and law professor, my quest to find a woman to share my intellectual curiosity has been for naught. There was a time when I was resentful over this, and judged myself a misogynist for such resentment. Now, I simply accept feminine vapidity as an immutable law of physics. It’s nature. It just is.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hahaha. Yeah. It’s a load off, really. I used to think I had to find some incredible girl who was going to be deep and interesting. It’s really important to realize that that doesn’t exist and makes life a lot simpler. Just find a broad that’s hot and that listens to you.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. “By obtaining qualifications, a woman’s already high expectations become ever higher. She, quite wrongfully, believes her education is an attractive quality because she finds status attractive in men, and therefore believes her education increases the quality of man she should be able to attract. This feminine faux pas occurs en masse, ignorant of the reality that as a woman’s academic prestige rises, the fewer the number of eligible bachelors.”

    True…true.

    Like

  13. I’ve been thinking about this for a while…I think women have depth…but this depth is not an intellectual or philosophical one.
    I think it has to do with simplicity and the way she resonates with a/her man.

    I don’t know if you get me brothers…like the Escobar’s wife, ‘Tata’, is portrayed in “Narcos”.
    She probably had little education, but bruv, I’d take that depiction over a ‘smart’, educated fool, who is entitled 11 times out of 10, SHARPISH!!!!

    Like

  14. I liked your posts about power better. Now you turned into a full-blown TRP follower. Can we move on from women, which are only a small part of our lives as men? It’s ironic how much words one spends explaining women behaviours when what we actually need more words explaining “the way of men”.

    If you are to re-hash TRP posts I’d gladly just follow that subreddit, I see no need for this blog.

    Like

      1. Just to make it a matter of public record; I have innumerable pieces pertaining to power planned for the future, but an analysis of power and psychopathy has only ever been an aspect of this blog – never its sole purpose. I recommend reading sociopath websites and military strategy/some of the books on power I’ve previously recommended if that’s where your interests predominantly lie.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. but an analysis of power and psychopathy has only ever been an aspect of this blog – never its sole purpose

        Alright, yet how do you explain the fact that 90% of your content is women-related? Is it too much to ask for you to talk about both arguments in equal share?

        It’s not my job to tell you what to write on your blog, but I fell like you have broken your promise to earlier readers, which from the contents of the first posts assumed you were more power-focused than “TRP-focused”.

        If the contents of the blog have shifted (which I consider reasonable, as one might change inclinations), then clearly state so. There is no point in stating “stop following me”, which denotes a child-like response (to which I replied accordingly).

        Like

      3. Alright, yet how do you explain the fact that 90% of your content is women-related?

        I am not going to justify anything to you, as I feel no need. However I will make a simple statement of truth: this blog grew out of my activity on TRP, if you really had been following me for years, you’d know that from simple history. If you are a newer reader and have at least read the “about” page, you would see I have made that fact a matter of public record.

        Your feelings concerning my more power focused orientation than TRP focused orientation are misguided, your disappointment nothing but the product of your own assumptions. Yes I talk about power in a lot more depth than other TRP commenters/bloggers, but no, I never set out to form a blog on power. As I said, power is an aspect – a significant one at that – but not the sole focus. I have never made any public promises because I am not one to be held to the chains of servitude of which such promises entail, metaphorical chains of which are you now attempting to impose on me.

        As for “feel free to leave” – it is quite earnest. Any accusation of childishness is again nothing but a flawed interpretation of your own, something that would seem to be a recurring theme here. The only criticism I’m really interested in is on how to write better, or suggestions for specific topics readers think may be interesting or useful. If someone wants to blanketly state they don’t like the material I write, then “your criticism” (I’m using that word lightly here) is really no more helpful than that of an enraged woman who finds herself disgusted by the discovery of this blog.

        Basically you are idly complaining to someone who has provided you value. This isn’t even constructive criticism, although I am sure you will assert it is.

        Better yet someone who appreciates my work would not harbour the disrespect to publicly accuse me of childishness on my own blog, a very undermining power play. I suspect your intentions are less than noble here – but I will continue to entertain them for as long as I see a point.

        Better make your next comment interesting.

        Liked by 3 people

  15. It’s hard to discern exactly what I find most perplexing about this article. In general I agree with the notion that men tend towards more intellectual pursuits such as philosophy and politics, and that women tend to indulge themselves in social drama and gossip. The writing style used to articulate these points however feels far too black and white.

    Whilst I agree that women’s capacity for logic and reason is limited by their innate solipsism, to go so far as to liken them to robots or children is not the well balanced reasoning that I’ve seen in your work recently.

    At times you refer to an intelligent women as “the impassioned snowflake who’s read all of Nietzsche and prefers to meaningfully debate abstract topics with men, rather than gossip with women.” whilst simultaneously saying that such a woman “quite wrongfully, believes her education is an attractive quality because she finds status attractive in men”. I find it hard to reconcile these two points. On the one hand you’re holding intelligent women up as something special whilst concluding that this is in fact not preferable to men.

    In addition, you mention that “men seek polarity and femininity in long-term relationships” (a statement I wholeheartedly agree with) not long after saying that they “whittle on with infantile fascination about shoes, whilst having close to zero passion for more important and intellectually stimulating topics such as philosophy or politics”. It just seems a little contradictory to aspire to polarity and femininity whilst mocking topics you don’t find interesting and preferring they’d talk about the things you do.

    In general, I believe there’s a lot of truth to your article but the point you’re making could’ve been done with a far less demeaning and well balanced approach. Perhaps they don’t have a natural disposition towards being as cognisant and intellectually curious as men, but they aren’t these dumb robots that mindlessly perform repetitive tasks. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and it’s this sort of article that leads men down the path of being needlessly bitter in the red pill community.

    To conclude, I hope you don’t take offense from me questioning your work in this way. You don’t strike me as someone who would take this personally but nevertheless, I admire your work and your writing style is something I aspire to personally.

    Kind Regards

    Liked by 2 people

    1. My guess would be that the Illimitable Man’s mockery of women’s vapidity is not so much a rejection and a wish for them to be more intellectual as it is a simple amused observation.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Haha. Just read this profile of Playboy magazine. Here’s an excerpt from the letter beginning its first issue:

    “We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph, and inviting in a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex …”

    As if! A friend of mine (extremely good looking, incidentally) once tried to talk to a girl in a bar (right next to an Ivy League campus!) about Nietzsche. Like, actually have a real conversation about it. Then he awkwardly segued to, “would you like to go out sometime?” To which she replied, point blank, “No.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I bet you could make a sexual conversation about Nietzsche. Bring up the violence and rape and how it resonates with you, stare into her eyes…

      Like

  17. women want to get pounded by an alpha, spend lots of money, and fight for hierarchy dominance. If they went to university they want it more more more. Im happy to fulfill the first need. Bitch fight with me for hierarchy dominance? – bad move she lose 9 out of 10.

    Like

  18. You seem to write with great insight showing us the truth that contradicts so much society and generally accepted knowledge tells us. It saddens me that you offer no proof or reference for your statements and claims.

    I realize this is a blog where such things are not expected and that you might not have the time to spend months of research to back up a few statements. You do however deal in absolutisms presenting them as truth, which I suspect are based largely on your own experiences and anecdotal evidence.

    I’m not here to say you’re wrong, to ridicule or offend. I write this because this is something I see throughout all red pill/manosphere literature I have encountered so far. This makes it all a pseudoscience at best and bitter men ranting a worst.

    All the red pill theories would be much more credible if substantial evidence would be provided. It would also make it easier to weed out the fools and the frauds. Much like what has happened in actual scientific fields. As far as I know red pill thinking has found no support in the academic world, so we are left with intelligent (or seemingly so) men like you and your fellow bloggers and posters.

    Because of all this I wonder if you think applying scientific method would be beneficial for red pill thinking and more importantly if it is any way feasible. Of course I would like to hear anyone else who thinks he has anything to contribute to this.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think scientific method exists anymore. As one commenter above said, in the example in Denmark, they imbue their science with political correctness so there is no science in their science.

      I can tell you it is 100% true and I am a woman and have been for almost 50 years (yea that was a joke). The women I have grown up with as well as worked and been friends with, are vapid. I will provide the reference and proof. It doesn’t matter if they are well educated or not; in fact the well educated do seem to be more so, with their Louis Vuitton bags slinging on their arm. (One young E&Y management consultant I know does have this frozen cute deer in a headlights look when she is flummoxed by a man who knows his shit.)

      Me? I have my GED and some college but I was utterly disinterested in the master-pupil relationship and preferred to self-direct my studies in what I found interesting (not vapid topics!).

      I am and have been with a somewhat vapid liberal man for +15 years who started as a writer then dabbled in politics, then photography, then audio and now…he’s an actor, with each change bringing in less and less dough and taking more and more time and investment, until for the last five years it’s pretty much just been me supporting us. I allowed him to follow his “dreams” by being so cool and understanding…and I did him a great disservice. At 44 he can’t support himself and he’s about to get dumped, but after 16 years together enough’s enough. Fortunately he’s been made a much better man – physically, intellectually, emotionally, confidence-wise, credit-wise – by knowing me.

      No man is doing any woman a favor by allowing this vapidity to continue and I will apologize to him in a couple weeks when the door swings shut.

      Like

    1. They exist, just not in the way intellectual men do. Take an intellectual who will, at a moment’s notice, do anything in their power to abandon logic in the pursuit of maintaining a reality conducive to their own wilful delusions, and what you find is a woman.

      Like

    2. They exist and are most likely overweight to ensure they form relationships with men who love and respect them as humans rather than standard american men who are only capable of “loving” a hot body.

      Like

      1. Lola that is totally tweaked.

        Why not have brains and a hot body? There is no limit to how much can be collected in the basket of offerings; besides, how intelligent would a woman be to let herself physically go to hell so she can put her concerns to rest on whether she is loved for who she is rather than how she looks. Sounds more like a horribly irrational and insecure choice, totally ignoring the health concerns that come with overweight dumpiness.

        The rare intellectual woman who’s dumpy doesn’t have a leg to stand on in comparison to a sexy and ultra feminine intellectual woman who has worked her ass off to form and maintain curves in all the right places. And wow can throw in excellent health to boot.

        To continue to improve myself and be the best “me” at any given time rather than rationalize laziness is the only sound choice for me – after all, I want the whole package, doesn’t the recipient of my ultimate love and intention deserve the same?

        Like

  19. I read this post before, but I didn’t think it would affect me at all. I don’t wish to give to much away but to put it into context: I’m African American. Somewhere between 20-25. 205lbs. Graduate student. On track to clear $100-150K+ mark by age 30 in a quantitative job.

    I’ve dated very beautiful women in the past (26-33 years old), and for time purposes I am now dating college girls. I have noticed is this bizarre frequency of “feminist” girls in the beauty range of 5-7/10. Hot girls are never feminists. I’ve gone on several casual dates in the last few months and each of the girls has classified themselves as a feminist within the first few seconds of us talking.

    Whilst they believe I am some dumb jock -I’ve had Middle Eastern girlfriends in the past who have been genuine intellectuals and a feminists for obvious cultural reasons. As a consequence of this, I’m actually well-read on classical feminist literature and ideas.

    What shocked me is the bizarre lack of intellect, and repetition of media lines. They repeated lines about “rape culture”, how “locker room sports banter” between men encourages women to be held down. How “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy holds down women”.

    I asked a few basic questions and it was clear these college girls were not smart. After an hour or so, of hearing them misunderstand classical feminist ideas the conversations digressed into bizarre Machiavellian trolling. I got silly questions like: I bet you wouldn’t like a feminist daughter or I bet you’d be against a gay son? I had a witty response, but I ultimately found it intellectually repulsive behavior.

    One girl asked me to take her back to her home for obvious reasons after discussing “rape culture”. So you are saying I am a fundamental problem to society and deserve to be in prison yet want me to come to your room. Fortunately I have read Mike Cernovichs stories and avoid trouble like the plague. I’m too focused on success to start unnecessary drama. I literally walked out of the date. And didn’t feel any remorse for how I was treated.

    “The fundamental hallmarks of intellectualism are necessary only for innovation, not repetition. Man’s folly lies in his conflation of education with intellectualism”

    What is your opinion:
    1. On the alarming increase in college feminists
    2. On young men avoiding these women or screening them out for dating.

    Would like to hear your take. It has really just put me off dating. They are starting to ban people from visiting college campuses as well.

    It as absolutely fucking ridiculous. Why should I feel bad for being an athlete and wanting to be successful ? It makes no sense. Even considering the fact I have nothing wrong with feminists.

    Thank you would like to hear your thoughts will pop in back in the comment section over the weekend.

    Like

  20. Dude, you are insanely redundant. You’ve repeated pretty much one segment of argument like a billion times. I could reduce this article in two or three paragraphs.

    I do agree with much of what you’ve noted There’s some merit to your point overall. But you could do with more tact. And brevity. Because half of making a good point is a good delivery.

    Like

  21. Aren’t all children naturally curious? Does it mean that perhaps women lose their curiosity during teenage life as they realize social constructs as gossip are important to their social survival? Doesn’t it mean they also would be able to remember what it was like to be curious as a child and perhaps recreate some of that curiosity as an adult?

    Like

  22. Looking pretty does occupy a great deal of a young American women’s free mental time…if I can extrapolate my own experience to most/many women. Some people are beauty (in everything) driven. They want to make beauty in all different ways, so a woman who has that inclination is going to want her own self to embody beauty with even more devotion than is typical. I think that’s a big part of my own desire to be easy on the eyes, along with the strong and basic desire for it that most women have anyway. Obviously this causes a person to look toward self, not outward. From an early age I discerned that pretty women were treated better (in the hearts – more important than surface courtesies) of men than plain or homely ones. They were cherished to a degree. I don’t like being the center of attention, but there is not a human being who doesn’t appreciate being cherished (within reason, being fawned over can be off putting) in a genuine matter. At the same time, I discerned that not offering beauty, while female, seems to cast a pall over the cause for your existence at all.

    In hindsight that’s disturbing, and I’m not blaming anyone for it, because maybe you have to be shallow in the first place to feel the desire to be pleasing within that ‘system’, and to reason that if you can’t be, there’s no use in existing. None the less,my recognition of the world being thus fueled lots of concern and fretting over my image. The mental free time devoted towards that fretting and constant desire to be pretty for myself and others, was time not spent feeding my dwindling curiosities. As I get older curiosity is coming back, and I feel profoundly remiss for letting it slide to the point it has. It’s amazingly refreshing to see young women who enjoy beauty but who are also curious. I have an office assistant, high school senior, who is curious about almost everything – what makes for high risk flood zones and where are they in the U.S. (not related to anything she’s studying) to the different roots of political philosophies. It’s sad that it appears to be very rare, but I’m encouraged it exists. Somehow she hasn’t been consumed with vanity, despite some participation in it, and she isn’t concerned with simply being successful in the narrow sphere of her life – high school student about to be college student, about to embark on some kind of career. She has questions, not just to have answers – to finish a task, but her mind enjoys thinking and pondering about all sorts of external things.

    My sense is this is more of a nurture than nature dynamic (for me personally, having a beauty loving artistic bent meant that nature played into what culture at wide was nurturing). I bet that, aside from how having scripted aspirations (due to cultural expectations) influences them (which may be greatly), young Amish women have as much raw curiosity as young Amish men. I think American women will be better off if we begin to realize the dire need to embrace curiosity…to not let it fall away, or just neglect it because we’re distracted by vanity. Dull interests are not our nature, our inescapable condition, but it’s certainly something we’re vulnerable to.

    Like

  23. Wow, you guys seriously are limited in your thinking. This sort of opinion of women is pretty much unique to the “player” type of man… If we’re talking about logic, don’t you think you’re making these assumptions after being exposed to a specific sample of women? A player looks for a challenge. Pretty much by definition you’re just looking to “conquer”. Of course you’re only going to end up getting close to vapid bitches. If I did a study on only college students, and tried to apply the conclusions from that study to the rest of the general populace, of course it will be wrong.

    All the women who don’t fit this description got married a long time ago and left the game, or are simply not pretty enough to grab your attention. Not that you care anyway.

    Like

    1. “All the women who don’t fit this description got married a long time ago and left the game, or are simply not pretty enough to grab your attention. Not that you care anyway.”

      You’re correct. We don’t care. Good job.

      Like

  24. While your articles are generally insightful and help explain the behavior of women I know, you made some assertions in this article that I’m not so sure are true. If women with more education have a harder time finding men that they are attracted to, wouldn’t you expect less of them to be married (or happy)?

    According to research data, there isn’t that much of a correlation between whether a woman is married and her level of education in recent years (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/09/ST-2014-09-24-never-married-05.png). Women with higher levels of education are also less likely to be depressed (http://dev.humanneeds.vcu.edu/DownFile.ashx?fileid=1720) despite generally getting less happy as they age (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105295/original.jpg).

    How would you explain this data within your understanding of women?

    Like

    1. Less happy as time goes by because they would either remain alone or marry down on their eyes, so they married down and over time are unhappy about the choice. This also leads to infidelity which destroys marriages.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. While all this discussion on feminism and females in general….like lets wipe them off the face of the planet….I see no questioning or analysis of homosexuals, transgenders and the like.
    Are they off limits to the criticism of all these bloggers??
    Too politically correct to attack these groups…..after all they have enriched society.

    I have only read this blog sporadically and much I agree with….but what about the homos….where do you all see them? Women are still the scapegoats….but everything is okay, no caustic comments about them, no matter if they are educated or not.

    One subject at a time…..as a daughter of a misogynistic father…..another subject.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Come now, if you’re going to say silly things like “let’s wipe them all off the face of the planet” I’ll have to revoke your commenting privileges.

      Be sensible or be gone.

      Like

    2. Vera, straight men don’t need to figure out gay or transgender males because they are not in lifelong relations with them – unlike with the women in their lives – their mothers, wives/girlfriends, daughters.

      Like

  26. Women are like this because men put up with it. So many men, a glimpse of thigh or tit and all of a sudden, they don’t care how melodramatic she is, how self-absorbed she is, how clueless she is, or even how she barfs out disconnected snippets of dogma like the intellectual equivalent of a bulimic rather than actually thinking. All they can think of is T&A.

    Do us all a huge favor, and stop sticking your dicks in the stupid. While you’re at it, if you have children and your daughters start manifesting these traits, check that shit fast, and check it hard. Ideally, your daughters should know all the way to the depths of their bones that such behavior is beneath contempt before they’re even counting their age in double digits.

    If you want quality, insist on quality, and intentionally propagate quality. Don’t sit and bemoan the lack of quality while you willingly stick your dick in any warm furrow that beckons. Have some respect for yourselves, and some regard for the future of the species.

    Like

    1. And read up on how intelligence is realized from the female chromosome not the male. Choose smarter or you just may be supporting a bunch of genetic dolts your entire life.

      The lazy fucking also increases the expectation of easy lays, which results in quality women sitting home on Saturday nights because easy is, well, easy. And effortless. And usually cheap; vapid Tinder girls will show up on your doorstep within an hour and you don’t even have to buy them a drink and they are DTF.

      These stupid women are destroying it for all women.

      That’s fine, I’ll start another book…

      Like

  27. I don’t think the majority of men are interested in deep,intellectual topics. Most people are shallow, women probably even more.

    There are a few women who are intellectually curious. Do you think more intellectual men can appreciate intellect in women?

    Like

  28. This article is certainly stimulating read. Your retoric is built on the universaly held assumption that women exist as an object of pleasure a man not as a individual. Stunning, you have perfected a level of satire that my feeble woman brain cannot even comprehend. Thank you for the tremendous laugh you gave my educated friends, both female and male, as we shredded your ‘work of great value’. Someone is trying far to hard to emulate the great philosophers of the 1900s, you hack. So you read a book on the subject and used a quote, well done. Much love as you clearly lacked it as a child.

    Like

    1. so you’ve been knowing IM since he was a child… and observed him getting less than adequate love?

      this TRUTHFUL material can be challenged but you’ve chosen to ‘attack’ the author… instead of engaging the thoughts and refuting them.

      wanna try again?

      Like

      1. The funny thing is, for those who hate my material to the extent they feel it right to maliciously assert I was not adequately loved as a child, I cannot help but think of the men I’ve spoken to who actually were not loved as children. On behalf of those men, I can with confidence and righteousness say that were you to tell them they were degenerate, or subhuman, or you would in some other which way try to invalidate their credibility or humanness by pointing to the dysfunction and ineptitude of their upbringing – they would not care. They would not discuss it with you.

        They would not write long essays to deal with a bad childhood. They would just stare at you without feeling and carry on about their day. To write lots of essays you need to love writing and have an insatiable intellectual curiosity. A compulsion to try to understand the world, and weave words in a pleasing way that communicates what one has deduced from thinking and observing.

        I don’t know why people use this “your parents never loved you” insult, because for those of us lucky enough to have parents who loved us, we are unfazed because we know the accusation to be untrue, and as for those who had parents who did not, they too are unfazed because they are not easily rustled by merit of their existential detachment. Such men are men who have been unloved and uncared for their whole lives, so bearing that in mind, why would even the most accurate of vindictive insults have any sort of effect on a man who fits the description you would insult him with?

        It wouldn’t. It’s an ineffectual, cookie cutter insult for dim people with low mind, and does nothing other than broadcast the closed-mindedness and emotional immaturity of the individual casting the aspersion.

        Like

    2. Well someone missed the boat on that response. The lack of intellectual capacity in most women is what CAUSES men to seek out male company for such mind delights and leads to them (vapid women) being seen in limited light with regard to capacity for stimulating, in depth conservations on topics that aren’t woven into the current Marxist-based social fabric.

      It is a choice the woman has made in what she finds interesting enough to study, if she does any of it at all, post university, that determines if a man finds her stimulating and worth dating or engaging intellectually, separate from any sexual attraction.

      To be fair, this vapidity is also possessed by many males, who merely parrot the thoughts and views of others – one begs for an original idea or thought.

      Like

  29. You say in part three, “my experience and observation suggests it simply is [true.]” Do you have any record of said experience and observation, so that the enquiring mind may determine independently whether your theory is supported by evidence? I believe that would strengthen your argument a great deal — I’m trying to match your assertions to my personal experience (which is limited: I’m only seventeen years old), and finding roughly equal numbers of examples supporting and detracting from your theory. Since anecdotal evidence isn’t generally considered valid anyway, would you mind terribly pointing me to whatever it is you base your theories off of?

    Like

    1. Life will reveal the truth in this but don’t worry, go live and see and experience and then come back and share with us what you discover. You have a lifetime of great memories ahead of you and the truth hopefully will unfold effortlessly with your own testimonial serving as your confirmation.

      🙂

      Like

  30. As a woman, I’d like to my tip my hat to you. All the IM articles I’ve managed to finish so far have been beautifully logical. Many of the points resonated in a painful way for me, but they also helped me to identify areas where I can improve myself. Likewise, I’ve shown them with my husband and strongly suggested we read more of the IM content together so we can understand each other better.

    Thank you for sharing your introspection.

    Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s