Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Signs of low quality women article

Quote from RITWIKA CHATTERJEE on April 10, 2021, 1:38 pm
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on April 10, 2021, 5:20 am

Ritwika, I understand that this is your first post on the forum.
Have you read the forum guidelines?

We are also starting a debating thread specifically to practise using power moves.
I think your post would be more suitable on that future thread.

Outside of that thread, we do our best to refrain from using such power moves to maintain a healthy community.

I apologize if I violated the rules of this forum, I'm new here and the sole purpose of creating an account was to reply to the 'low-value woman' thread. I couldn't comment on the thread which is why I had to comment here since the future 'debating thread' that you mentioned is non-existent in the Present or I would've kept the controversy restricted to the currently non-existent thread, abiding by the rules of the forum. Most of all, if the coordinators wish to steer clear of "power moves", why did you let Lucio post something so controversial in the first place albeit you knew that's bound to trigger people(women and men outside of the kind comprising woman-hating men like Lucio and the ones that come to their defence, for instance, you).

Hi. By posting an article on low quality women does not equal to hating women.

I think you are the women hater because, from your own logics, you imply that all women are low quality women. Otherwise you cannot conclude that a person talk about low quality women hates all women.

OTOH, Lucio never say that most women are low quality. In fact, he frequently say that most women are cooperative and good, lovable people.

I could be wrong. Please correct me.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 10, 2021, 5:42 pm

A few notes:

Article: Judgment Always Stirs Emotions (Especially when sexually-based)

That article stirs a lot of emotions.

It's bound to do so.

It feels very judgmental to people reading it.
And it can feel personally judgmental if one or a few items might apply to the reader.

That can make people feel bad about themselves, which in turn unleases anger to silence the pain-inducing author.

The point is...

But Everyone Judges

So it's more of a case of:

  • How high or low are your standards

And:

  • How well you're judging

But it's almost never a question of "judging or not judging", since assessing others is embedded in the human mind.

So that article's goal is to help people judge better, increase their standards, and possibly troubleshoot themselves. In my opinion, these are mostly good things.

Why People Resent Judges

Many folks have at least a "feel" level that a judge is:

  • Taking a power position over them: when Ritwika says "what gives you the audacity of... ". She's actually saying "what gives you the audacity of taking a judge-power position over me". That feeling is only heightened if the judge is making the reader feel "not good enoguh"
  • Potentially disempowering their sexual strategy: if the judge is teaching men how to screen women, that can empower men, but disempower a lot of women. Of course the screened out women are going to be the angriest
  • Making them feel bad about themselves: this one, I can understand, and which is why I always support "social grace" when dealing with potentially harsh or hurtful information

REBELING AGAINST JUDGES: ONLY EMPOWERING IF THE FEEDBACK IS USED FOR SELF-EMPOWERMENT

In some cases, it's fair to push back against a judge.

And it can also be a fundamental strategy of self-empowerment, so this is not to say that all push-backs against judges are wrong.

However, the individual rebelling against judges will be only empowered if they at least take the good feedback and use it, rather than rejecting all the judge says or does -which is what most people do anyway-.

Political Correctness Empowered the Fight Against Judges

The current PC climate seeks to repress overt expression of judging.

And especially so when it comes to assessing people's values and sexual market value.

The current politically correct climate, in many ways, empowered the fight against judges.

Attacking people for judging serves three goals:

  • Manipulating sexual marketplace dynamics: it works like this: "if you can't judge me, then maybe you -and others- will accept me more" This one doesn't work perfectly since the cultural level has more limited impact on actual mating choice, but it can work a bit
  • Virtue signaling: I attack you for judging and frame you as "bad" or "reactionary" or whatever, and that self-frames me as liberal, open-minded, accepting and "good"
  • Self-esteem boost: "if I don't hear criticism, I feel better". this one I actually totally understand.

When sexual dynamics are at stake, the moral police repression goes into overdrive, and the various misogynist (or man-hater) accusations are the natural big guns to field and mute the judge.
If the judge can't speak, maybe the accuser has more options -or at least, feels better about herself-.

But Let's Not Always Defend Judges: There Are PLENTY Of Ways of Being A Judging Ahole

That being said, there are poorer, turkey-level expressions of judgment.

To begin with, plenty of people do hide their anger and hatred being the guise of "telling the truth", "expressing my freedom of choice" or "assessing who I'm dealing with".

Some men for example enjoy repeating that women are worthless after 30YO.
Some of them say that it's simply "telling the truth" -in this case, a speck of truth about sexual market value, but twisted into a judgment about a whole human being- but it can often be a way of hiding their hatred of women.

Some women can do the same, of course.
(Deleted the example here to keep it brief enough)

Judging can also be used as (often cheap) social climbing.

Think for example of:

  • Men telling other men they're "betas": there is an article on that here, the "alpha male posturing", a rather low-value, turkey-style way of social climbing and feeling better about themselves

And for manipulation as well:

  • Women telling other women they're not "independent enough": a manipulative way of social climbing within female circls and/or gaining an edge in the sexual marketplace

As a tool for power:

  • I judge very harshly, create a shitstorm, and get more attention and followers: some feminists and red pill authors gain followers because they are extra harsh, and not (necessarily) because they tell truth. The angrier men and women don't want the truth, they want someone who allows free-flow for their personal anger. See the dynamics of the red pill on this.

Finally, social grace always applies.
In my opinion, if you can say something gracefully but you choose the crude, hurtful way, you're moving farther away from your ideal self.

Ritwika here might have a point in that the original article could have delivered the exact same information, but more gracefully -I haven't checked it in a while, I don't have an opinion on that right now-.

Article Content

That article is part of a 4-series article that has become very popular.

The original intent was more to list a few criteria to effectively judge people's value, and to offer some criteria on becoming higher value -the self-development part-.

Given the popularity of those articles though, I have it noted down that I will eventually go back to all of them to make them more exhaustive and generally higher-quality -pun not intended :)-.

Tone of Messages: Different Standards For Different Folks

As a rule of thumb, if we're discussing about a newcomer or a feebdack on some article, I'm far more lenient when the purported poor behavior/tone is towards me, rather than towards other users.

And new members also get some more leeway when it comes to guidelines and behavior.

Why?

Because it's different if "turkey behavior" is from an old-standing member, who is supposed to have read the guidelines and internalized (at least some) of the TPM values, VS a newcomer, who can't be held at the same higher standard.

In this case, I also generally understand where Ritwika is coming from, so albeit I wasn't exactly impressed by how the original message was worded and argued, I also didn't feel much "attacked" at all.

You eventually retaliated with a travesty of your previous article and an even more distorted representation of your stance. I'm not as new on the forum as I was when I had first replied to your thread. Keeping the content intact, I would rather change the tone since I've read the guidelines now which is why I am trying to transcend to the "higher standard" that most old members are at. My reply to your article was crude and unpolished since the first thing I read on this forum was your article which gave me a wrong impression of the guidelines of this forum and following that, the tone of my reply was merely an imitation of that of your article and I was naive, lacking even the slightest clue of what the guidelines encompassed.
I don't feel personally victimized by the "low-value women" article since none of the points you mentioned personally mortified me except for one and I still stand by my perspective, not all women who are smart have to necessarily be conscious about their physique. Most women, unlike some men, value brains over beauty!
And another point you put across was that a high value woman must be well-versed in English, I both know and know of many high value women, with the notion of regionalism so deeply ingrained in them, that they treasure no other language over their own! Solid evidence always comes in handy to back up an argument, take, for instance, the former First Lady of the USA or the Nobel laureate Dr. Duflo.
As much as I believe there's no tone in writing, I apologize if the "tone" of my writing seemed crude. You can harness the crudest of words in a speech and yet sound elegant by keeping your voice low and speaking in a monotone.
When you stir up a hornet's nest, you should be mentally braced to receive verbal stabbing. Quite surprisingly, there were two categories of people reacting to the post, mostly divided in terms of gender, men supporting your standpoint by putting up with your stance and women or at least people with feminine-sounding names reciprocating your hatred of women by hating on you.

Ritwika,

When you call my message "retaliation", it makes me think we're not in the right frame of mind to agree or find much common ground.

And that's OK.

What's not OK is that you again are trying to frame me in highly offensive terms.

Namely, when you say "reciprocating your hatred of women", you're trying to pass your initial anger as justified by my supposed hatred of women. It's a convenient narrative for you, as it indirectly says:

"yes, I was angry, but it's only because this guy hates me and my gender".

It self-frames you as the mostly good party who unluckily got a bit out of hand, but only because she was in front of the real asshole, the angry woman-hater.

And while I have no issue with whatever tone you used, I do have issues with that frame, which I consider slanderous, offensive, and patently false.

If you want to go personal, then "you're a hater" might be more realistic if you had said "you're a hater of the law of attraction". Or one could find some more support if they were to say "you got personal issues with the authors of this book, this book, and this book".

But your frame just doesn't hold in this case.

After all, I believe that this website makes it quite clear where it stands in terms of "intergender-wars" and in terms of misogynists and male haters. And to sum up that philosophy in crude terms: it wants absolutely none of that shit-.
BUT, I might be wrong there, and it might not be as obvious as I think. So at least something good came out of this: I'm thinking that in this day and age of heightened emotions between men and women, it's a good idea to add a section in the "Start Here" page on where this website stands on that.

Anyway, I directly and unequivocally ask you to drop that "you're a hater" frame, either overt, or covert: it's a personal attack, it's false, and it's not acceptable.

If on the other hand, you want to criticize, tear apart, or put to shame the content of the article, please do.

Sam Wellington has reacted to this post.
Sam Wellington
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on April 11, 2021, 4:46 pm

Ritwika,

When you call my message "retaliation", it makes me think we're not in the right frame of mind to agree or find much common ground.

And that's OK.

What's not OK is that you again are trying to frame me in highly offensive terms.

Namely, when you say "reciprocating your hatred of women", you're trying to pass your initial anger as justified by my supposed hatred of women. It's a convenient narrative for you, as it indirectly says:

"yes, I was angry, but it's only because this guy hates me and my gender".

It self-frames you as the mostly good party who unluckily got a bit out of hand, but only because she was in front of the real asshole, the angry woman-hater.

And while I have no issue with whatever tone you used, I do have issues with that frame, which I consider slanderous, offensive, and patently false.

If you want to go personal, then "you're a hater" might be more realistic if you had said "you're a hater of the law of attraction". Or one could find some more support if they were to say "you got personal issues with the authors of this book, this book, and this book".

But your frame just doesn't hold in this case.

After all, I believe that this website makes it quite clear where it stands in terms of "intergender-wars" and in terms of misogynists and male haters. And to sum up that philosophy in crude terms: it wants absolutely none of that shit-.
BUT, I might be wrong there, and it might not be as obvious as I think. So at least something good came out of this: I'm thinking that in this day and age of heightened emotions between men and women, it's a good idea to add a section in the "Start Here" page on where this website stands on that.

Anyway, I directly and unequivocally ask you to drop that "you're a hater" frame, either overt, or covert: it's a personal attack, it's false, and it's not acceptable.

If on the other hand, you want to criticize, tear apart, or put to shame the content of the article, please do.

How do you expect anybody to drop a topic when every comeback you make personally attacks me and inflicts shame on women!

"yes, I was angry, but it's only because this guy hates me and my gender". Reading this part, the only thing that crossed my mind is that you're only trying to get off on a technicality, named the Red Pill "Syndrome" and quoting authors like Rollo Tomassi. A part of it unreservedly stems from a supposed fact that you received a whiplash from one specific woman that made you hate the entire womankind although you're at liberty to hate women. And this happens to be a never-ending tussle between the misogynist and their counterparts, the misandrist.
Besides, what happened to your "higher-standard" old membership virtue that you preach about and being true to your outward public persona while making use of words like "asshole".. slipped through you mind or was it your true inner self speaking!
This has only been one futile, unproductive, heated conversation since you chose to deviate from the main point. I've always been and still am critical of very few, selected points from the "low value women" thread but, on the contrary, you chose to stray away instead of showing the slightest hint of sensibility!

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoAli ScarlettMatthew Whitewood
Quote from RITWIKA CHATTERJEE on April 11, 2021, 6:30 pm

This has only been one futile, unproductive, heated conversation

I'm not sure about the heat part, but we can totally agree on the futile and unproductive.

And since it seems like it might stay that way and time is such a scarce and precious resource, I think it's a good idea to agree to disagree and end it here.

Matthew Whitewood, Sam Wellington and 3 other users have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodSam WellingtonJMselffriendSerena Irina
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Updated:

A strategic analysis of this latest exchange here.

Matthew Whitewood, Stef and selffriend have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodStefselffriend
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

 Doesn’t Care About Her Looks / Weight

I mean but you can be smart and good looking at the same time, it is not this or that as some women who are obese or whatever wants to put it...

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Serena Irina have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew WhitewoodSerena Irina

Hi Lucio, I came across your articles here in the US. I really enjoy your dating advice and learning from a man's perspective. I have a question for you, but wanted to ask privately. I tried messaging you on facebook using Messenger, but it looks like it failed to send. I just created an account on your website and not sure how to contact you directly. Please let me know how I may reach you. Thanks! Alex B.

Quote from RITWIKA CHATTERJEE on April 11, 2021, 3:27 pm
I don't feel personally victimized by the "low-value women" article since none of the points you mentioned personally mortified me except for one and I still stand by my perspective, not all women who are smart have to necessarily be conscious about their physique. Most women, unlike some men, value brains over beauty!
And another point you put across was that a high value woman must be well-versed in English, I both know and know of many high value women, with the notion of regionalism so deeply ingrained in them, that they treasure no other language over their own! Solid evidence always comes in handy to back up an argument, take, for instance, the former First Lady of the USA or the Nobel laureate Dr. Duflo.
As much as I believe there's no tone in writing, I apologize if the "tone" of my writing seemed crude. You can harness the crudest of words in a speech and yet sound elegant by keeping your voice low and speaking in a monotone.
When you stir up a hornet's nest, you should be mentally braced to receive verbal stabbing. Quite surprisingly, there were two categories of people reacting to the post, mostly divided in terms of gender, men supporting your standpoint by putting up with your stance and women or at least people with feminine-sounding names reciprocating your hatred of women by hating on you.

So to balance the things here, I wanted to provide the post with another feminine perspective. 

I am also new to this forum, but this post was one of the first ones I read. Back then I was so curious to find out what would be qualified as a low-quality woman, that I just had to read it. Afterwards, the main reason I was glad for the text, is because there I could get impersonal feedback and therefore have the possibility to identify in my behaviour what needed change. Needless to say, I could get what I was looking for and I got curious to read about masculine low-quality behaviour, but I was quite sure Lucio would also be sharp with them. Fair enough, I did find texts hitting hard on men too... "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

For me, it was far much harder to read about male sexual psychopaths (and the danger that we are all susceptible to) than reading about low-quality women. And what I like about being here is that Lucio depicts the facts, opinions and behavioural science without trying to soften such perceptions of human nature. I do admire his "eagle eye" for social interactions and it is so useful for me, that I cannot be thankful enough. Also, here in this forum, we get to learn a lot from each other too.  A good environment and, I would say, a safe one.

To one point that you specifically made I will have to strongly state my disagreement. Your perspective that high-quality women do not necessarily have to be versed in English bothers me. Actually, I do think high-quality women (and men) must be well-versed in English and in the past I rejected many potential partners for this very reason. More than that, I believe that English is no longer the only foreign language a woman or a man should be well-versed in. Even though I was living in the Brazilian countryside and had access to an English school first at 19 years old, I am currently learning my 5th language and I do not intend to stop here. If you think coldly, hypothetically speaking, a woman (insert men here if you may) that has a job, is graduated, works so hard and still take some hours in her/his week to master a foreign language, what does it say about the person? I find it very admirable and a very strong sign that the person strives for excellence, that this person set out for great things (and is not lazy). I would even go harder than Lucio and add that the high-quality woman (what I would also suggest for men) should go to therapy. Self-improvement is so important and a foreign language would be just the tip of the iceberg, much more have to come along.

And about what you said, I totally agree. We, women, tend to care much more about the men's brain than his appearance. Yet, the fact that the opposite does not happen is not necessarily a bad thing. We do have an opportunity here. Those women who get to have a charismatic figure, who take care of themselves, who love themselves but choose not to stop there, investing in their brain achieve far more in life than those who get to be only smart - or only beautiful / sexy / in shape, or whatever.

"Long live this post" and I wish many other women and men come here to leave their perspectives.

 

 

 

 

 

Lucio Buffalmano and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew Whitewood

Great post, Serena!

Yes, the way I see it, it's also about ego-projection and personal identity.

Do you feel personally slighted if one talks in a way that might be perceived negatively about a sub-group of women (or men)?

I think it reconnects with a few topics of self-development, including:

  1. General self-esteem: if it's generally high, (perceived) criticism won't knock you down
  2. Antifragile ego: do you develop your self-esteem around being "good" in the eyes of someone else, or do you find more antifragile traits to develop your self-esteem around?
  3. Individual identity: keeping your individual identity, separated from the group
Matthew Whitewood and Serena Irina have reacted to this post.
Matthew WhitewoodSerena Irina
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?