Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post Reply
outcastsuperstar
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:33 pm

Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by outcastsuperstar » Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:00 pm

Here is a post made by nemesis from HB1

Many of you have seen articles lately on the Peter Pan Syndrome. Obviously, theres a real problem lately with men not manning up and owning up to their responsibilities. Poor, helpless widdle women are being left to fend for themselves because us men have chosen to bro it out and turn away from committed relationships. According to women and their relationship professional cohorts, the sky is falling, and its men who are responsible.

Of course, us MGTOWs know better. We see the recent upsurge in Peter Pan Syndrome articles as a mass shaming tactic meant to shame men back into their accepted roles of bill-payers who die an average of seven years younger than our wives. Bachelors are dangerous because we dont support the Big Machine with huge mortgage payments and massive debt. Were a wild card, and society hates a wild card.

Society is an organism that seeks to regulate itself. The advent of monogamous marriage in Christianity is a perfect example. Monogamy became very useful when civilization became centered in cities, which could not support families with twenty kids and four wives. Hence, Constantine found certain aspects of Christianity, such as monogamous marriage, quite useful.(Constantine himself remained a pagan at heart until shortly before his death.)

The organism of society is now trying to regulate itself with things like this Peter Pan Syndrome nonsense. Society is attempting to reign men back into their roles in the mating and propagation scheme, and it us using whatever methods it can to do so. In this case, it is using SHAME.

In case any men are wondering why society doesnt want to have a dialogue with us to try and sort things out you should know that society is not really interested in what we think or feel. Society is interested in us solely for our ability to provide, pay bills, and propagate the species so that there is cheap labor available. The best thing you can do to people who whine about Peter Pans is tell them to fuck off and read a book occasionally. That works for me.

freeman
Bachelor
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:44 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by freeman » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:50 pm

Mother Nature assigns value to a gender based on its contribution to reproduction.
In Nature's eyes, men are disposable because his contribution to reproduction (sperm) is cheap. It is easy to produce and it is in virtually limitless supply.
Women, on the other hand, are highly prized by Mother Nature (and society) because her eggs are precious and limited in quantity. She also bears the brunt of being the vessel that carries offspring for 9 months.
Therefore, society will cater to the gender that is most crucial to its survival. We're not in high demand because we supply an inferior commodity. Only a handful of us could impregnate millions of women. Conversely, only a handful of women could mean the demise of the human race.
This is something that I have come to terms with as a MGTOW. I will never be seen as being a woman's equal, despite the qualities and skills I may have as a man. That is precisely the essence of going your own way-- we may not be able to compete with women from a reproductive standpoint, but we can create our own world where our qualities and talents are appreciated, and our interests are protected. We are circumventing nature's agenda.

User avatar
Psychotherapist
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:54 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by Psychotherapist » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:30 pm

I dunno... If there is only one man left, and a million women, then that man becomes extremely important, and sexually exhausted. If there is only one woman left and a million men, then they will all kill each other, go gay or be the lucky one in a million guy who impregnates the woman. Assuming her womb is not polluted, the world will repopulate, but at a much slower rate.

A million women and only one man left to fight off an invading Alien species... I'd prefer a million men in that battle, thanks.

User avatar
zed
Professional Bachelor
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: stratosphere

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by zed » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:09 pm

freeman wrote:Mother Nature assigns value to a gender based on its contribution to reproduction.
In Nature's eyes, men are disposable because his contribution to reproduction (sperm) is cheap. It is easy to produce and it is in virtually limitless supply.
Women, on the other hand, are highly prized by Mother Nature (and society) because her eggs are precious and limited in quantity. She also bears the brunt of being the vessel that carries offspring for 9 months.
Therefore, society will cater to the gender that is most crucial to its survival. We're not in high demand because we supply an inferior commodity. Only a handful of us could impregnate millions of women. Conversely, only a handful of women could mean the demise of the human race.
This is something that I have come to terms with as a MGTOW. I will never be seen as being a woman's equal, despite the qualities and skills I may have as a man.
At the risk of running afoul of the guys who believe that the elites are pursuing a global depopulation agenda, the above scenario is something of an anachronism in the modern world.

For a population which is on the edge of survival, yes, reproductive capacity is paramount. However, have a look at the following graph of world population -
Image

For several million years, hominid populations teetered on the brink of extinction. There was a slow general upward trend in numbers. Then, around 1850 total human population of the world started to increase at a faster rate, and around 1950 the increase curve accelerated sharply.

Also around 1950, per capita calorie consumption increased dramatically. And, I am not talking about just the calories in food, but rather the aggregate energy consumption of the individual. Each gallon of gasoline, for example, contains about 31,000 kilo-calories. If a person burns on the average 2 gallons of gasoline per day commuting to work, that is also about one month's worth of calories represented by an average adult diet of 2 kilo-calories per day. In an average month, a commuter consumes about 2 years worth of dietary calories.

I saw a few years ago a comparison of the total energy calories (calorie being a convenient measure which can span across multiple uses of energy) and the average person today consumes many times more energy than the average person living 100 years ago. Thus, with each additional person on earth, the energy requirements do not go up arithmetically, but geometrically.

Image

Let's say that you are a member of a small tribe which lives in an area where the environmental carrying capacity is 100 people. And, let's further stipulate a 50% infant and child mortality rate. That means that the tribe will need twice as many births as there are deaths in order to avoid eventual extinction.

Using purely hypothetical numbers, let's assume the mortality rate is about 2% per year, and the birth rate required would be 4%. That would give us an average life span of 50 years - not too far off for subsistence populations. Assuming a 50/50 split between the sexes, the 50% of the tribe which are female would need to produce one child per year for 8% of them. At a 50% child mortality rate, that would mean that 16% of the females must be actively involved in the production of children at any given time. Give a woman a year off after pregnancy to nurse the child, and it becomes nearly 1/3 of the female population that must either be producing or nursing a child.

As long as there are enough men to hunt and bring back enough food to feed the tribe, the numbers of men don't matter.

However, if you decrease the infant/child mortality rate, and increase the life-span, then each new mouth to feed suddenly starts to compete with already existing mouths. If you double the tribe's numbers, you need double the number of hunters to feed them. If the numbers stay the same, but per capita calorie consumption increases, you need double the number of hunters. If the population doubles, and the per capita calorie consumption doubles, you need 4 times the number of hunters.

For many years, monogamy allowed a man's productive output to be tied directly to his own progeny. If a man could produce enough to raise 18 children, then he could. But, now that "it takes a village", the productive output of all men is confiscated and pooled to support the children that women are spitting out.

Take that village, with women spitting out more children than they could count, but not only is the number of hunters not going up (due to extended childhoods), but the hunters that are left are not hunting to their full potential.

"Get your asses out there and hunt, boys, bubba's thug spawn is hungry."

If the carrying capacity of an area is 100 people, and now there are 105, then someone starts to go hungry. At that point, children are not a blessing, but competition for food.

One of the more enlightening things I learned in cultural anthropology was a story of a white-bread middle-class anthropologist studying an Inuit tribe in northern Canada. One family got stranded on an ice flow, it capsized, and the tribe saved.....

... the man. The huffy anthropologist, indoctrinated in "wimminsz and chilluns first", got all bent out of shape that they saved the man, and the tribe just laughed. "If we had saved the woman and the kids, who would have fed them? You?"

We have now a combination mentality of scarcity in the middle of surplus. Women's capacity to reproduce is no longer a survival issue, but is actually a threat in itself.

And, typically, when a population outgrows it's own ability to produce, it normally results to enslavement of another population.
Bachelor: noun - A man who didn't make the same mistake, once.

recluse
In a class of his own
Posts: 6412
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:44 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by recluse » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:20 am

Or a warring Empire is formed to Take resources from other tribes.
Which also helps the elites by reducing the young male population in-tribe,the ones who have the will and the ability to upset the hierarchy.

The same principle works for predatory banking,instead of being enslaved,they go enslaving.

Great post zed.

User avatar
Zerg_Player
Bachelor
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by Zerg_Player » Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:18 pm

outcastsuperstar wrote:Here is a post made by nemesis from HB1

Many of you have seen articles lately on the Peter Pan Syndrome. Obviously, theres a real problem lately with men not manning up and owning up to their responsibilities. Poor, helpless widdle women are being left to fend for themselves because us men have chosen to bro it out and turn away from committed relationships. According to women and their relationship professional cohorts, the sky is falling, and its men who are responsible.

Of course, us MGTOWs know better. We see the recent upsurge in Peter Pan Syndrome articles as a mass shaming tactic meant to shame men back into their accepted roles of bill-payers who die an average of seven years younger than our wives. Bachelors are dangerous because we dont support the Big Machine with huge mortgage payments and massive debt. Were a wild card, and society hates a wild card.

Society is an organism that seeks to regulate itself. The advent of monogamous marriage in Christianity is a perfect example. Monogamy became very useful when civilization became centered in cities, which could not support families with twenty kids and four wives. Hence, Constantine found certain aspects of Christianity, such as monogamous marriage, quite useful.(Constantine himself remained a pagan at heart until shortly before his death.)

The organism of society is now trying to regulate itself with things like this Peter Pan Syndrome nonsense. Society is attempting to reign men back into their roles in the mating and propagation scheme, and it us using whatever methods it can to do so. In this case, it is using SHAME.

In case any men are wondering why society doesnt want to have a dialogue with us to try and sort things out you should know that society is not really interested in what we think or feel. Society is interested in us solely for our ability to provide, pay bills, and propagate the species so that there is cheap labor available. The best thing you can do to people who whine about Peter Pans is tell them to fuck off and read a book occasionally. That works for me.
Governments puts their own survival first. All other considerations is second. Case in point is the Japanese Americans. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, all Americans from Japanese descent were sent to prison camps. What happened to their Constitutional Rights? Where was the Supreme Court? The government felt threatened and acted.

If MGTOW becomes a real problem the government will act. They will not stand by and do nothing and watch the country collapse. So you will see things like banning vasectomy, a punitive Bachelor Tax and banning abortions.

User avatar
Psychotherapist
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:54 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by Psychotherapist » Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:10 pm

Multiculturalism is a failed experiment that cannot be reversed. Do you know how many immigrants come to Canada and the US to live and enjoy a better quality of life, but are 100% loyal to their motherland, and only their motherland? A lot. Even when they're at war with the country they live in, they are loyal to the motherland.

I would shove them all in camps until the war is over as well, no pussyfooting around my (and my family's) safety. Do you know what the Japs did to Canadian P.O.W.'s? do a little research.

User avatar
Psychotherapist
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:54 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by Psychotherapist » Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:13 pm

When my Great Grandparents came to this country, they denounced ties to their former country and considered themselves "Canadians". None of this Indo-Canadian, Canadian-born-Chinese etc... It's all crap. If you loved your country so much, why leave?

freeman
Bachelor
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:44 am

Re: Real Reason for 'Peter Pan Syndrome' Articles

Post by freeman » Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:20 pm

zed wrote:
freeman wrote:Mother Nature assigns value to a gender based on its contribution to reproduction.
In Nature's eyes, men are disposable because his contribution to reproduction (sperm) is cheap. It is easy to produce and it is in virtually limitless supply.
Women, on the other hand, are highly prized by Mother Nature (and society) because her eggs are precious and limited in quantity. She also bears the brunt of being the vessel that carries offspring for 9 months.
Therefore, society will cater to the gender that is most crucial to its survival. We're not in high demand because we supply an inferior commodity. Only a handful of us could impregnate millions of women. Conversely, only a handful of women could mean the demise of the human race.
This is something that I have come to terms with as a MGTOW. I will never be seen as being a woman's equal, despite the qualities and skills I may have as a man.
At the risk of running afoul of the guys who believe that the elites are pursuing a global depopulation agenda, the above scenario is something of an anachronism in the modern world.

For a population which is on the edge of survival, yes, reproductive capacity is paramount. However, have a look at the following graph of world population -
Image

For several million years, hominid populations teetered on the brink of extinction. There was a slow general upward trend in numbers. Then, around 1850 total human population of the world started to increase at a faster rate, and around 1950 the increase curve accelerated sharply.

Also around 1950, per capita calorie consumption increased dramatically. And, I am not talking about just the calories in food, but rather the aggregate energy consumption of the individual. Each gallon of gasoline, for example, contains about 31,000 kilo-calories. If a person burns on the average 2 gallons of gasoline per day commuting to work, that is also about one month's worth of calories represented by an average adult diet of 2 kilo-calories per day. In an average month, a commuter consumes about 2 years worth of dietary calories.

I saw a few years ago a comparison of the total energy calories (calorie being a convenient measure which can span across multiple uses of energy) and the average person today consumes many times more energy than the average person living 100 years ago. Thus, with each additional person on earth, the energy requirements do not go up arithmetically, but geometrically.

Image

Let's say that you are a member of a small tribe which lives in an area where the environmental carrying capacity is 100 people. And, let's further stipulate a 50% infant and child mortality rate. That means that the tribe will need twice as many births as there are deaths in order to avoid eventual extinction.

Using purely hypothetical numbers, let's assume the mortality rate is about 2% per year, and the birth rate required would be 4%. That would give us an average life span of 50 years - not too far off for subsistence populations. Assuming a 50/50 split between the sexes, the 50% of the tribe which are female would need to produce one child per year for 8% of them. At a 50% child mortality rate, that would mean that 16% of the females must be actively involved in the production of children at any given time. Give a woman a year off after pregnancy to nurse the child, and it becomes nearly 1/3 of the female population that must either be producing or nursing a child.

As long as there are enough men to hunt and bring back enough food to feed the tribe, the numbers of men don't matter.

However, if you decrease the infant/child mortality rate, and increase the life-span, then each new mouth to feed suddenly starts to compete with already existing mouths. If you double the tribe's numbers, you need double the number of hunters to feed them. If the numbers stay the same, but per capita calorie consumption increases, you need double the number of hunters. If the population doubles, and the per capita calorie consumption doubles, you need 4 times the number of hunters.

For many years, monogamy allowed a man's productive output to be tied directly to his own progeny. If a man could produce enough to raise 18 children, then he could. But, now that "it takes a village", the productive output of all men is confiscated and pooled to support the children that women are spitting out.

Take that village, with women spitting out more children than they could count, but not only is the number of hunters not going up (due to extended childhoods), but the hunters that are left are not hunting to their full potential.

"Get your asses out there and hunt, boys, bubba's thug spawn is hungry."

If the carrying capacity of an area is 100 people, and now there are 105, then someone starts to go hungry. At that point, children are not a blessing, but competition for food.

One of the more enlightening things I learned in cultural anthropology was a story of a white-bread middle-class anthropologist studying an Inuit tribe in northern Canada. One family got stranded on an ice flow, it capsized, and the tribe saved.....

... the man. The huffy anthropologist, indoctrinated in "wimminsz and chilluns first", got all bent out of shape that they saved the man, and the tribe just laughed. "If we had saved the woman and the kids, who would have fed them? You?"

We have now a combination mentality of scarcity in the middle of surplus. Women's capacity to reproduce is no longer a survival issue, but is actually a threat in itself.

And, typically, when a population outgrows it's own ability to produce, it normally results to enslavement of another population.
Excellent observations, however the human race is not consciously aware of why it treats females as precious commodities, and men as disposable utilities. It's subconsciously ingrained in our psyche and in our behavior through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest