Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss dating, relationships and foreign women.
Well let's go back to how this discussion of 'successful non-conformist' started - it started with the assertion that it would only be okay to appear a non-conformist to women if you were 'successful'.
What do we then mean by 'successful'? Do we mean successfully wealthy? Or do we mean successfully nonconformist (but still able to make a basic living)?
Let's go with the first definition first. If by successful, you were referring to wealth/income, then how much wealth/income is enough to be considered successful by women? This is relative to country and to individuals of course. In the Philippines, someone who earns $2000 USD a month may be considered an extremely successful high income earner. In developed countries like USA or Japan for instance, the figure may be $10,000 USD a month or higher. Age is also a factor as well, as you get older the standards for wealth get higher.
Now is it possible for a nonconformist who isn't a typical corporate wage slave/large business owner/executive to consistently make $10,000 USD a month? Yes anything is possible in this world and there are exceptions to every rule. But what is the probability? Extremely low.
Yes there are people who are not part of corporate wage slavery but who are able to make a living - for example expat English teachers in countries like China and Thailand, forum website owners like Winston Wu, diving instructors, part-time freelancers. Indeed they could arguably be considered non-conformists. But are they successful nonconformists? Well that depends on our definition of 'successful'. If we go by the first definition - that success entails high income and wealth i.e. for instance to make $10000 USD a month, then would people such as English teachers, Winston Wu or diving instructors who are by and large making only a fraction of that amount be considered 'successful'? No. Well maybe if they were in the Philippines, yes.
Yes after citing these examples some may pour scorn at the idea of equating 'success' with 'high income' or 'wealth'. But let me clarify that it is not me who is defining success as wealth. This perception of success as wealth is the perception that many posters have of what it takes for a woman to respect/like you. This why when the question was asked - do women dislike nonconformists, the answer was - it depends on whether he is successful or in this case, is wealthy. This is why there is this valid perception that women in developed/feminized/westernized/anglosphere countries are obsessively materialistic, money-grabbing and their primary criteria for judging a man is how much money he has. And because the women make a fair amount of money themselves, the criteria for what constitutes wealth in these countries is generally very high, which only a small minority of men meet the requirements for.
So the fact is if women in developed countries are money grabbing materialistic whores, and the primary criteria for which they judge any man is income/wealth, then the answer that they would accept 'successful non-conformists' is valid because their only criteria would be that you are rich, whether you got there by being a conformist or nonconformist would be secondary and unimportant. It doesn't matter that you're a nonconformist, it simply matters that you're rich. But as discussed earlier, it would be very difficult for an English teacher, Happier Abroad Website owner, or diving instructor to make $10000 USD a month. Hell even in Shanghai or Beijing English teachers are beginning to be looked down upon and are in no way considered high income earners despite the lower cost of living there as compared to say, New York City.
Therefore if by successful nonconformist we mean a nonconformist who has money and that is what it would take for her to overlook your nonconformism, then it would still be very difficult for a nonconformist to be be attain 'success' in this sense of the word, simply because English teachers, the majority of website owners, diving instructors are other paid hobbyists do not for the most part earn/get paid $10,000 USD a month.
If we go by the second possible definition of 'success' in this context, whereby a successful nonconformist is one who is able to escape corporate wage slavery but still make some money to support himself, then yes I think a much larger portion of nonconformists would meet this definition of 'success'.
The first question to ask here though is should an English teacher, dating website owner or diving instructor be considered a 'nonconformist' or rather, be successfully living by his principles of nonconformity, or should they be considered nonconformists who compromised and conformed (although to a smaller degree than a corporate wage slave) simply because they need to survive even within a system they don't agree with.
What is a nonconformist? For example ted kaczynski is a nonconformist for sure. If you're familiar with his principles, would someone like Ted Kacynski or anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan consider living in the modern techno-culture as an English teacher, dating website owner, small internet business owner or diving instructor to be valid expression and embodiment of their principles of nonconformism? Certainly not if you understand the principles of anarcho-primitivism - they would merely consider it to be a compromise to survive within a global system they are utterly and holistically against, but their hypothetically becoming diving instructors, English teachers or dating website owners would not in their eyes constitute being successful nonconformists because these would merely be compromises they make for survival, not expressions of nonconformity. Their expressions of nonconformity, such as organizing a movement against corportate industrialism and freely distributing articles and essays written against the modern system would indeed be successful expressions of nonconformity according to their principles, but it would not earn them any money at all.
For people like Ted Kacynski and John Zerzan, their practicing of nonconformity would not earn them any money at all, in which case if we go by their definitions of nonconformity and if we define 'success' is the ability to produce income from nonconformist practices, then it would not be possible for people with their nonconformist principles to be 'successful' at all because their nonconformity is so deep and all-encompassing, against the entire social-economic system we live under.
So as you can see, what 'nonconformity' means plays a big role in this discussion. If we define nonconformity by less strict definition of merely not 'following convention' or 'not following what society tells you to', and 'success' not as 'wealth' by the ability to make a living, then yes perhaps people like small internet business owners, website owners, forum owners, diving instructors and freelancers, and even Winston Wu himself can be considered to be 'successful nonconformists'
The principles that define your nonconformity therefore play a huge role in this discussion. I may not even have to have as strict a definition of nonconformity as Ted Kacynski or John Zerzan. For example I could be a nonconformist in the sense that I believe life is about following your passions, living for the day and deriving as much pleasure, enjoyment, meaningful relationships from life, fulfilling as much passions in this short life as possible. I could for example, amongst many other pleasures in life, enjoy diving. So would becoming a diving instructor make me a successful nonconformist?
Well not if I believed that even if I enjoy diving, I believe life should be about a variety of enjoyments, passions and pleasures and that diving every f***ing day of my life would be extremely tedious and overly repetitive after a while. If I was against routinizing life, which I do believe is a valid nonconformist principle, then even being a diving instructor everyday would be very routinizing and tedious after a while and I would prefer much more variety. But succumbing to the need to make a living and just sticking as a diving instructor everyday would then no longer make my lifestyle a successful expression of nonconformity, because I would be conforming to survive and make a living.
I also don't think it's fair to assume that if a nonconformist is not actively engaged in any income producing occupation, he is 'couch potato' - this is a very American production-centric workaholic perception. Funny how if a rich man (who for example inherited his wealth) never engages in any income producing occupation, he is still looked highly upon. But if a poor man does not engage in any income producing occupation he is branded a 'couch potato'. Also, I'm sure that if many people here were wealthy and did not have to engage in any income producing occupation, they would not simply just become 'couch potatoes'.
The reality is that there are so many things to do in this world such as travel, meet women, engage in a variety of hobbies, develop friendships and relationships, go hiking, go boating, learn a foreign language, read, study philosophy and anthropology etc. and countless more that are not income producing occupations and but which many people on this forum would I'm sure pursue if they were wealthy and did not have to engage in any income producing occupation. Therefore not having an income producing occupation does not render you a couch potato, allows for many successful expressions of nonconformity, and also frees you from the suffocating routine of any income producing occupation (including diving instructing) if done repeatedly day after day for the rest of your life.
So yes according to the second definition of 'success', it is far more possible than in the first to be a 'successful nonconformist', although this hinges greatly on our definitions of nonconformity as well because extreme nonconformists like Ted Kacynski and John Zerzan would not consider website owners for instance to be nonconformists or a successful expression of nonconformity.
Going by the second definition of success would also have implications on the original point in this discussion because one of the fundamental tenets of this website is that women in developed countries/anglosphere/feminist countries are hypergamous, money obsessed, super materialistic beings, so being a successful nonconformist when applied to the context of dealing with women like them would probably require us to define success by the first definition - 'wealth' rather than the second definition - 'successful practicing of non-conformity but still be able to make a living'. But of course our focus should not be on this women. So with women from outside the anglosphere, what is a successful nonconformist? One cannot have a meaningful discussion on this without considering all the factors above.