The 'Female Gaze'
Massacre
Have been thinking a lot lately about male behavioural self-moderation/self-censorship in response to perceived female opinion/values/judgment - don't think the male normgroid default going from a mild tough-guy persona to a sensitive censorious dweeb in 20 years is entirely down to test levels and microplastics (although I'm sure it plays an indirect part). Would hypothesise that the normgroid of 2022 is vastly more conscious than the 2002 normgroid of broad female opinion on any given subject and behavioural style, and engages in a lot more conscious and subconscious self-moderation and self-censorship.

The expression I used for the title of this thread (the 'female gaze') already has various fruity connotations in film theory, but in this instance I'd like to introduce it as a possible term for the male internalisation of female judgment/mores, especially when that goes to the extent of men and boys rendering social status-judgments according to essentially female metrics of status/approval (e.g. "no bitches?", the implication of which is basically "the qualities, interests etc that you possess and cultivate aren't pleasing/impressive to women"). On all of the culture war issues of the last decade, the formula has basically been: female consensus, male compliance.

I think this deserves examination and discussion - please share your thoughts on it, especially any speculation as to likely causes, prominent effects, and social significance.
anthony
The start of everything we do wrong is with boys and childhood. What happens here sets the pattern. If the growth of will is cut short you're made weak for the rest of your life. 

Everything John Gatto wrote about classroom environments and teachers applies 100x more strongly if the teacher is a woman. They're generally far less  impressive and lively figures, so if they have to rally a room full of children they're going to resort to the easy rampart of authority as a matter of necessity. Throw a generation of human will on the fire to keep the classroom system's fire burning, do it indefinitely if we have to. Just going to quote what's on my mind now.

[Image: image.png]
Svevlad
It's just a faggy version of that thing when you're with your friends and a girl comes in, and suddenly everyone acts like a degenerate retard, trying to knock the other guy down, impress the girl, and such. Male competitiveness around women but degenerate and retarded.
FruitVendor
As noted above a lot of this comes from public schooling, boys are pulled from their mothers and forced in a strange environment where psychologically they associate survival with compliance towards the female teacher of the classroom. Year after year this longhouse way of thinking gets imprinted.

Solution: Around age 7-8 Boys spend time with the eldest brother and Father or go to male institutions to learn. The content would be similar to Hitler youth. Control the youth, control the future.

"The country dominated by a woman is to be despised. And so to be despised is the being who becomes dominated by the power of a woman." (Jataka 13)
parsifal
as much as i agree about the shortcomings of public schooling, i look back upon my time in school fondly. while an all-male environment is surely conducive to camaraderie and directing youthful energy in a positive, masculine direction, school as it stands now is the principal environment in which children can casually interact with the opposite sex, before the innocence of these relations is lost to maturity. even in adolescence, young love is a unique and beautiful human experience that it would be a tragedy to deny future generations. perhaps there is another better way to achieve such a mixed-sex environment but in my opinion the advantages of coeducation are significant enough to keep it around. doing away with female teachers would be an improvement, and in basedworld marrying a precocious female student would be a privilege afforded to every teacher.
Svevlad
Very simple, different classes and curriculums, but in the same building. Allows interaction between classes, and encourages interaction between different groups.
Guest
Following the digression of this thread I'll just say that the needs of male and female education are different, and while there is certainly room for straight-rowed in-classroom education of boys (and need, imo - the GED copers are right that school tests for personality, as it ought to), without the reinstitution of kóryos it is fundamentally stunted and incomplete. Men require not only the school, but the all-encompassing gymnasium, and this in turn requires a fully and properly male space. Let courtship be done in its own place and according to its own regimen - but I say this as lover of priestly structure, with little regard for the Franco-romance of mentioned "casual interaction".

As you've probably heard from anyone who's attended a girl's school, they come out much, well, hornier, and thirsty for even the concept of a boy, and I imagine it's the same on the other end. What experience in a strictly religious community will teach you is that the precious fumbling romance of new love is found just as much in the virgin wedding as it is in the modern schoolyard ("modern" as in 30 years ago - I can't say whether even that exists now, in this country). Of course this proposal would cut Nabokov, that giddy ever-aching spiritual-Frenchman, to the heart.
Guest
Disagree strongly. Little to do with gender, almost completely curriculum and policy. Replace school with army bootcamp, all problems solved. Physical over the cognitive. Ban private schools too, all accreditation outlawed except IQ tests.
anthony
Quote:Guest:

Disagree strongly. Little to do with gender, almost completely curriculum and policy. Replace school with army bootcamp, all problems solved. Physical over the cognitive. Ban private schools too, all accreditation outlawed except IQ tests.


I've heard a lot of horror stories about women in the army. Of course we could say that's not a true army. Then we get into the same fundamental problem as schools. A *real* one would be purpose oriented. And a purpose oriented army would quickly exclude women for a multitude of practical reasons. But it's hard to build a purpose oriented institution when it's effectively illegal for your people to care about their future beyond a very base and petty level that only really suits lower orders of humanity.

The woman problem is the wretch problem which is the problem of the whole world organising against free exercise of power because the results would mean a fair bit of hell and terror for many. Schools/education worked when they were organised around the idea that a nation had an incentive and the possibility of opportunities in which to capitalise on its human potential. The world as a contest demands the best. An army is incentivised to organise sanely and bring about excellence when it's got to fight and win to live, and the alternative is dying. Whole societies are. American army is a woman-ridden dumpster-fire because real wars are almost out of the question now. Rather than a dynamic arena of contesting wills the world has been reduced to a tightly policed farm for human mediocrity. The army is a place to dump and occupy raw human mass, not a place to refine it for purpose.

How do you convince people who know they and theirs will be left behind by free exercise of human potential not to turn the whole world into a higher-soul shredder? The whole world is a giant scheme to prevent anything resembling meritocracy from emerging. In the face of that it's not too helpful to say "we should consider meritocracy".

This has a lot to do with gender. Woman is the nigger of the world and they know it in their guts and always will. They lose in a purpose and sanity oriented physical system. They lose in a purpose and sanity oriented cognitive system. They aren't even the *fairer* sex, they have no good feel for the humanities, the subtleties of human behaviour, art or beauty, they're just not that good at anything on the whole.
Svevlad
Then, the solution reveals itself:

Change what a woman really is. Pretty damn sure even selective breeding can fix the issue.

Alternative: a segregation of sorts. School/bootcamp/survival training (all in one) takes place in one location where the trainees can cavort and interact freely in the free time - but their curriculums are completely different, women get one thing, men the other
BillyONare
Quote:Disagree strongly. Little to do with gender, almost completely curriculum and policy. Replace school with army bootcamp, all problems solved. Physical over the cognitive. Ban private schools too, all accreditation outlawed except IQ tests.

[Image: 638.png]
Trep
I agree with much of what's been said. The feminine species has virtually no “opinions/values/judgment[s]”. Women only really care about sex, children, and their own vanity. These are related of course and it's basically their only 'value' (really just an instinct). As female influence grows/the male wanes every real value becomes subsumed to these. Roughly 99-100% of great things are not related to sex and most do not get you pussy either. They also take attention away from her. Since there are no decisive judgments or values, everything becomes surface level appearances and/or whirlpools toward already socially/power approved values. Appearance of beauty, appearance of intelligence, etc., and social belonging take precedence. Culture disappears. Tough guy persona and self censorship are both phenomena caused by this to different degrees.

I don't think this can be selectively bred out of females. There is nothing really to amplify. It's almost their definition. They simply must be totally excluded from political life and positions of power.
Milk
(03-22-2022, 02:33 AM)parsifal Wrote: as much as i agree about the shortcomings of public schooling, i look back upon my time in school fondly. while an all-male environment is surely conducive to camaraderie and directing youthful energy in a positive, masculine direction, school as it stands now is the principal environment in which children can casually interact with the opposite sex, before the innocence of these relations is lost to maturity. even in adolescence, young love is a unique and beautiful human experience that it would be a tragedy to deny future generations. perhaps there is another better way to achieve such a mixed-sex environment but in my opinion the advantages of coeducation are significant enough to keep it around. doing away with female teachers would be an improvement, and in basedworld marrying a precocious female student would be a privilege afforded to every teacher.

I like to think children would simply play outside and socialize with each other that way if they weren't in school. This would surely be the case even twenty years ago, but kids today would likely retreat into the internet instead, not to say that problem's being addressed in schools anyway, with the increasing tolerance of smartphones in the classroom and the advent of online classes.
anthony
(04-19-2022, 11:27 PM)Milk Wrote: I like to think children would simply play outside and socialize with each other that way if they weren't in school. This would surely be the case even twenty years ago, but kids today would likely retreat into the internet instead, not to say that problem's being addressed in schools anyway, with the increasing tolerance of smartphones in the classroom and the advent of online classes.

Covid here shut schools for a lot of time over the last two years. Seems to have worked great for younger members of my family. Low stress living with way more free time. Nobody afraid of the virus so lots of time outside on bikes with friends in the sun. No retreat into the internet observed here. I'm not denying that it happens, I'm quite sure it does. But I've seen the other way play out recently too.
Milk
(04-20-2022, 12:32 AM)anthony Wrote:
(04-19-2022, 11:27 PM)Milk Wrote: I like to think children would simply play outside and socialize with each other that way if they weren't in school. This would surely be the case even twenty years ago, but kids today would likely retreat into the internet instead, not to say that problem's being addressed in schools anyway, with the increasing tolerance of smartphones in the classroom and the advent of online classes.

Covid here shut schools for a lot of time over the last two years. Seems to have worked great for younger members of my family. Low stress living with way more free time. Nobody afraid of the virus so lots of time outside on bikes with friends in the sun. No retreat into the internet observed here. I'm not denying that it happens, I'm quite sure it does. But I've seen the other way play out recently too.

That's a good point, I have several younger brothers who are still in public school and that's been their experience as well. The virus itself was inhibiting to socialization but there are still plenty of young people who are interested in activities outside of their room, I do think its trending downwards and as other users have pointed out zoomers are less likely to go out but my original post was overly pessimistic.
Notharchus
(03-19-2022, 07:25 PM)Svevlad Wrote: It's just a faggy version of that thing when you're with your friends and a girl comes in, and suddenly everyone acts like a degenerate retard, trying to knock the other guy down, impress the girl, and such. Male competitiveness around women but degenerate and retarded.

I'm baffled by how men are willing to compete over used goods whores who openly brag about their escapades with other guys from their very young teens. I've always thought a very interesting and modern work of literature could explore the dilemma of a man's passionate love for a girl and the preservation of his own honour. There's plenty of material to work with today.
imperator
Apologies if I'm too late to the thread.

Rather than the title of the post "Female Gaze", is this not just the manifestation of the feminisation of society writ large? After WW2, and increasingly so over the decades, we have changes to laws, which basically put the thumb on the scale in favour of women. Paired with this we have evermore women flooding into the workplace, more and more women gaining authoritative position, regardless of merit, the culture changes as a result.
People in general orientate their behaviour towards the incentives. As mentioned above, the incentives are towards "female thinking". "Male thinking" is not acceptable. It is problematic.

To steer this back to the initial conversation about female teachers, I would say, yes they are a contributing factor. However, they are just one way in which the general problem manifests.
Replacing female teachers might help, but wouldn't change  the culture. For that you would have to change/remove laws, you would have to allow "sexism", accusations of which are essentially attacks on men and male thinking in the modern day. Another one they use is "toxic masculinity". Masculinity is not acceptable.

I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble.

Guest
(04-27-2022, 12:00 PM)Notharchus Wrote: I'm baffled by how men are willing to compete over used goods whores who openly brag about their escapades with other guys from their very young teens. (...) the dilemma of a man's passionate love for a girl and the preservation of his own honour.

The modern man's social conditioning tries its hardest to remove the stigma associated with promiscuity by praising it (ineffectively) as a virtue, but it has seemingly succeeded in making the majority generally indifferent to it. Most likely, a decision to marry a promiscuous woman will not be met with a negative reception of your peers, even if some might instinctively feel it to be a suboptimal choice.

cf. https://twitter.com/GreenTextRepost/stat...2528567296
A D. L
Just gonna say that women don’t really want men to act like this — who would? — and it frustrates them when they get what they ask for, which is weak-willed simps who give them what they exoterically desire. This is closer to the ultimate problem with intersex relations and how it resounds throughout society than MedGold’s diagnosis that they “just need to be fucked good.”

A woman who I love has told me that I don’t act like a man; rather, that I act like a girl. She is correct, and this is esssentially because I have been socialized to ascribe substantive content to the exoteric reason given for her complaints — to “take her seriously,” which is to say, to act as if her argumentation is operational in the vein of a man’s (I don’t like x, because y) because women are the equals of (meaning the same as, equally powered by reason as) men. This requires me to judge the validity of her complaint by its reasonableness, as I would if a fellow man was my interlocutor.

This infuriates her, because really, the esoteric reason behind her complaints (I am going to complain about x because z is bothering me) is what she wants me to “take seriously.” The exoteric reason is a pretext. But she has been socialized to think that she is demeaning herself by accepting that she is not a creature of reason in the same way a man is. Ergo, I am caught in a trap. I cannot be seen to condescend to her, but I must condescend in fact. This was easy for men a couple generations back, during the earlier stages of the transition to gynocentrism, since they didn’t think women were actually the same and were mostly bemused by this motion, yet were willing to play along.

However, I have been so socialized in the worldview of blank slatism vis-a-vis biological sex that even though *I* intellectually understand its falsity and what must be done, it pains me to do it to a woman who I love and truly do respect. Ergo I act unmanly however I move forward. I adjudicate her reasoning like that of a fellow man, and become openly frustrated at her acting like a woman, and she rightly (if unfairly, not that that matters) has contempt for me, and feels disrespected. She also feels disrespected when I clumsily patronize to her in the attempt to break out of my conditioning and treat her exoteric complains as if they were merely the frustrated venting of what Aidan Maclear called a “goofy little slut.” If she read this post, it would make her volcanically angry, but I think she is intelligent and “gender-woke” enough to ultimately know that it is true, which would only piss her off more.

Trep is correct that male values are subordinated to the female values, but the most harmful part is that the gynocratic world order wears male values as a skin suit. The interpersonal dynamic between me and this woman is being played out on a macro scale in society, and the results are, well, all around us.
WelderBomber
In the middle of writing this and I realised this is The 'Female Gaze' thread and my post would fit better in the Female Sexual Satisfaction thread but I'll post her anyway since I am replying to something in this thread.

Quote:However, I have been so socialized in the worldview of blank slatism vis-a-vis biological sex that even though *I* intellectually understand its falsity and what must be done, it pains me to do it to a woman who I love and truly do respect. Ergo I act unmanly however I move forward. I adjudicate her reasoning like that of a fellow man, and become openly frustrated at her acting like a woman, and she rightly (if unfairly, not that that matters) has contempt for me, and feels disrespected.

Even if you were socialized into having the blank slate worldview, you understand its falsehoods and are on this forum, this should be proof enough that you are no longer socialized into this belief. I think this shares sentiment with something Chud said on his twitter a few days ago, that the greatest curse in being male is wanting your partner to be your equal while knowing that is impossible. I suspect a good amount of 'PUA-pilled' young men have internalized the same problem one of two ways, yours having rejected your superiority over women. I don't believe in the need to declare one sex superior to the other, is the stick that hits the drum superior to the drum? The question itself is absurd as both are essential to playing drums. My guess is you (and I'm using you as a stand in) simply don't want to see women as the most vapid of holes, which is probably why you feel the need to specify that you love and respect the woman you are talking about. This is fine, the problem arises only when you think being equal is a prerequisite for love [with the tendency to declare supremacy of one sex as a remnant of sex equality thinking]. It's true that you should not take everything a woman says at face value, however, it's a game, at least in the context you speak of, and games are played only when not playing games with the other person is unbearable. Being game-free is ideal, so recognize the game and don't play into it but rather take a detached approach. If the game is her yelling at you that you two only talk about what YOU want and what YOU like (even if that is not the case) then she is likely to mean that when her hobbies are the subject you are more interested in knowledge and the general rather than the specific, which is her and her preferences. For example if you're having a conversation about her garden, she would appreciate it more if you asked her "what flowers do you like the most?" rather than "where do these flowers originate from?". Another example: let's say you are married and have one child, one day your wife tells you she's so tired and you should spend more time with the child. Do you think that will make her happy? In the case she is indeed tired it might be intentional and she wants you to say "you're trying so hard and I love you for that", in the case she isn't tired she still wants to hear the "I love you" part.
 
I've seen this problem be rationalized in one other way, in which the superiority of the male sex is embraced. In one particular case I saw a guy was saying how he won't marry because all women are leftist whores with no values that just want to fuck while also saying he will stop at having sex with them (which he had a lot of according to him). This line of thinking enables someone like MedGold, who bases himself on his audience having this line of thinking. A male like this that thinks being male comes with no responsibilities, just benefits and would also think to himself that he is rightfully increasing the Fuck Rate whenever bedding a dirty rag of a woman. Obviously this is not the case, if increasing the (only) Fuck Rate does anything it's create more deranged radical feminist women and men-hating lesbians. You can predict but not dictate better male performance, being a male alone does not mean you are in the same group as inventors, trailblazers, world-renown athletes and so on, just that you're on the winning side of a coin toss.

Quote:A woman who I love has told me that I don't act like a man; rather, that I act like a girl. She is correct [...]

If anything a woman will like/love/respect you more if you assert yourself, they don't mind not giving the orders and they don't mind not "being taken seriously" either if being taken seriously means ending up unsatisfied. As I said above it is best you don't take her at face value in most scenarios, not seeing women as equals does not have to come from a place of hate.
Me being against women's emancipation comes from a place of love for women.
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)