Why do women hate Heart of Darkness?

This but unironically. If you don't feel this then you're a cuckhold.

>not to be stylish

Does not compute.

I think instead of this ruthlessness stuff upthread, maybe the answer is about obsessiveness. You have to feel like you're somewhere on Kurz's spectrum, or once have been.

See Moby Dick?

>On the contrary. I think most of us wish we could be as ruthless a most women.
Vindictiveness is not ruthlessness. Being ruthless is complete disregard for what others feel, complete dehumanization of the enemy. Women are still concerned what the others feel, thus their humanity stands in the way of what must be done.

>Empathize with their family and maybe friends, you mean. Being emotional is not equivalent to being empathetic.
My opinion is based on accounts of women being violated in horrible ways by men (or even other women). I always find it odd how majority of the women "feel sorry" for the attacker, and generally their hatred and feel for revenge doesn't extend to the point of murder in cold blood. Only men seem to do this - universally across all cultures. I'm open to concrete explanations why that could be.

>Do you have any idea of what two women who hate each other are capable of doing to each other?
yeah but men will pick up a blunt object and pummel someone to death if they get mad. women very rarely do that

> Being ruthless is complete disregard for what others feel, complete dehumanization of the enemy. Women are still concerned what the others feel, thus their humanity stands in the way of what must be done.

Unless you're talking about the Virgin Mary, I have a hard time believing this.

>I always find it odd how majority of the women "feel sorry" for the attacker

Do they?

>their hatred and feel for revenge doesn't extend to the point of murder in cold blood

Because their physical build is not suited for that. Poison is known to be a woman's weapon for a reason. Or they get others to do the dirty work for them. Manipulation is a woman's strongest asset.

>yeah but men will pick up a blunt object and pummel someone to death if they get mad. women very rarely do that

What I just said about women's build.

>Manipulation is a woman's strongest asset.
Oh there are female psychopaths, most certainly, but you can't extend that to a generality. Under right circumstances, almost all men turn to ruthless violence, while only very few women can keep up. And it has nothing to do with upper body strength - not anymore, though that was certainly the major co-evolving factor along with it in the hunter gatherer past.

> I have a hard time believing this.
Just look at history. How many truly ruthless women you see in there? Ruthlessness is how you gain power. But female court intrigue is rarely ruthless, it goes on as you say - manipulate events so that men are ruthless against each other, and woman simply sides with the winner. Doesn't mean she's ruthless, as she never had real power, and there was no murderous intent against someone in particular. A humble catalyst is not a violent reagent.

Calling intrigue ruthless is a cop out MRAs often make, as well feminists who are deluded this is their "power". Men are shitty to each other, of their free will. You can't really blame the woman pulling the strings you're voluntarily listening to. It's like being obsessed with gold, and calling gold ruthless, instead of the person doing shitty things because of their obsession.

>tfw famous for a subpar book while people ignore my magnum opus
Conrad is suffering.

Attached: nostromo-185602284.jpg (600x776, 64K)

>Calling intrigue ruthless is a cop out MRAs often make, as well feminists who are deluded this is their "power".

A fair point.

>Men are shitty to each other, of their free will.

Only through strength and power ( and I mean that in a metaphysical sense ) can one rise above the others and beat the competition. Kill or be killed, that's the way it works. Docile men die out much faster than hyper-aggressive ones do.

Hating men for this would be like hating the car's engine for being too powerful in an accident. The energy that built civilization and the energy that drives men to eviscerate, rape, kill, and massacre other people are one and the same.

Perhaps you meant to post this?

Attached: LordJim.jpg (822x1401, 207K)

>Docile men die out much faster than hyper-aggressive ones do.
I doubt that is true.
Agressiveness, especially coupled with other risk taking, is a high risk, high reward evolutionary strategy.

>implying tribal society isn’t fucked up

There are fewer female murderers because everyone is nice to women. They have to really slip through the cracks, and even then they still get a pretty decent life out of men, like aileen wuoros.

No.

Am Also this. Women will never understand loneliness the way men experience it, that is, the complete lack of support, and even scorn, that lonely men get.

>>
>ignore
where did you get this idea?
people don't ignore it - it is one of his most famous books.
Nostromo is understandably less popular because it's long and is more concerned with political and social issues, while in the Heart you have a profound deconstruction of Kurtz's character in addition to colonialism and all this stuff. The heart is simply more modernistic.
Surely an analysis of man's idealistic ambitions was more valuable to first english modernists than political instability in South America

>Only through strength and power ( and I mean that in a metaphysical sense ) can one rise above the others and beat the competition. Kill or be killed, that's the way it works. Docile men die out much faster than hyper-aggressive ones do.

I'm not sure this is longer the case, as capital has mostly hijacked the role of power currency and no longer aligns with the winners propagating through progeny. This makes for one unhappy evolution. Last time this seemed to be the case was Genghis Khan harems (and the famous paternality dispersed all over the old continent).

>Hating men for this would be like hating the car's engine for being too powerful in an accident.
Given the above (misalign of raw power geno-dynamics vs capital), it's not entirely clear whether ruthless winner takes all serves any purpose anymore - it seems to be just wasting resources through capital mis-allocation.

Most of technological progress is not in ruthless markets, but *scientific*. This is much more nuanced and feminized driver - the mere need for peer approval and very beta instinct to be "useful to the tribe" - something more suitable for women to be instinctually driven to do. True power hiearchies have been taken away from us by impersonal system of civilization, there are no kings, there are no harems, and no warlords to fear. The only argument for male imperative is that we're now using high abstractions for violence that they're becoming useless as determinant of winners. But such abstractions can always collapse (total war, technological collapse), and then murder and rapine rears its head once again.

Forgive me for asking, but you're not one of those "xenofeminism" or whatever people, right?

>I'm not sure this is longer the case, as capital has mostly hijacked the role of power currency and no longer aligns with the winners propagating through progeny. This makes for one unhappy evolution.

Agreed. Things are all topsy-turvy. Still, it's a form of power nonetheless.

You sound racist.

>xenofeminism
I have a disdain for Land's obscurantism, but what I'm talking about is somewhat along the lines of intuitions he's coming from.

> Still, it's a form of power nonetheless.
The concern is that capital itself bootstrapped into divergent line of evolution, while the genetic one stagnates or rather, is outright dysgenic (the least successful reproducing the most - niggers - is evolutionary catastrophe). What you end up with is the distribution of power getting steep, to a point there are no davids to take on the golliaths crucial to the evolutionary (and functional market) process. Derailing power to capital seems like something that can't maintain equilibrium with human biology in the loop.

This is why I find meta-feminist narratives interesting - that we should abolish low level male imperatives because they're not significant biologically anymore, and all they do is just perpetuate the possibly disastrous loop where something very abstract originating from male biological imperative hoards all power, without that ever being for the benefit of us as species as is the case in (bio)evolutionary equilibrium.

My crystal ball is that there will be a very violent turn - either capital re-aligning with biological optimality (the poor not reproducing, the rich reproducing the most), or total erasure of male imperatives because we're too tight knit to afford competition, shiftting the whole center towards feminine cooperation without use of cut-throat markets. Think bacteria colony evolving into a multi-cellular organism.

Multi-cellular organisms still need "low level male imperatives" to persevere.

Even now, when society is arguably as feminized as it ever was in human history, women are suffering ( though they'd never admit it ) because of the lack of masculinity to go around, emotionally speaking ( because they are bound to seek it by their biology ). I can see a negative feedback happening if you throttle back masculinity even further from where it is today.

In other words, low-level male imperatives, and everything that springs from it ( think macho culture ) are there because women select for it. They don't select for limp-wristed faggots. You can fill a cup with only so much water before it starts spilling over.

I think it’s because just don’t understand it. Only men can truly understand the plight of men. I’m not knocking women, but they are sometimes clueless to the struggles of the opposite sex. However we do need to resolve our adversarial leanings towards the other sex. It doesn’t make for a healthy society.

Women are right for once, it's a book for children

The problem is that women in civilization have too small operational range to select for *success*, which disrupts the evolutionary process. Success is objectively measured as advance of our civilization, while women interpret success for a tribe at most, which is now vastly irrelevant. If the process was pro-genic, einstein and bill gates would have 2000 children.

>Multi-cellular organisms still need "low level male imperatives" to persevere.
Male imperative is specifically male-male violence to determine winner in the tournament. When multi-cellular organism really does this, it's called cancer. Whereas in bacteria colony, it's perfectly healthy process. This is how centers of competition/cooperation can shift (not just in biology, but also things like business mergers).

>Even now, when society is arguably as feminized as it ever was in human history, women are suffering ( though they'd never admit it ) because of the lack of masculinity to go around, emotionally speaking ( because they are bound to seek it by their biology ). I can see a negative feedback happening if you throttle back masculinity even further from where it is today.

Both suffer. Males are not allowed to express their low impulses for direct competition, instead they have to compete in an insanely large system where only very, very few can come on top. This demoralizes vast majority of men when they can't have their locally isolated niches to reasonably compete in.

Women suffer by extension, as the system defines "successful men" pretty arbitrarily from their POV, and they are by large extent not available - not even as mate, much less commitment. Women are also more visceral, as they tend to more factor "hardcoded" choice through primitive, and now irrelevant social tribe dynamics. Those are hopelessly out of date. Whereas men self-select with direct power hiearchy, suppressing reproduction of losers - male side of selection adapts to anything incorporating adversity as it is tightly bound to natural selection in a PvP tournament. But even that doesn't work, because they keep their winnings as capital, not reproductive access, translating the success into biological evolution.

That has unironically been the driving power behind humanity in a quarter million years at least. What were you trying to say?

Nostromo is great, but it's a slow burn.
I imagine a lot of people just don't make it through.

You're free to fight against hundred thousands of years of evolution, but it's futile to do so.

Matriarchies are doomed to fail, or at best, they subsist in mud huts, as the record indicates.

I don't know what you have against men, but I don't think the majority of men would have any of it.

You also didn't address that the male drive is what drives scientific progress, and civilization in general. Eliminating that would be quite unwise.

Men will always be the leaders, and the ones who dictate - that's just the way it is, and not even women would have it any other way if they were honest with themselves. Nurturing pipe dreams of a maleless future is just out of touch with reality.

Women were dragged along by the tribe kicking and screaming. Women represent our animal half, cowardly and without morals. There’s no set up for society where they are good, women and society are antithetical.

>You're free to fight against hundred thousands of years of evolution, but it's futile to do so.
Try hundreds of billions.

>I don't know what you have against men, but I don't think the majority of men would have any of it.
Most people don't consider the system they're trapped in, they just look out of the window and bitch and moan about the system, mostly because system is incompatible with their instincts.

>You also didn't address that the male drive is what drives scientific progress, and civilization in general. Eliminating that would be quite unwise.

It does in terms of our core motivation, but it falls flat as evolutionary process. Science and technology is on research level, a collaborative process, even if the innate drive is essentially e-peen measuring contest driven by testosterone telling us we should "kill" all the other competitors. What does "kill" competitors (as well as disrupts above mentioned cooperation in R&D) is markets which now run evolution of their own, divorced from humans.

>Men will always be the leaders, and the ones who dictate
Very few men - and even those don't have any real power over the system. The system is by now entirely self-sustaining where attaining actionable power is extremely difficult. Most men are just slaves with very few degrees of freedom to even direct their life, much less dictate to someone else on any measurable scale.

>Nurturing pipe dreams of a maleless future is just out of touch with reality.
Feminists who are honest about it simply claim that system originating from male competetive impulses will soon become unsustainable because it violates far too many of our base drives, both male and female. Nothing about they'd want to inject testosterone to attain same competetive impulses, those would be simply hijacked to power a rat race anyway. Of course feminism is long coopted by capital, so as far much of it you hear, it is just a lipstick attempting to fit women in the system, in order to essentially enlarge the slave class.

s/billions/millions

>male competetive impulses will soon become unsustainable because it violates far too many of our base drives

They are base drives themselves... the system is built with them in mind.

>Very few men

Men nonetheless.

>Most people don't consider the system they're trapped in, they just look out of the window and bitch and moan about the system, mostly because system is incompatible with their instincts.

If you want to call being alive being trapped in a system, then be my guest. Very few men succeed - and that's the way things should be. It's not fair, but nothing is.

Are you a woman, by any chance?

>Feminists who are honest about it simply claim that system originating from male competetive impulses will soon become unsustainable because it violates far too many of our base drives
While simultaneously demanding more money to play soccer like little leaguers.

>Very few men succeed - and that's the way things
The problem is that successful men don't reproduce in relation to their success nearly as much they used to, making the tournament pointless. There is nothing wrong with competition *as long* it selects winners down the genetic line. But winners down the line are not selected, on the contrary - the less successful you are, the higher chance for reproductive success. Moreover, capital is a poor substitute because it doesn't "equalize" wealth a generation later the way genetic capital would. Instead this evolutionary power fuels evolution of entirely separate "corporate" species.

It's this stationary accumulation of power which never disperses back into Pereto slope that is problem. Maleness is simply not functioning in a way it was evolved for. Nor does female side for that matter (women are memed to breed with monogamous betabux, or a man attractive by primitive attributes correlating with societal success 10k years ago, but irrelevant now). Things got worse, as recently women got memed they don't even need the betabux - the weakly selected "higher level slaves", and solely focus on primitivist notions disregarding (objective) success completely. From the point of biology, this is a recipe for return to primitivism if it's atavistic attributes you select for.

The worst part is that civilization is incredibly robust - no matter how unhappy people are about it, it provides us with comforts, thus self-sustaining itself, in spite of being increasingly in discord with our sex specific imperatives.

And look where society got us. The eternal feminine is Tradition; patriarchy is the malaise of modernity, that is, Platonism

You seem to have quite the chip on your shoulder, no offense.

>The problem is that successful men don't reproduce in relation to their success nearly as much they used to, making the tournament pointless.

The natural system will correct itself with time. It might take a collapse to do so, but for every action, there is a sufficient reaction.

Or, in the worst case, humanity might go extinct, but if that's the case, then we would deserve it. Species don't go extinct in nature undeservedly. Adapt, or perish.

Because the word NIGGER is unfashionable, and the entire interior life of a woman is predicated on fashionability.

>Women are still concerned what the others feel
No they are not. They are concerned with how others perceive them, not how others feel.

Many women are solipsistic. They lash out less violently because they are usually more socialized not to and because they are smaller/weaker they cannot easily take on a man.

>murder in cold blood.
Women use different methods. Most poisoners are women. You do not get more cold blooded than watching a person gradually sicken from arsenic or ricin over weeks.

> You do not get more cold blooded than watching a person gradually sicken from arsenic or ricin over weeks.
Intent to weaken - not intent to kill. Ruthless people are decisive, not wavering and ambiguous in action.

>hey are concerned with how others perceive them,
True (and necessary skill for complex social games). Still, they're concerned about what others think and apparently can't help it. Ruthless men don't care about PR.

>Intent to weaken - not intent to kill. Ruthless people are decisive, not wavering and ambiguous in action.

Lol. Bashing someone's skull in is a million times more humane than poisoning.

>assuming women would be able to interpret ethics
It's pretty much how women think:
alive (but slowly dying) = humane
dead (instantly, no suffering) = violent

now I want to read it thanks for the rec

>Do you have any idea of what two women who hate each other are capable of doing to each other?
Screaming? Ripping hair out? Using their own children as blunt objects to strike each other? That's nothing. Men create nuclear weapons, capable of killing thousands and thousands of people in one motion, salting the Earth of particularly nasty enemies so nothing can live there anymore, they create slavery and subject the innocent to a fruitless existence at a whim.

Because its not Harry Potter.

Attached: 6456456.jpg (800x450, 58K)