Chapter 7 – Will your Dog Love you more than Her?

Previous chapter Next chapter

Chapter 7 –Will your Dog Love you more than Her?

‘‘When a solipsist dies ... everything goes with him.’’

- David Foster Wallace–

‘‘Falling in love is a chemical reaction. But it wears off in a year.’’

- Yakov Smirnoff –

During the summer of 2017, I went for a walk with a female friend of mine, and we had a talk that I still remember vividly to this day. While we were walking, my friend told me she believes men can understand women but women cannot understand men, and she asked me what I thought about this. I was a bit puzzled by this statement, and I actively pondered the matter. Could men really understand women while women couldn’t understand men? Did this statement make any sense, and more importantly, why did she ask me this? Since I didn’t know the answer, I responded with a simple shrug and a plain old ‘‘maybe’’.

A few days later, while I was preparing my breakfast, the conversation I had with her came back to my mind. I found myself reflecting on the part of her comment where she said that women couldn’t understand men, and it didn’t take too long before I understood why she would say that.

Women are smart, and I believe that they have more than enough imagination to conceptualize what men feel (and they definitely know how we operate). In fact, women are very in tune with men’s emotions and are quick to adapt to our feelings, which makes them great manipulators. If this is true, why would my female friend say that women cannot understand men when in fact most women perfectly understand men’s emotions even when they are buried under multiple layers of stoicism?

Remember that women have always used proxy power, or men, in order to get resources and secure their own survival. Since this is the case, if a woman was to acknowledge a man’s emotion as being inherently valuable and important, she would also have to admit that she is manipulating a human being who feels just as deeply as her. This would undeniably stain her with guilt and remorse. Only a selfish and flawed person could use someone without batting an eyelid. But, the woman isn’t a wicked person; she is enjoyable, attractive, and compassionate.

If she thought otherwise, the woman’s self-identity would be jeopardized and she would doubt her self-worth as a human being. Most women will never do that, and some aren’t capable of doing an in-depth analysis of their life. If that’s the case, how could a woman be both ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ at the same time? Is it even possible to keep one’s ego intact in a way that seems to be contradictory?

The answer lies in solipsism. Women are solipsistic; they live by their emotions, and their feelings are the only reality they experience. Anything a woman feels right now she has ‘‘always’’ felt that way about, and when her emotions changes she will also feel as though she had always felt that way.

Small babies believe that their parents disappear when they hide their face. In that baby’s mind, if you do a ‘‘peek-a-boo’’ to a baby, you literally ‘‘vanish’’ out of existence and ‘‘re-appear’’ right in front of him. Infants identify your face with ‘‘you’’, and you don’t exist when they can no longer see your face. Babies have no concept of object permanence. Women are the same way with their feelings; they do not possess a permanence of emotion.

For example, you could marry a woman who genuinely loves you and wants to commit, and at this precise moment, she firmly believes it. But one day, if her feeling changes and she starts to feel as if you are undeserving of her, her entire reality will shift. At this point, she could easily fall in love with another man, and ‘‘realize’’ that she has always been wrong about you. Right now, she ‘‘understand’’ that she never really loved you. It is this new man that she loves. But wait! Her new lover dumps her, and your ex-wife comes back crying to you. Now that she is in a vulnerable situation, you seem to be so sturdy, dependable, handsome, and trustworthy. Now, your ex-wife ‘‘sees’’ you for who you really are, and now, she ‘‘knows’’ that it was you she always loved. This new man, though, she obviously didn’t love him. What’s wrong with her? She had been such a fool to wander off with a stranger when in reality she wanted to be with you.

If a woman’s feelings change her entire reality shifts and it can happen at any time, for any reason. If it ‘‘feels’’ right, then she can never be wrong, right? That is why a woman can feel one day as if she ‘‘always loved you’’ before firmly believing that she ‘‘never did’’, only to later realize that the only one she ‘‘really loved’’ was you. Peek-a-boo!

A woman has no problem forming multiple cognitive dissonances so long as it benefits her life. As such, a woman can perfectly understand a man’s pain and struggle, his dreams and aspirations, and his feelings, all while simultaneously not acknowledging their intrinsic value and quickly discarding them. Do not misunderstand, in most cases women do not consciously refuse to validate a man’s emotions; it is just that men's emotions are not part of their reality as much as their own, the emotions of their children (or children in general), or those of other women.

This process is predominantly subconscious, and it is such a universal phenomenon in the female community that I am convinced it is an innate mechanism. Perhaps a handful of women can consciously interfere with this mechanism, but if that’s the case, they are very and far between, and it would require astounding effort to achieve mediocre results. With a manageable supply of cognitive dissonance, women can use men without feeling any sense of guilt, and they can keep their ego intact. Women understand men very well, but they also unconsciously filter out the parts that bother them.

To be more accurate, I would say that women understand the parts and mechanisms about men that are useful to them. However, women have little to no interest in comprehending a man as a whole. We could compare that to a driver that knows how to operate a car without holding any knowledge or interest in learning about the design and internal structure of the vehicle.

If that’s true, what was the meaning of my friend’s comment? Did she say that women cannot understand men for a purpose, or was it out of the blue? After further analysis, I realized that she was sending me a crystal-clear message: ‘‘You are the only one responsible for our friendship.’’

In other words, she absolved herself from any liability toward our relationship. If one day something goes wrong, the blame will rest solely on my shoulders, and her hands will be as clean as the pure white snows.

Men understand women, but women do not understand men. In female language this translates to: ‘‘You understand me, but I do not understand you. Since I cannot understand you, I cannot be held accountable for what happens. Thus, if something goes wrong, it will be your fault.’’

Personal responsibility is women’s universal weakness; it is their kryptonite. My friend had shifted the weight of our friendship onto my shoulder in a very discreet and covert way. This was probably done on autopilot, and she didn’t even need to think about it, which is something that women routinely do, especially in their intimate relationships with men. Most of the time, men will be completely oblivious to these ‘‘undercover’’ signals, but it won’t change the fact that in a woman’s mind, you will be the one accountable for everything.

When I thought about it that way, my female friend’s comment made perfect sense. It was quite typical and predictable coming from a woman. My female friend knows what men feel, and she understands how we behave, but deep down she does not want to acknowledge the intrinsic value of our emotions.

You may be wondering why I would have a friend like that, and I would answer that even though I understand female nature, I do not want to be isolated and I choose to nurture a few friendships with the women I deem acceptable. Since I do not personally know of a single Red-Pill man, I do the same thing with Blue-Pill men. You see, one of the worst parts about being Red-Pilled is about finding out that no one understands you. Your family, friends, co-workers, your mentors, teachers, every single person who supposedly cares for you, they will be the first ones to ostracize you if you ever tried to share this knowledge with them. To me, this realization was the source of an unbearable sadness. Fortunately, I learned to savor the solitude alongside the freedom that comes with it.

Nowadays, every time I get to see a female friend absolving herself from her personal responsibilities or whenever I see a male friend acting like a white knight, I quietly look away and I say nothing. Making waves can be hazardous, and one could be hunted like a witch if he openly displayed his opinion, which is why I prefer to disapprove in silence.

There’s a good chance you’ve never heard about Briffault’s Law. Robert Briffault (1876-1948) was a famous English surgeon, anthropologist, and author. If you are not familiar with his most well-known theory, let me do the honor of introducing it to you:

‘‘The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.’’

Briffault’s theory also has supplementary parts:

1- ‘‘Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him.’’

(Practical translation: What have you done for me lately?)

2- ‘‘If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered.’’

3- ‘‘A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.’’

The sad truth is that a woman cannot love a man in the same way that a man can love a woman. If a woman believes she loves you, it is only because she confounds ‘‘love for you’’ with her love of ‘’what you can do for me’’.

Findings from Harvard University researcher Professor Alexandra Killewald, who analyzed data on the lives, marriages, and finances of 6,300 couples, including 1,700 who had been divorced, goes hand in hand with the argument presented here.

According to Killewald’s findings, the most relevant variable predicting divorce risk factors for couples is whether or not the husband has a full-time job. Furthermore, only the husband’s employment status affects the risk of divorce. Essentially, this is to say that a woman can lose her job and the integrity of the marriage won’t be endangered, but if a man does…

When a man loses his job, his risk of being divorced will triple when compared to the couple where the wife stays at home and the man works full-time. Gentlemen, if you cannot provide for a woman, the odds are that she will leave you.

‘‘Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.’’

Litanies of naïve men get a pure, undiluted taste of Briffault’s Law when they get ‘‘divorce raped’’ by the love of their life. When a woman who supposedly loved him from the bottom of her heart takes him to family court, rob him of his children, home, dignity, and money, leaving him practically homeless, only then can the average man get into his system that his wife never loved him for who he is, but for ‘‘what he could do for her’’. Only then can he acknowledge that his wife didn’t suddenly stop ‘‘loving him’’; she never loved him to begin with. When the moment comes where ‘‘what the man can do’’ for his spouse isn’t enough, she will terminate their association.

Women have a hard sell-by date; both their sexual market value and their fertility degrade over time. If a woman loved a man for ‘‘who he is’’, but that man didn't want children, her love would be sabotaging her biological clock. It is the biological imperative of women not to love, which is a phenomenon that I can totally understand. Women’s lack of love toward men is not voluntary nor is it a conscious process.

Women cannot afford to genuinely love men as that could potentially be life-threatening for them. Evolution is impartial, dispassionate, and indifferent, and reproduction and self-preservation are base instincts that take precedence over everything else.

On the other hand, men are built and conditioned to love women altruistically because it pushes them to spread their DNA, stick with their mate, and invest in their offspring. Just like any woman, a man’s love is just an extension of his reproductive instinct. There is nothing noble about a man’s love; his love is simply a tool that serves his own biological imperative. Men and women’s versions of love are entirely different, and men are incredibly foolish to expect reciprocity.

Some traditional conservatives will tell you that ‘‘modern’’ women have been corrupted and indoctrinated by cultural Marxism and feminism, and that women’s behaviors are mainly driven by socialization. Thus, women in the past loved men, but today, because of their upbringing and socialization, they have learned not to love men. This belief is blatantly naïve, and it couldn’t be further from the truth. Let’s look at a depiction of women from the famous author and battlefield nurse Florence Nightingale (1820 -1910).

Florence Nightingale came to prominence while serving as a manager of nurses trained under her during the Crimean War, where she organized the care of wounded soldiers. She became an icon of Victorian culture and earned the nickname of "The Lady with the Lamp" after making her medical rounds at night.

Sir Edward Tyas Cook, born in May 1857, was the English journalist who wrote Nightingale’s biography (The Life of Florence Nightingale) in which he quotes Florence Nightingale:

[“Women aren’t capable of love. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return, for they cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other woman attend to it accurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy? I am sick with indignation at what wives and mothers will do of the most shocking selfishness. And people call it all maternal or conjugal affection, and think it pretty to say so. No, no, let each person tell the truth from their own experience. They really don’t have sympathy or the ability to empathize, because they are always judging everyone and everything as a product on a social value scale that relates to their own egos and bounces off of themselves. There is no capability for genuine feeling. This is what I have experienced with women, there is no capability for genuine feeling for other humans, or really in general, except when those feelings are for themselves and the other people are just proxies to bounce ideas off of.’’]

I sincerely ask you this: why is it that a medical professional such as Florence Nightingale; a women who dedicated her life to care for the sick and the wounded, could say such a piece about the women of her era in a time when cultural Marxism and feminism were virtually non-existent? Is it a coincidence, a paradox, or perhaps it has always been impossible for women to love men.

It couldn’t have been manipulation and indoctrination, as the culture of the time was highly religious, traditional, and patriarchal. Family values were enforced, as was male authority. Yet, it seems as though women were selfish and did not know how to love, just like today.

Another insight about female nature can be found in one of the most popular books in the world: the Bible. The Christian bible states:

‘‘Women, obey your husbands. Husbands, love your wives.’’

Men must love their wives, and wives must obey their husbands. You may wonder why this commandment doesn’t talk of wives loving their husbands, and that would be because women cannot love men. But, women can obey, and that is precisely what the Bible teaches.

In all probability, a dog will love you more than a woman. After all, dogs are pack animals with a high sense of loyalty.

All of this may seem very cold and apathetic, but it would be foolish to deny the fact that humans are animals. Like every other species, we follow our instincts. Instincts are based on pleasure and pain, and by seeking what feels good and avoiding what feels bad, we accomplish our biological imperatives. Humans are also, by nature, hedonistic; we avoid pain and maximize pleasure. Our biological drives, our instincts will always take a central role in our lives, and it couldn’t be otherwise, as going against this flow could only lead to one’s death or the end of his genetic legacy.

Survival and reproduction, driven and anchored into our psyche with pleasure and pain, are at the root of why women cannot love men. It is a fate that cannot be changed, no matter what we do.

To further prove my point, let’s also look at male love. Men generate vasopressin when they have sex with a woman. Vasopressin is the ‘‘male’’ love hormone and is often called the ‘‘monogamy chemical’’. Vasopressin is associated with behaviors such as protecting one’s mate, fidelity (monogamous behaviors), and bonding with a mate.

When a man accomplishes his biological imperative and reproduces, he produces bonding hormones and develops long-lasting feelings of attachment toward his spouse. If the man stops having sex permanently with his partner, he will stop producing vasopressin and will eventually fall out of love.

Our instincts and our biological imperatives dictate love. For a man to love, he must continuously have sex. For the man’s reptilian brain, having sex equates to passing down his DNA. Thus, the act of ‘‘passing down his DNA’’ is an absolute for a man to love his wife. If a man cannot accomplish this primal function continuously, and I put a big emphasis on the word continuously, he won’t be able to love a woman for long. A man may stay together with his spouse for practical reasons, out of necessity, or because he fears loneliness, but if they don’t have sex regularly, the ‘‘love’’ that he felt for her won’t exist anymore, or it will, at the very least, slowly fade away.

There is a similar phenomenon for women. If a woman’s husband loses his job, her biological imperative will be threatened, as will her odds of leaving him skyrocket. Why is this so?

A woman cannot mother hundreds of children like a man can, and her best mating strategy is to find the best father, with the best genes, and with high levels of parental investment. That is the best way to ensure her own survival as well as the success of her offspring. If the woman's husband can achieve a high level of status, she will be flooded with oxytocin (female love hormone) and bond with him like there was no tomorrow. Only when she is accomplishing her biological imperatives can the woman feel love and connect with her man, and if she can’t fulfill her primal functions, she will fall out of love.

Love is conditional, and the withdrawal of a single condition can be enough to make it fade away like an empty dream. ‘‘Love’’ is the manifestation of our core instincts; it is nothing more than a puddle of primal urges, an irresistible cocktail of chemicals that have one clear design. ‘‘Love’’ is the urge that compels human beings to accomplish their biological imperatives, nothing more. That reality is true for both men and women, and this is why ‘‘love’’ isn’t real.

To get back on the earlier topic, responsibility avoidance is the main reason why you often see women put all the blame on their ex-boyfriend after a breakup. With few exceptions, it always boils down to ‘‘the man was the villain’’ and ‘‘the woman was the innocent victim’’. All the blame is shifted to one person, the ex-boyfriend, while the ex-girlfriend exempts herself from all her faults. In reality, it is almost unthinkable to find a thoroughly stable, gentle, and down-to-earth woman in a relationship with an asshole. We are attracted to people that are just like us, and dishonest people tend to end up with other insincere people; this is why a woman dumping all the blame and wrongdoings on her ex-partner makes no real sense.

Women are terrible at handling responsibilities. Merely the sight of them causes their stress levels to peak, and it makes them flee like the plague was at their feet.

One of my ex-girlfriends once told me that before meeting me, she didn’t know that men had emotions. Now I’m the type of guy who always tells the truth, even when it is hurtful, and since I’m brutally honest, I eventually compelled her to deepen her understanding of men. The thing is, the mere fact that she could think that men had no emotions completely blew my mind. I was astounded and dumbstruck. I mean, only some strange alien could think like that. But here she was! A perfectly well-behaved, kind, honest, civilized woman who has a brother and a loving father, but she actually believed that men did not have emotions! What kind of sick joke was that?

Once more, this all ties back to responsibility. If the man doesn't have emotions, the woman cannot be held accountable for his well-being. If he has no feelings, what is there to take care of? Nothing! For a woman, a man with no emotions equals a relationship without cares and responsibilities. This is just another way for the woman to excuse herself from any and all accountability toward her companion.

Because it was a necessity for their survival, women became experts at manipulation, they evolved to be entirely solipsistic, and they mastered the art of cognitive dissonance. Mothers passed down this knowledge from generation to generation, and even today, in this supposed ‘‘era of equality’’, nothing has changed. Gentlemen, women have no permanence of emotion and your dog will love you more than her.

Previous chapter Next chapter