I like to think that my unique outlook is a strength albeit of course it is also a weakness. Whereas I suppose I was always “an individual,” not having anything to call a “hometown” or culture to which I can authentically claim as my “heritage,” (except genetically, perhaps), it took extreme trauma in order for me to recognize and discard the Leftist indoctrination that nevertheless took hold in my psyche, albeit unbranded and therefore perhaps more easily shed.
Part of my mission is to attempt to devise rhetorical memes that ideally prompt or “trigger” the less-disillusioned to reexamine their closely-held beliefs. Occasionally I am urged that I should “write a book,” or otherwise devise a forum that will somehow catch the attention of other women and otherwise reach them where rational minds have failed. (I operate on a more “intuitive” sense than rational in most of my writings and may or may not have insight to the workings of the female mind. So far, I would say that this insight doesn’t actually assist my mission but who knows?)
Men praise me for my “intelligence” in this respect but generally speaking are reticent to be intimate with me except in foolhardy or “casual” fashion (which I spurn). It would seem that my uniqueness is even a threat to “rational” minds, because, in fact, no one is free of cognitive dissonance.
It is my belief that the primary method of institutional mind control that infects our world today has to do with our unconscious, subconscious, and sense of “sacred” or sexuality and love. Discussions of these sorts of things tends to “feel threatening,” or at least exhausting to the listener and otherwise cause either emotional over-engagement or detachment, depending on the personality of the listener. The former is a more “feminine” or Feminist response and the latter a more “masculine” one but still gynocentric, in my view.
A hot-headed anti-feminist male may conversely be both emotionally over-engaged and even threatened by my arguments such as to approach me in an emotional rather than rational manner. The irony of course is that my philosophy has large areas of agreement with the disenfranchised young man if I tend not to feel submissive to that population. I am sympathetic not submissive, maternal not adoring.
Therefore the population of my romantic interest is a narrow intersection of both passionate anti-feminist, rational detachment, and probably a dose of foolhardy courage such that principles outweigh the drive for either longevity, chivalry as masculine identity, or social acceptance by the gynocentric majority. It’s a tall order and not an easy demographic to reach. The age of that demographic is also probably going to trend younger than my comfort level rather than quietly, sedately, “going with the flow”. I’m also going to assume some sort of genetic resistance to the estrogenization of both our food supply and institutional programming, such as to result in high testosterone production but hopefully not a lot of insulin or alcoholism to counteract that production and convert it into estrogenic (inflammatory) forms.
I therefore refuse to limit my search to those of similar phenotype to myself even if I am by all means open to similar phenotypes as well as cautious with regard to the “foreign,” given my extremely negative experiences there as well. It takes a supremely transcended male, in my view, to not find my own views to be threatening to the “maternal feminine sacred” within his subconscious. Threatening a strong man’s “maternal feminine sacred” is foolhardy. In other words, if his mother was a feminist dupe, then anti-feminist rhetoric from me is going to sound like a challenge and a threat. I have to be extra careful of that reaction given that I may well end up being a target of the poorly differentiated “fatherless son” avenging his mother’s insecurity upon me as described in Why Do Women Hate Each Other?
Some men are effectively or emotionally “fatherless” even if their father is still around. I would put myself in the emotionally “fatherless” category myself, however, have no desire to avenge the insecurity of either of my parents on anyone. That may be because I haven’t been steeped in “chivalry” and otherwise feel as if I already gave my parents more of me than they deserved and for a very poor return on that investment.
Even Axel was somewhat put off by my anti-feminist rhetoric and he thought of himself as highly transcended from his mother’s emotional (and vicariously physical) abuse upon him. Fortunately for me, he was able to detach, and paradoxically channel his frustrations with me in a manner to which I not only welcomed but my sexuality (and personal sacred) is defined by it. However, when he met me, I was a lot more meek and less grandstanding with regard to my views on society.
Nowadays I suppose I’m both passionate and cynical which tend to cancel each other out in terms of my attractiveness.
After four years of slow reintegration into society, my views have crystallized and otherwise become more dogmatic not less. I suspect that this is a natural psychological fidelity mechanism. If my views are more dogmatic then I am less submissive and receptive to the views of other men whereas my man knows how to compartmentalize and otherwise tune me out before dominating me psychologically as well as physically and sexually, with “my man” being a rhetorical construct at the present date.
Just my theory, of course.