Only women are attracted to ego in women, and they're attracted to it in women for the same reason they're attracted to it in men - they mistake arrogance for confidence and think overcompensating by being out of control makes you powerful and respectable.
A childish view.
If this was false, people like Nicki Minaj and Cardi B wouldn't be idolised and admired for their "sass", called "queen" by legions of women who wish they were as narcissistic as the role models they conceptualise as the perfect woman, but who are far from it by men's standards.
The "boss bitch" as a meme is a female aspiration and concept of what "the ideal woman should look like"
There is no talk of grace, refinement, compassion, gentleness, no, it's all about "sass" and "making money" - their concept of apex femininity is fundamentally broken.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A man’s vulnerability is sort of like spiritual porn to a woman, they get off to the connection, but feel disgusted in the aftermath. It’s the desire for authenticity and connectivity (with the man) without the capacity to take responsibility for the full weight of his feelings.
Like you know how a young guy with no wisdom or maturity wants to have sex with the cute young girl, but can’t really handle the full weight of looking after?
Same here. Women want full spectrum shared spiritual emotional connection.
But can’t handle a man who breaks polarity.
Vulnerability outside the context of “I went through some bad shit and I conquered it” or “I’m going through some bad shit but don’t worry I’m a fucking warrior and will conquer all of it” results in a polarity break. Loss of confidence? Polarity break. Despair? Polarity break.
Funniest thing about regular women is they call you evil when you give actual wisdom derived insight/ metaphysical analysis because their fragile egos can't appreciate nuance or handle the implications.
But if you sabotage them with ego affirmations they believe unquestioningly.
Which is actually why evil is more permeating and pervasive and the default and "stays winning"
Because it takes less skill, and there's less resistance to it
It literally takes 10x the skill to be a good, strong but ruthless man than just a straight up predator
And the thing is, all good men - in the real sense of the word - as in, could fuck your shit up and exploit you maximally against your best interest for their self-interest *BUT DOESN'T* functionally knows how to be a predator - they just choose not to be.
What do working out, *WINNING*, sex and getting paid all have in common for a man?
They make you feel powerful.
And it's crucial to a man's mental health to feel powerful. Regularly.
I believe this is the cure to depression in men. Depression in men = sense of powerlessness.
This is why men tend to be solutions focused rather than catharsis focused (though the latter does happen too) - just give them a way to feel powerful again, and you'll "fix them" - that's it. Being understood is great too, but it comes AFTER that, not BEFORE it.
Mainstream doesn't understand this, because mainstream is feminised to the point men are basically alien to them.
This is why it tries to apply female ways of doing things to male needs, and fails epically
The greatest lie the devil ever convinced you was that beauty is weakness, and ugliness is strength.
This is a widely believed illusion - a state of mass hypnosis almost, but it is functionally, archetypally untrue.
Being negative takes *ZERO* skill - so how can it be strength?
Just because some are more talented in the negative than others, as in, more creative and forceful with it, doesn't make them strong - makes them dangerous, yes, but not strong - dangerousness is not strength if we define strength as the capacity of a soul to resist impurity.
They are dangerous because they are influential, and because they can self-perpetuate the memeplex of destruction, because they are a chaos variable, but they are not strong, because they failed to preserve the inherent beauty they were born with, they let this world spoil them.
If you know a couple and they both vote for different political parties, then the woman doesn't really love the man. Woman should either just not care about politics at all, or be mostly aligned with her man's preferences and reverent of him to the point she wouldn't defy him.
That's actually what it is. Lack of reverence.
"Making my dissenting opinion known and felt is more important than showing you respect"
And lack of respect means lack of love
Because love is egoless and self-sacrificing where ego is intolerant and selfish
Devil in the details
That's why a woman who wants to keep the peace really loves a man, but a woman who doesn't want to, doesn't
Following is an actual skill, and reverence makes it easy
Lack of reverence means lack of respect, and lack of respect leads to contempt which leads to betrayal
When a woman overrides her man thinking she knows better, and she's wrong - that's a sin. Like an actual sin. It is an insult both to God and his image in her husband as her guardian
The only time rebellion's divinely permissible is when the woman saves her man from grave error.
So if the wife's wiser than the husband on a specific matter of disagreement, and it's severe enough he'll bring about some calamity if his authority is upheld, it's her moral duty to defy him not out of malice, but in his best interest out of love, and to seek forgiveness later.
The tricky part of course is knowing whether you are actually correct or not.
Believing you are because you feel you are without having proof you are or being able to rationally demonstrate you are does not mean you are.
Your compulsions are not evidence of superior insight.