Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "" video.

@LisaCulton Women are perfectly fine giving it all for the husband and children (no personal career and busness), PROVIDED they start out in love with the man who loves them back - in which case, it is not a "sacrifice," it is an utter pleasure and the best career there is. These women who sanctimoniously claim traditional "sacrifice" never loved the guy. They were lifestyle hoores.
71
@Pleiadian618 That's because a sane woman doesn't want "the best possible lifestyle." She wants to be in love with the man she married, which means "a life." This one never was - this is why she reports it all as "sacrifice." When women are in love, the sacrifices they make register as supreme pleasures. When they are not, resentfulness builds over the years as they know they only received a lifestyle, not a life. Wake up.
33
@LisaCulton She had the perfect lifestyle and zero life, since she was clearly not in love with her husband and by extension her family. That;'s how they become resentful and ungrateful despite the most luxurious lifestyles. Society refuses to get that what women ultimately want is to be genuinely in love with a guy. Absent that (which for most women is absent), they go for 'life-style' which leaves them bitter and unfulfilled.
33
Oh, please. They know it very well. They want the man they are in love with. Absent this, they want what other women want (lifestyle / herd behavior).
14
How do you know they found great fulfillment? Some certainly did, who ended up in fulfilling marriages, with the right guy for them and built a harmonious family together. This was far from the norm. Many suffered in silence, in the wrong marriages, and put on a mask of "fulfillment" to fit in with social norms. Please, don't be naive.
12
@LisaCulton It's not that a housewife cannot have interests and hobbies outside the home and family. It's that a woman in love is happy to prioritize the man she loves and the family she created with him to the detriment of other interests without feeling like this is a sacrifice. Where men go wrong is to believe that all women should do that regardless of whether the guy she married is the one who made her heart sing or not. Most women don't have that dream fulfilled. This is where the error resides.
7
@derekhamel2991 I absolutely agree with you! I would never claim mismatches only affect the woman! That's crazy. Men become unhappy too due to her unhappiness but here's the twist: men don't seem to mind marriages that can be "made to work" as opposed to insisting only on those that actually WORK! If he senses she is not 100% in love with him, he should never agree to marriage. Ever!
6
If most women suck (which they do), and men can no longer find "good women who can be fine with modest expectations in marriage" - isn't this good news? We are at 10 billions, idiots need not reproduce anymore. Only the cognitively and spiritually blessed and compatible too should get together and make more of themselves. Why keep lamenting women suck? Why would you want to reproduce with these sucky women? You want someone (society!) to moralize the defective into "good think" and "good behavior' so you can have a family with one? Why? They'd still be stupid and poor reproductive material, except controlled. Nah. It's all good. It's coming down.
3
@Fedor526 Excellent point.
3
Men they're not in love with who expect them to act as if they are.
3
Keep believing that, get the same crappy results.
3
The world is hand wringing because the percentage of all-around low caliber humans in the population - both men and women - has gone up a lot. Now the low-quality men don't like what their low-quality female counterparts do, because they are liberalized. In return, the low-quality women don't like what their low-quality male counterparts have to offer. Go figure! The low and deficient push each other out of the gene pool because they don't like each other. Please explain where's the tragedy in that? It isn't. We are at 10 billions of mostly useless fodder. Keep up the good de-cluttering work, Humanity! Keep only what sparks joy. Marie Kondo would approve.
2
You should care only about YOUR woman wants - you know, the one you care about and who suits you and in return, she looks up to you and cares a lot about what YOU want too. But yeah, you should not care about what a herd of female knuckleheads want.
1
@johnnonamegibbon3580 For some, this is true. For others, it is certain personal "spots" that one particular hits just right, and no, I don't mean sexually. The more shallow and "normie" she is, the less of anything personal she has, the weaker her inner compass, and the more subject to external stimuli she is. So then she wants what other women want - as the only thing that could make them "fall in love." La Rochefoucault, classic French writer, said "some people would have never fallen in love if they'd never heard there is such a thing."
1
@johnnonamegibbon3580 The shallow ones, which is most - yes.
1
Did you not hear what he said? Did you not get the part about how he disagrees with Freud? He told you what normie women want!
1
@HD46409 The dazzling response form the normie dude who can't understand why wymyn do bad things to him. "Hey, lighten up, yo." Yup.
1
@albatross4920 Thank you, I appreciate your recognition. It is nihilistic, realistic, elitist, all sorts of '-ist'-s and true. I think humanity should keep up the good work of de-cluttering and cleaning up the gene pool. In more ways than one.
1
@albatross4920 They're deleting my replies but yes, thank you. Nihilistic, elitist, all that good stuff.
1
Anyone who believes that "women" is an actual category, deserves all the problems they complain here about.
1
Normative men must deal with normative women. Very depressing, indeed. My heart goes out to these men, then again they would not have what it takes to a be with a non-normative woman who actually has an an internal compass, instead of a herdist one ("women want what other women want"). They wouldn't have much to offer to such a woman - who wants what SHE wants. He would have to be a non-normative man too who is compatible with her. If you feel like you are with one of the FOMO ones, you are basically courting the average idiot. And yes, most are like this. Good luck. You will need a bunch.
1
They don't really want "everything." They want a man who 'hits the spot' (and I don't mean sexually), the one they fell in love with. Since most women do not find such a man, at least not in time for marriage, they are left frustrated with a sense of "want" of "everything." This is BS. A woman in love would eat chips under a bridge with him if this is what it takes. All other scenarios involve lifestyle hooring.
1
@SmileyEmoji42 The modern world removed the idea of "peer group" by advancing the notion of equality of essence. We are all little kings and queens who deserve it all. Vomit.
1
@SirShiv7 There's no such thing as universal "men" and "women." What an insane concept - to say that women are somehow wonderful or awful. Some are, some are not, lots in between. Same for men. Then there's also the matter of someone's trash is someone else's treasure.
1
@budbas Yes, that.
1
@veis The only thing women want is to be with a man they were actually in love with. Few get that chance because biology and social norms pressure them to settle early enough before they have a chance to find their right person. Many never would anyway, For this reason, they turn to 'lifestyle' which leaves them ultimately empty and unfulfilled, with a sense of something is missing. Sure it is when she never got to have a life and experience actual love, which is fundamental for women.
1
@stevejhkhfda This is very true. Now let's take it even deeper and start with the axiom: Partial truths are the most dangerous lies. There are two things society indoctrinates people with across the board, regardless of context, since the social system needs to continue, expand, and maintain a life of its own regardless of individual happiness. Lie 1): A career is universally fulfilling (most aren't, especially in the modern system) Lie 2): A family is universally fulfilling (most aren't, especially when the family is a result of an incompatible marriage, between people who should have never been together in the first place. A marriage with the wrong person can be one of the loneliest, most painful experiences that exist. Half of marriages end in divorce and another 20-30% never divorce but live miserably ever after. The institution of marriage has an insanely high risk of failure and this is an Elephant in the Room everyone loves to deny. Both career/work and family are heavily conditional and contextual in terms of their degree of "goodness" and odds of satisfaction. On average, neither will 'fix' people's lives or improve their search for happiness. That happens ONLY IF it is the real thing. Yes, work can be extraordinarily fulfilling if it is something the person has a true passion for and they are very god at. Everything else is toil. A family resulted from a marriage between two compatible people in love is probably the most fulfilling thing there is - but that's only if the original condition is met. Family with the wrong person can be a soul-eating, psychologically destructive nightmare. Children can be the most incredible fulfillment as well as the most ruinous source of pain and disappointment. It all depends on what the thing (career/family) was founded on. With children, the genetic lottery matters. The parent/child dyad can suffer from severe incompatibility of nature. Nobody wants to talk about this because family is supposed to be worshiped under any circumstances, across the board but once again, people conveniently ignore the rising rates of estranges families or the familial abuses of the past. Family ca be a tremendous source of fulfillment as well as pain and disappointment). Conclusion: use your mind ad quit believing all the social indoctrination poison that is poured down your neurons sine the the moment you are born.
1
You know why they want all that? Because they haven't found the man they actually fell in love with. When they do find him (rare, admittedly), they quit expecting him to be, fit, successful, weepy, funny, pampering or any other specific request. They will want that one AND ONLY THAT ONE - bad a**. This is the essence of the female psyche. In the absence of in "love," they come up with check lists - which, of course, never work.
1
@JoshuaWagner-ov3ww Yes, that's an important observation. It is not sane women's fault that the percentage of R-ed females in your population is huge these days.
1
It came from the liberalization of the 60's. It was a knee-jerk reaction to too much female dependence on early marriage for mere survival, which is what you had prior to the 50's. That wasn't as good as the nostalgics would have you believe. A woman with no financial source of any kind has a strong incentive to marry the first man who makes an offer, no matter how unsuitable, no matter how little she likes him, or how unhappy she would be in that relationship. It';s the same as the worker who must accept any jon because next week he must eat. Men think those were the 'good ol' days' because on face value, every man got a wife fast and furious - but the story is much more sinister than that. This is unfair to both the woman and the man. At the other extreme, brainwashing women into thinking a career focus is the answer to all her problems in life is another kind of insanity. Women only need some employable skill to tie them over long enough until they find the man who actually works for them, with whom they would be genuinely happy to start a family. And yes, they must be in love with him. No rationalizations, no FOMO. Marrying early the first guy who makes an offer, out of economic desperation or terror of being labeled a washed out spinster nobody wanted, is not an answer for any society with a modicum of sanity and dignity. Neither the traditional controls nor the modern brainwashing are anything sane. There is a better way but you need a high-quality population for that.
1
Now he needs to do "what men want" and it will become clear that normies, both men and women, are simply herd creatures, each in their own way.
1
Cogent, on point.
1
@stevenscott2136 Long-term marriages doesn't mean successful marriages. Most likely the sanctimonious you see in your area don't want to split whatever they have and lose face, so you will never know about all the S that flies around behind close doors. Those people are masters at putting on a happy face in public. Believe.
1
Consider also the possibility that some women will default to wanting "what other women want" in the absence of the man who inspires her. As long as she hasn't found one she is actually in love with (regardless of 'SMV'), then what is out there to be wanted other than "what other women want?" Absent love - women want what is cool: consumerism, experiences, normative lifestyle, social prescriptions, herdist behavior, etc. They want what other women get to have and do. Only the Romantic experience can cure a woman of herd behavior. This cannot be controlled, ordered, planned, moralized, or offered on a check list of "good guy" traits. Examine the behavior of a woman genuinely in love (yes, rare). Then Taraban's theory (otherwise correct) collapses. A woman in love gives up everything for that man, even when the consequences are dire. He confirmed it too in another video: she is ride or die. A man in love does not, as he continues to worry about 'timing' (he commits only when he is "ready") or his "honor," "commitments," social obligations, or public image, bank account, and other social externals. There is a reason a woman in love will leave her family, town, career, whatever - for the man she is genuinely in love with, but a man usually doesn't. For him it is more important to live "honorably" and "securely," even if that means with a wife he does not love (anymore) than to cancel out a lie and choose the woman he actually loves. He would rather make the latter his 'mistress' and string her along than lose face in the world. Men: if you want the good life, do not choose a mere 'wife,' meaning a role. Choose a love who feels the same love for you in return and wife her, if you insist. But examine what she would do if you told her you couldn't marry her. Would she still want to be with you? If no, skip. Only choose a woman when you know she is genuinely in love with you and looks up to you like no other. Wanting children, a family, to be "settled down," to 'team up,' to be 'secure' or any other rationalizations lead to nowhere good. She must want YOU above all world if you don't want her to start wanting what other women want. Mere 'wifing' comes with risks because the 'wife' prototype by definition wants "what other women want." By the way: the stupid and the mediocre - men nor women - are not wired to love. They can moralize to maintain "honor" and save face - but they cannot love. Only a spiritual, cognitive elite is capable of love. Good luck.
1
Not just to modern women. To ALL women, in ALL times. The average woman of the past wanted what other women wanted, meaning what society wanted for them - and since the only thing available was marriage and family by a certain deadline, with whoever made an offer - this is what they wanted. Now there is diversity of wants and lifestyles, so they want more diversity of experience. The sane woman of substance and depth wants the man she can fall in love with and for whom she'd be willing to set the world on fire. Yes that's metaphorical sanity.
1
@derekhamel2991 Perfect point. 💯
1
@TheCentralScrutinizer99 Wrong. Nature does not intend all living creatures to procreate. There's natural selection, including competition, elimination from the gene pool and dead-end lines. Just because all have a pulse and reproductive organs, doesn't mean nature designed everyone to reproduce.
1