This is a very insightful piece. It basically argues, correctly, that most women drastically overvalue themselves in terms of what they offer the world and partner. The average wench things she's a princess when...well...she's just a wench. The more wenches expect to be treated like princesses, by not being real people who treat others as equals or partners, the worse their situation will get. Many young attractive women can rely on male lust to get over her toxic personality for a time...but this just leads to bitter old maids. Frankly, I can't see why any man would have the slightest interest in any of these women...beyond what one might purchase for $150 for an hour. Perhaps we should legalize prostitution and give up the pretense so these women can simply monetize their greed at predictable rates with no long term expectation after the transaction. Feminist women are going to discover that the world can get along quite well without them and that...most of them are so toxic that they aren't even worthy of being treated as wenches. Perhaps hand maid in a red and white outfit is the best these women can eventually hope for.
Yes, Sadredin, but the whole point of this "princess" principle is precisely to avoid work (such as prostitution) and to enjoy the lifetime servitude of men. Even the minimal labor of arranging their flowers is too demanding.
Too true. We also see the same strategy applied by feminists to make women a preferred/protected class in the workplace where, ironically, these superior work of women somehow requires lower standards and workloads in comparison to men!
I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes. Even after 40 years of studying feminist gynocentrism and misandry, I'm stunned by this grotesque perversion of both gender (femininity or masculinity) and sex (femaleness or maleness).
The "princess" principle opposes any feminist mentality, which assumes that women are not merely equal to men but the same as men and therefore independent of men. And yet it opposes even more unmistakable any traditional mentality. (1) For Jews and Christians (or devout members of countless other religious traditions), women and men are interdependent, not independent--let alone interchangeable. (2) The ideal is marriage, not personal the gratification of women and the objectification of men. (3) That relies ultimately, especially but not only in the context of children and family or communal life, on the shared value of self-sacrifice, not selfishness. (4) And that, in turn, relies on the shared search for holiness or spirituality, not on the glorification of materialism or hedonism. Had it been otherwise, both historically and cross-culturally, no human community could have endured. (Unlike many religious traditions, moreover, traditional Western ones reject the open deification of women—a more precise analogy than “princess” or “queen” would be “goddess—as a form of idolatry.)
I leave the vocabulary of evolutionary psychology to others. Instead, I use the vocabulary of obvious and universal existential need. This "princess" principle distorts the notion of "provider" by turning it into a romantic version of slavery (but even more extreme than the adulterous one that prevailed in aristocratic circles of the High Middle Ages in Europe) and consequently ignores the need for reciprocity that has until very recently been institutionalized in every social contract between women and men.
By the way, I'd like some way to cite this video. Does anyone know the author’s name and the original date of this video?
Well said Paul. It was amazing to me the attitude shown that they didn't need to do anything in return, it was all about getting something for themselves. This is the mentality of a very young child.
I don't know the name of the creator of the vid. He goes by MHD. He and I have exchanged some messages and that is how he signs off, MHD. The link for this vid is https://youtu.be/ydf10-F8uqA?si=b19TnhUFcQ1moKDy
Thanks for this, Tom. I sent this vid. to my grandnephew with instructions to carefully watch and listen to it alone.
This, together with the prior vid. regarding the philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, fails to mention women, who are perimenopausal and menopausal or who are both in a truly mature and humbling position subsequent to their losing what I call 'reproductive capital' viz., they show deferential or submissive respect for men.
I define love as that condition where the joy of the person or life in question is essential to your own.
Despite Schopenhauer and as an experienced seventy-two old man, I know that women, and only women, who have lost their reproductive capital are capable of love as I've defined it.
This is a very insightful piece. It basically argues, correctly, that most women drastically overvalue themselves in terms of what they offer the world and partner. The average wench things she's a princess when...well...she's just a wench. The more wenches expect to be treated like princesses, by not being real people who treat others as equals or partners, the worse their situation will get. Many young attractive women can rely on male lust to get over her toxic personality for a time...but this just leads to bitter old maids. Frankly, I can't see why any man would have the slightest interest in any of these women...beyond what one might purchase for $150 for an hour. Perhaps we should legalize prostitution and give up the pretense so these women can simply monetize their greed at predictable rates with no long term expectation after the transaction. Feminist women are going to discover that the world can get along quite well without them and that...most of them are so toxic that they aren't even worthy of being treated as wenches. Perhaps hand maid in a red and white outfit is the best these women can eventually hope for.
Yes, Sadredin, but the whole point of this "princess" principle is precisely to avoid work (such as prostitution) and to enjoy the lifetime servitude of men. Even the minimal labor of arranging their flowers is too demanding.
Too true. We also see the same strategy applied by feminists to make women a preferred/protected class in the workplace where, ironically, these superior work of women somehow requires lower standards and workloads in comparison to men!
Ultimate laziness. She wants him to work 12 hours a day, come home and do all the housework, and she brings NOTHING to the table.
Worse. These women are proud of their laziness and offer no apologies or excuses for it.
All sensible men will steer clear of these users.
I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes. Even after 40 years of studying feminist gynocentrism and misandry, I'm stunned by this grotesque perversion of both gender (femininity or masculinity) and sex (femaleness or maleness).
The "princess" principle opposes any feminist mentality, which assumes that women are not merely equal to men but the same as men and therefore independent of men. And yet it opposes even more unmistakable any traditional mentality. (1) For Jews and Christians (or devout members of countless other religious traditions), women and men are interdependent, not independent--let alone interchangeable. (2) The ideal is marriage, not personal the gratification of women and the objectification of men. (3) That relies ultimately, especially but not only in the context of children and family or communal life, on the shared value of self-sacrifice, not selfishness. (4) And that, in turn, relies on the shared search for holiness or spirituality, not on the glorification of materialism or hedonism. Had it been otherwise, both historically and cross-culturally, no human community could have endured. (Unlike many religious traditions, moreover, traditional Western ones reject the open deification of women—a more precise analogy than “princess” or “queen” would be “goddess—as a form of idolatry.)
I leave the vocabulary of evolutionary psychology to others. Instead, I use the vocabulary of obvious and universal existential need. This "princess" principle distorts the notion of "provider" by turning it into a romantic version of slavery (but even more extreme than the adulterous one that prevailed in aristocratic circles of the High Middle Ages in Europe) and consequently ignores the need for reciprocity that has until very recently been institutionalized in every social contract between women and men.
By the way, I'd like some way to cite this video. Does anyone know the author’s name and the original date of this video?
Well said Paul. It was amazing to me the attitude shown that they didn't need to do anything in return, it was all about getting something for themselves. This is the mentality of a very young child.
I don't know the name of the creator of the vid. He goes by MHD. He and I have exchanged some messages and that is how he signs off, MHD. The link for this vid is https://youtu.be/ydf10-F8uqA?si=b19TnhUFcQ1moKDy
Shows these women have childhood issues and need to seek professional help.
The uploader's name is Manosphere Highlights Daily, and it said that it was uploaded 9 days ago. Here is the direct Youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydf10-F8uqA
Thanks for this, Tom. I sent this vid. to my grandnephew with instructions to carefully watch and listen to it alone.
This, together with the prior vid. regarding the philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, fails to mention women, who are perimenopausal and menopausal or who are both in a truly mature and humbling position subsequent to their losing what I call 'reproductive capital' viz., they show deferential or submissive respect for men.
I define love as that condition where the joy of the person or life in question is essential to your own.
Despite Schopenhauer and as an experienced seventy-two old man, I know that women, and only women, who have lost their reproductive capital are capable of love as I've defined it.
Brilliant. No wonder so many of us are going to countries that still have traditional values to find a helpmate.