.png)
Okay, so I've seen a few posts where the statement is made that males are incapable of love (narcissistic by design). This is usually refuted by claiming that this is a defeatist, hopeless and scarcity mindset. I wanted to chime in on this with my two cents. I would greatly appreciate more discussion on this, because I believe it cuts at the core of what FDS and female liberation is.
First of all, on labelling people as narcissists:
Dr Ramani, who is a pretty much a leader in studying narcissism- has always stated that narcissism is a term that can and must be used liberally. It is simply a personality trait- just like "quiet", "extroverted", "easy-going", "selfish", "difficult", etc. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, is a different thing (much higher levels on the scale) and is the diagnosis that should be given by professionals only. However, Dr Ramani has advocated for removing the diagnosis altogether. Here are some videos on labelling Narcissism that I found interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0OHXUb4vqM
In summary:
The people who suffer the most are the ones around the narcissistic person and not the narcissist himself/herself
People with narcissism are less likely to go to therapy for this on their own
Insurance companies don't support the diagnosis because they feel it's incurable and they don't want to pay for that
Professionals are reluctant to diagnose people with NPD even when it fits because the patients are unaccepting and get extremely angry (threaten to sue, threaten the psychologist in general)
At the end of the day, the diagnosis does nothing to help narcissists and it's pretty much incurable in a practical generalizing sense
Also, I don't think saying men are incapable of love is defeatist or blanket. In my humble opinion, something is only defeat when the other side/option is a "win". I feel that at the core- the choice between man or no man is equally good either way. Being single is not the absence of having a (good) man. Even if all the men on the planet were HV, being single is still an equally valid choice. When we say a (good) man will make our life better, he will make it better in *some* and not *all* ways. Similarly, being single also will make our life better in *some* ways.
In my opinion, scarcity mindset doesn't go away if you believe that men can be good- it goes away when you believe that life will be the same whether not not you have a good man. Good men are not the resource that have become scarce, make sense? Good men are scarce *by design*- which lead me to my second point.
I don't think the statement is blanket either because I believe that patriarchy and the oppression of women starts at a biological level. Here's what I read to make me believe that: (https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/semen-mens-chemical-war-against-women-no-skip-intro/)
So, good men are natural anomalies but not the ideal imagined rule. Of course there are good men out there in the planet- I certainly haven't seen all of them to ever exist in the past, present and future to claim otherwise. But they will always be only a few of them, unless we change males at the biological level.
My final point is on hope. And it ties back to narcissism. My opinions on hope are also heavily influenced by narcissism and abuse. It is warned by many experts (even my favorite Dr. Ramani) that hope is a tricky thing. It can be the KEY to your downfall. Hope makes us disbelieve reality, hope keeps us in toxic relationships and hope can leave us vulnerable. I am of the personal opinion that hope is a fairytale used as a tool to keep us collectively making the same mistakes. We hope he will be an exception to the rule. We hope we will be an exception to the rule
But if there is no hope, how will we dream and make the world a better place? I think that the opposite of hope is not de-motivation, depression and defeat. I think the opposite of hope is Radical Acceptance- a more realistic view of things and focus on more *effective* ways to change the world. Hope that we can do something different now, instead of trying to fix what clearly cannot be fixed. Just like FDS. Hope in itself is not bad, it is in fact key to our mental health- but we must hope for the right things. I personally think that hoping and believing men are capable of love is a bad idea.
The question may arise- how will we ever be in a genuine loving relationship with a man if we don't believe in their capacity for love? Like I said- if you are in such a relationship, if you have met a truly loving man, you have met an anomaly. That's great- it's not impossible. But we do not hope for anomalies. Like another poster said here, it's as sensible as hoping for the lottery
TLDR- Making "blanket" statements about men is not a bad thing, nor should it increase the scarcity mindset- because of the fact that not having a good man is not a bad thing either.
PS- this is indeed a tough conversation and I certainly don't have all the answers. I also have a sheepish confession to make- Being a heterosexual, I hope to find a good man in the future lol. I welcome you opinions and any more resources on these topics of narcissism, hope and male nature.
you are absolutely right!
i'm a radical realist and i've gotta tell you... getting rid of 'hope' on finding love with men is the best thing that has ever happened to me. my life changed, i'm more confident, happier, healthier. men used to suck out my vitality even when i wasn't seeing anyone because i was too hung up on the 'hope' to find a good one. those days are gone now and i have never been happier. if a good man crosses my way, which i doubt, i'll be better prepared to be in a relationship thanks to realism and acceptance.
Well written and said! My life is happier without a man and if the rare good man comes along then cool and if he doesn’t then i don’t care! I’m happy either way and have always been most at peace when I am single. Thankfully, I’m also bisexual and prefer women anyway.
The more hope you hold out for men, the more disappointed you will be. You can’t change them or pour even more emotional labor into them to convince them to not be misogynistic and to have basic human decency
If that is true though, there is no point in dating men, and WGTOW makes more sense. If one is still hopeful to find a man who is capable of love it means you must believe that they exist. I don't quite understand holding the view of men being hopeless and wanting to date them.
I watched the high powered podcast and it's backed up with scientific evidence that men aren't capable of love. Most women who have cancer are getting divorced. They are always ready to abandon their flesh and blood when they regret fatherhood while it's less likely for a woman to do such a thing. The republicans want abortion punishable by death and who is making the law still? Men. 80% of crimes worldwide are done by men. When men cause harm the single mothers are blamed by men. The son who shot his mother over electronics said he was sorry and then asked when his Amazon order will arrive That doesn't look like ppl who are capable of love.
Saying men are incapable of love is not scarcity mind set. It's just pure facts. And because it is a fact, that is backed up by science, yes, we can make a blanket statement for all men. The most men can do is show care. Care is not the same as love.
What kept so many of us in terrible relationships? For me it was a warm, fuzzy feeling of being "in love". Now, if I could have that... but with a HVM... then my life would be much better than one that I could have as a single woman.
That's a big "if", but I believe it's possible.
"it's as sensible as hoping for the lottery"--
At FDS we don't want women gushing over men, walking on eggshells around them, and treating them like a fragile china doll, even if they are a HVM. True, most women are 1000 times better than most men. But we want to decenter men. That's why the scarcity mindset comment comes up with regards to those arguments.
We shouldn't focus on finding a HVM, or wax lyrical about them, but the incapable of love arguement with regards to ALL men kinda degrades their humanity (and thats coming from a person who loves roasting scrotes).
Thank you for this post and I also adore Dr. Ramani. If I could go back in time to my youth, I’d definitely date men with more of an eye towards screening out the narcissists and cluster b’s. I’d date carefully and rarely with the phrase “it’s 50/50 in a 1 in 5 world” (from Sandra L. Brown, MA) at the forefront of my mind. Meaning 1 in 5 are disordered and half of relationships break-up. Which ALSO means optimistically, once we can spot the bad apples, 80% are not in this pathological category and half the time the relationship is not doomed to fail. Once we can spot and dump at the 1st red flag, the dating world becomes much safer. And FDS works if we’re patient and hold the standard that he must be head over heels for us FOR REAL, or bust.
IDK but I am optimistic that a great life is very possible once we learn that men are the icing on the cake… but not the cake itself. We are the cake - our life. Our energy, our essence. A man who is carefully vetted can sometimes make a wonderful icing. But it’s not at all necessary.
Look around here at the FDSers in great relationships. All is not lost. The stories we tell ourselves are everything. I believe if you want to go get that great life, you absolutely can.
i really really wish whomever wrote the trust your perception blog would write more! their info is 100% captivating.
Thank you for this writing, I'm nodding along as I read this. I kind of lost "hope", with what happened to me lately. For now I feel like I'm going to be single for life, mostly because I found HVM are rare plus the chance of meeting is really unpredictable. It's low chance, but not zero... But still I don't want to use my mental capacity think much about it. Being single doesn't seem bad...
It seems that FDS as a whole is starting to remove the "dating" aspect and go fully blackpill. I'm not here to judge, it's a legitimate choice given the state of men, but it seems it's not my space anymore for long. What use is there in discussing dating questions at all if the answer is always: "men are irredeemable, be single for life"? Maybe that's useful for some women to get them to "wake up" or something but even then it seems a little patronizing. It kinda reads like: Why can't you realize already that heterosexuality is a curse and you need to stay away from men? And if you are not ready to accept that as the absolute truth then you are "foolishly hoping for something that doesn't exist". Maybe this is the truth, maybe men and women were always biologically meant to be "at war" with each other, but I don't fully buy it yet.
(https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/semen-mens-chemical-war-against-women-no-skip-intro/)
About the article linked above, I totally agree with its research. We women have been evolved to be receptive towards men, and (sadly) there is nothing that we can do about it as of now. I believe this emphasizes the importance of finding a HLM that won’t do this to you.
The claim that semen contains substances fostering loyalty in females is presented as a form of manipulation, however, from an evolutionary standpoint, the bonding effects of oxytocin and vasopressin can be viewed as mechanisms encouraging pair-bonding and cooperation for successful offspring rearing. Rather than manipulation, this emphasizes the cooperative aspects of reproductive strategies. Also, the article introduces the idea that males block genes in females to prevent parthenogenesis, linking it to the effects of semen on behavior. While certain genetic mechanisms prevent parthenogenesis in mammals, connecting this to memory or behavior effects seems speculative and lacks direct evidence. The lack of substantial scientific evidence, coupled with the apparent alignment with a particular ideological viewpoint, calls for careful consideration. I think the author is misinformed, so we sisters must do our own research to circumvent the ever-present male influence on our rise to power.
Really well written. Couldn’t have written it better myself. I was about to say something after seeing the last post about how men being incapable of love is a blanket statement, but you said it so elloquently.
I think LVM or NVM are narcissistic. They check all the checkmarks of narcissism (zero empathy, gaslighting, triangulating, etc.). Like you’ve written - saying someone is “narcissistic” is NOT diagnosing them. It’s a personality trait, NOT a psychological disorder. Narcissistic Personality *Disorder* (NPD) is. So thanks for brunging that up. I highly recommend checking out Dr. Ramani to all the ladies here because it tells us how to deal with such men.