Yes, I agree here with you, Zoot. When a man displays kindness towards children, in particular, towards infants, women find it highly attractive; conveys emotional healthiness.
The sort of ‘kindness’ that women abhor is the one of a guy not having enough strength to assert his own framework in social situations, and the overly-romantic kindness of the ‘nice-guy’.
Women don’t find kindness towards children attractive, if you killed all your kids and went to prison for it, they’d send you love letters, and you’d get marriages HA! and conjugal visits from it. Nice guys aren’t cheesy, they don’t hit on women, and they certainly know how to assert themselves in the world. Women want evil.
The reason indifference is attractive is because indifference is a sign of strong focus, of a man who cannot be easily distracted, and most importantly, from the point of view of women, because it means that a man has goals beyond women.
To be kind to women, or to pay too much attention to them, means that your focus is weak, either because you have no focus at all, or because your focus are women. Women can recognize this because they themselves are creatures of a weak focus, and women can despise this because they themselves feel helpless and in need of a man who is superior to them.
Indifference is quite simply a consequence and not a goal. Once you make it into a goal, it is no longer genuine indifference, but a trick a man with a weak focus, a needy man, uses in order to attract women.
Kindness and meanness can be rational, but for the most part, they are lingering habits that a man of order has to trim so that he can aesthetically synchronize them with the rest of his being.
Women are attracted to any kind of focus, but biological focus, which is aesthetical focus, is superior to mechanical focus, which is rational focus.
In fact, from a biological point of view, mechanical focus isn’t really a focus since in order to maintain itself it has to be sheltered from all inhibiting drives. Once you look at the full biological picture, you will see that the drives, taken as a whole, are diverging and only selectively converging.
In hedonism, on the other hand, there is even less convergence, and mostly it’s pure divergence of drives. In real life, this manifests as a series of short-lasting activities all of which are more or less unrelated to each other. Hedonism is easy and pleasurable but ultimately empty.
A sense of continuity is necessary, of movement from one point to another, where very little is lost of who I really am.
More to the point, to be a man or a woman for that manner, means to know how and when to be in control of one’s self and how and when to let go of that control.
The tree which does not bend during the storm becomes uprooted. I’ve seen more than a few really strong ones go the way of the wind.
I would say that Bill Gates was a nerd - perhaps even still considers himself to be one. I suppose it was just his neuroses which accumulated all of that money for him, not his diligence, intelligence, hard work, insight, discipline, clear vision, a seer of possibilities where some saw none.
More men and women could only wish to be a nerd like that.
Primal Rage
Meaness and Masculinity
SOME women or maybe MANY women, yes Eric are attracted to jerks. That’s usually because they don’t see much value in themselves…perhaps thinking that the jerk is all they can get or perhaps because the feeling of sexual attraction is too strong to move away from the jerk. THAT becomes more important than the self/Self. Sometimes a woman’s behavior is as a result of being verbally or physically abused by a father or even a mother. You need to also take a look at the female’s psychology.
You mean at the peril of the other party’s feelings or your own? The way I look at it, being mean especially for no good reason is just being a jerk. If someone is being assertive for the good of the other and it might cross the line into meanness - well, there’s always a way to be less than mean. But sometimes no - but being assertive in a conscious way is better than just plain mean.
I disagree. First of all, that’s being arrogant and narcissistic, self focused. Meanness is not being dominant at least not the way in which I look at it though it may be the desire to be dominant or perhaps a better word - domineering. Perhaps it comes more from fear than anything else.
Anyone can be mean. Being mean in my book is being inferior since there is another way to relate to someone. Meanness is also not being masculine. A really masculine man knows how to be gentle and kind too. It’s called humanity.
Sweetheart, to be kind may leave one feeling vulnerable but being vulnerable is not necessarily a sign of weakness - allowing one’s self to be vulnerable for a good is strength and humane.
There is a difference between being kind and being a doormat. We can ever be doormats to our near and dear ones. Kindness is also discriminate.
Placating is not the same as authentic kindness Eric. That’s just wanting to soothe the savage beast. Being kind doesn’t make one a slave to a master unless there is that mentality to begin with.
Perhaps a man who is too wishy washy or always gives into a woman giving her everything she wants and when she wants it. That’s not being a man either. That’s just disrespecting self.
I would qualify the above by saying that there is more to being a human being than being mean. We’re all capable of being mean. You know how mean I can be right little bull terrier? 
Well, in my book kindness is strength depending on one’s intention. Kindless also comes in wolves clothing let’s not forget.
lol That’s how you end this? Men are rude? Women can be rude too. But don’t worry Erik. We women will try not to be so rude as to defeat you testosterone- flowing males thereby making ourselves the truly dominant creatures.
Being mean and disinterested in most peoples feelings is also the attribute of an alpha female. Money flows up, shit flows down.
In other words, it is not a question of principle but of selection, of hierarchy. Those up to standards are worthy of kindness, but again, not on general principle but because of genuine personal affection. The Christian idea of love for all has never been an aphrodisiac. It rather leads to men desecrating boys in the cellar, which is simply instinct itself having been violated and churning on itself.
To assert oneself benevolently is no less an expression of power than to assert oneself malevolently.
True
But in general, the sort of lovey-dovey kindness I see from other people appears slavish and weak.
Fixed stated it well; it’s not about trying to be mean for the sake of meaness, but rather to be indifferent.
I think a lot of these Catholic priests aren’t “chaste ones from their very nature”(Nietzsche) but violently impose it on themselves.
Which makes me wonder if ancient pagan priests understood chastity in more Nietzsche terms.
MA wrote:
OK, but how will a woman know you are attracted to her, if you feign indifference? Is this not rather childish.
The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.
The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple: I should say, love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way — and if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet. Bertrand Russell
What do you mean, love?
The ratio of “I want you” to “I want something else” is decisive. It should be low, but not too low.
For example, count in how many posts I told you “you are hot, I love you” and in how many posts I simply minded my own business. Then divide the first number with the second and if the result is something like 3:622, then I am indifferent to you and you should be in love with me.
and if mathematics is not a woman’s strong point
What then?
How does a woman translate this 'feigned" indifference, you seem to think is necessary in attracting a woman.
Women have a neural circuit resembling a modern calculator located somewhere within their neocortex which they use, albeit unconsciously, precisely for this sort of purposes. They don’t do mathematics, they feel mathematics . . .
Why do you think I am talking about FEIGNED indifference? Though it is true that women generally make no difference between the two.
HA
Good luck with that one.
I think it is pathetic to feign indifference.
I already said that indifference is a symptom/consequence, and not the goal itself.
MA wrote:
This translate to me, that you adopt an attitude of indifference because to you it is attractive to women, which in turn, from my perspective, you use to attract a certain kind of woman.
“Treat them mean and keep them keen”.
Which translates, treat them with contempt.
