The Feminization Of Man

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by WANDERER, Oct 20, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    It is, in my view, evident that the slow degradation of man has reached an all new high in western societies where the leveling of man has demonized the male type and slowly impoverished the male archetype.
    In a world where female demureness, willing subjugation and acceptance of authority is preferable to the more rebellious non-conforming male character the trend towards male redefinition and eradication persists.
    We can see evidence of it in pop-culture, in how gender roles have mingled and blurred and in how recent homosexual acceptance has destroyed any gender differences and imposed an anxious unnatural loss of identity and purpose.

    Disciplining myself to the rules of this Forum I will not post the entire essay of my thoughts on the matter at hand but only urge any that are interested to visit my web-page and read the entire 14 pages before they comment.

    http://hometown.aol.ca/c66c/myhomepage/philosophiespolitics.html
    Click on 'The Feminization of Man' and enjoy.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    Evolution of gender

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Wanderer:
    Noch einmal, Wanderer. Unfortunately, I haven't a copy of MS word so I cannot read your paper.

    *Raises an eyebrow*
    You would reject some 2000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition statting that women were by nature the rebellious, wanton sex whose subjugation was mandated by God (see Eve) as consequence?

    I think you err here. However, females are generally the carriers of social tradition to a stronger extent than men ever were. Anyone who has observed social interaction notes that women tend to be the "enforcers" of the prevailing norms. The role is even glorified - the Flying Dutchman wasn't the first.

    Bling. And hence the trend towards hysterical hypermasculinity (illustrated by the white, middle class young man who aspires to the role of a "pimp") or confused attempt to be a woman (note the "metrosexuals")

    Charming. It's nothing horridly new, but there comes a time when one simply is exploring what we already know.

    Gender we all know and see, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on the more taboo subject of race. Do you not see something of the same happening?

    Medicine*Woman:
    Shut up.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    I think what you percieve as feminization is actually a step forward. Male values emphasize domination, control, ego and war. Values associated with the female include cooperation, nuturing, and love. There were societies in the past that were more matriarchal, it is just as valid a way of organization, it doesn't mean everyone's getting gay. Considering where male dominated culture has gotten us so far, on the brink of our own destruction, I think what we are seeing is the only sensible choice to be made. Wanderer, you percieve things as degrading, because your worldview has been defined for you by the patriarchal culture you came from. Things are changing and its inevitable, those with inflexible systems of thought will resist, and finally fade away as new values come into being. This means recognizing that the real division between the masculine and the feminine is not a division between men and women but rather a division between ourselves as conscious animals--omnivorous, land-clearing, war makers, supreme expression of the yang--and the circumglobal mantle of vegetation--the ancient metastable yin element that constitutes by far the major portion of the biomass of the living earth.
     
  8. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    frilly panties make me ....uhh.....warm and fuzzy
    i am so in touch with my femininity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ps: cotton sucks
     
  9. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    For those unable to access my web-page

    Disclaimer:
    It is obvious that any differences between males and females are subtle and a matter of degree not of substance. Even sexual organs find their corresponding parts expressed in different manners in each of the sexes; a male penis can be found in women as a clitoris, a woman’s ovaries found in males as testicles and so on. Whatever differences there are between males and females they are slight when compared to the vast similarities shared by belonging to the same species.
    Despite this, the alterations in character and psychology caused by hormonal and genetic phenomena that differentiate males from females are enough to become discernable even to the fiercest advocate of human equality. A male nipple may be worthless to a man but a matter of grave importance to a woman.
    Those of us acquainted with ‘Chaos Theory’ are aware that even slight effects can have huge consequences when projected in time and space.
    Furthermore the terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ are not restricted to strictly gender descriptions but will be used, here, as a state of being or becoming that may be used to describe both men and women. So it will be clear that there are men with female dispositions and women with male ones even though the majority of us will express the characteristics and psychological leanings of their own gender more often than not. [I am not only referring to homosexuality here but to a state of mind and a psychological type]
    Many will accuse me of generalizing, for this is the favourite defence of those seeking to find an escape from insulting or hurtful premises they cannot contradict directly, but I will remind them that any exception to the rule only serves to prove the existence of a rule.
    If it were not so then science itself would be impossible and specific studies would have to be conducted for each and every individual alive on any given time. There would have to be a science focused entirely on me, one on you and every category and label would be absurd and meaningless.
    Yet general patterns and characteristics are what man uses to create knowledge and understanding. Through the general assessment of phenomena, and by keeping into consideration that they do not fully express the subtle degrees by which each diverges from the general rule and the overtly exceptional circumstances that sometimes lead to a complete non-adherence to a general law, man creates comprehension that benefit him by allowing him to construct strategies. Even exceptions to rules follow their own rules of exception and chaos and randomness may only be human prejudices caused by the incomprehensibility or complexity of the rules themselves.
    But more than all this, the following critical analysis of man and woman in social contexts are based on my personal observations and deductions and will not be defended using popular beliefs, political-correctness, scientific studies, or any third-party sources even if this is also is possible. It is clear that one can find a study defending most perspectives making the studies themselves and the way they are conducted questionable.
    Those dependants on the assessment of others, to create personal beliefs, inadvertently expose their weaknesses and limitations.
    In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable, but in areas where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible a personal assessment, is often, more preferable and constructive.
    Philosophy isn’t a mere repetition of past hypothesis or a reassessment of previous theories; it is an exchange of critical thoughts and personal analysis. It is normal to be guided and influenced by the work of others but to completely become dependant on them and to mimic or imitate them only reveals our own quality in comparison.
    What follows is my perspective, based on my personal experiences and observations, using my senses and mental faculties.
    Any similarities with those of others are coincidental or the effect of influence not of plagiarism.
    Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant.
    You cannot judge the accuracy of an idea by its popularity but by the strength of its argument, the supporting evidence and the ordered reasonable manner by which it is presented.
    I will expect nobody to take my word for anything or to simply agree with me; I actually expect scepticism and personal supporting or contradicting observations to prove or disprove the precision of my opinions.
    This entire following text is meant to promote free-thinking and personal intellectual effort and to encourage debate and individual awareness that may promote choices and free-will.
    It is normal that the subject of males and females and of sex in general, is going to raise some controversy given the central role sexuality plays in human existence and given the popular sentiments of our western, ‘modern’ world. But my intent is to insight thought and debate, not anger and self-hate.
    When and if it does result in insecurity, fear, resentment and feelings of inadequacy it is unfortunate but natural, when considering the pitiful state of the human condition and our modern world of delusion and illusion.
    To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but on my apparent human imperfections upon which much speculation can be dedicated. But I remind you that by using this easy strategy of slander and insult any and every human idea can be dismissed since all human ideas are the products of imperfect human minds with imperfect psychologies and imperfect senses.
    The only way to fight an idea is with another idea and before one deals with the human imperfections that lead to a supposed imperfect idea, the idea itself must first be shown to be wanting.
    One must also keep in mind the constantly changing moral standards and popular beliefs that may make some ideas shocking in one time and in one culture and a matter of common sense in another time and culture.
    One must also keep in mind that ‘modern’ or ‘recent’ or ‘future’ or ‘popular’ does not always mean better or superior. Evolution Theory has shown us that genetic alterations often answer to changing environments and make some mutations into advantages while making others disadvantages. The label of superior or inferior is dictated by the environmental demands of a specific time and place. Nevertheless mans still searches for transcending truths and superiorities to deal with the constant flux.
    It is my hope that my own attempts to uncover myths and ailing ideologies should help in this search for power and purpose in a universe where man has neither.



    Prologue
    The levelling of man continues.
    Centuries of social engineering and ‘civilization’ have led to a type of human being unlike our ancestor and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter out all the ‘unwanted’ human characteristics altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.
    There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is ‘natural’ and the consequence of a normal social progression that started in the tribal unit and has resulted in the emergence of a huge socioeconomic machine, with its own logic and interest, assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything in its path. We might also say that this ‘natural’ process has its roots in human physical disadvantage causing psychological insecurity that makes the cooperation of individual beings a forced necessity.
    But this degradation of man, besides being a typical consequence of interdependence and socialization that demands a certain sacrificing of individuality for the sake of survival, has been exacerbated by the infiltration of slavish moral systems into a human psyche that has already been demoralized and undermined by extreme scepticism and mental fatigue, in the intellectual elites, and by interbreeding between a growing intellectual subclass and a continuously diluted intellectual upper-class that finds itself incapable to resist social and religious pressures and socioeconomic prerequisites.
    A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety. Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities, its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and adapt. The ‘If you can’t beat them join them’ strategy is one most often practiced in nature and in our universe; what cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds up as a part of something bigger and stronger, by means of consumption, via having its parts absorbed, or assimilation, via having its parts conformed. It is this transcending fundamental principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of flux and fluidity, we experience as change and time, and which characterizes our state of being and our perspective of reality.
    Man, as an isolated individual being outside any group, is certainly a weak creature when compared with other beasts, making his cooperation with others of his kind a requirement and his participation within unions of need, a matter of survival. But despite mans physical weaknesses he possesses the gift of intelligence, self-awareness and abstract thought that can lead to an alteration of environmental conditions and the revolutionary redefinition of what is weak and what is strong within them. This human ‘gift’ that can take advantage of external resources, through the application of the imagination and the utilization of mans providential opposing thumbs, has produced the need for social units of vast scale and intricacy and has resulted in the added need for an adaptation to human environments that have replaced or surpassed the importance of natural ones. In addition to this, human psychological insecurity and physical frailty has imposed the need to armour mans feebleness with technological artifices that place a wall between man and his true spirit and distances man from himself and from nature entirely, by means of self-contained artificial systems.
    This artificial ‘wall’ is the source of mans current sense of separation and feeling of uneasiness that is expressed through the arts and through politics as the Demonization of technology and the machines we’ve created but that now we’ve come to serve. Machines and the machinery of modern social existence, in fact, function as our surrogate targets of hate, anxiety and fear in place of the real culprit of human enslavement: modern society, religion and culture, that engulf us in this unconscious, invisible matrix of artificiality and superficiality in order that we may serve its requirements by undermining our individuality, our personality and our uniqueness while, in true Orwellian newspeak, they claim to do the opposite. As this civilization engine grows its parts lose value by becoming expendable, disposable and reproducible and man becomes an insignificant wheel in a huge engine.
    Like with all closed systems, a social system has its own methods and mechanisms by which it meets its needs and creates environments and participants that ensure its continuance and health. In doing so each system replaces or mutates past systems and refocuses and redefines their premises.
    In human culture and civilization the struggle between the present and the past environmental demands upon the individual result in great psychological strain and in sometimes contradictory behaviours which is contained by the usage of intimidation tactics, such as religious dogma and the rule of law, or diverted and defused through educational institutions, the entertainment industry and political or theological ideologies.
    By trying to replace or restrict the influence of past natural environmental affects upon man, by promoting human characteristics that are desirable and restricting those that are detrimental to the social or cultural group’s premises, each system reshapes its parts into particular types, ideal for the given group’s fitness.
    We can witness this affect on human behaviour by studying the specific types created by different cultures throughout history and in how each utilizes or utilized sexuality, human nature and psychology through institutions and moral codes in similar manners but with distinctly different orientations and dissimilar results. All human cultures may use familiar methods for parallel reasons but each has a noticeably different motivation leading to diverging human ideals, guided by each cultures ethical standards and value systems inherited, through time, from ancestral backgrounds, historical experiences and philosophical/ideological pasts.
    In cultures where paternalistic dominance is still prevalent, such as in the Middle-East and India [And only until recently in the west], social engineering is still controlled by males that are governed by their particular cultural perspectives and it is facilitated by the supremacy of religious dogma, by existing totalitarian political systems and by the subjugation of females to the cultures demands.
    In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies that were the product of a slavish resentment of all things superior and because of a general decadence caused by attrition and complacency, the paternalistic system has eroded enough to make equalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation possible.
    Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers; it is also the expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for peace and stability.
    This social circumstance, caused paradoxically by the very natural tendencies that eventually become dangerous and unwanted {survival, dominance, control, violence, selfishness, arrogance, procreation, power; all sexual male drives} unleashed upon the world by the unburdening of the human mind from matters of immediate survival through prosperity and from primitive religious myths and superstitions through intellectual enlightenment, lead to a western world dominion that exponentially increased populations and the accompanying need for resources and made it necessary to then suppress these very same instinctive drives in order to maintain stability and social harmony.
    This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made equalitarian, servile moralities essential and vital.
    The more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more governable and controllable it becomes. It is therefore understandable why unsettling ideas must be quarantined and eradicated, why free thought must be restricted and why defiance and uniqueness must be controlled and punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.
    In our modern western world this dummying-up of the masses has resulted in populations that, despite their relative affluence, learning access and general prosperity, display the apathy, ignorance and naïveté of the less fortunate in third-world countries.
    The complete indoctrination of man into artificial [manmade] environments, sometimes demanding behaviours contrary to more primitive natural ones, has moreover been facilitated by the gradual diminution of man through unnatural sexual selection, re-education and the slow eradication of the, before mentioned, human characteristics that made man a natural dominator and a survivor in a threatening universe.
    It is derisive that the very intellectual superiority that resulted in human dominion is also contemporary society’s greatest foe, that must be controlled and even narrowed, and the very male spiritual attitude that knelt to no natural demand and accepted no holy authority is now to be atrophied and warped.
    In the west socialization, population control and mind manipulation has taken a distinguishing subtle, subliminal and indirect approach, to maintain the illusion of free-will and individuality, upon which all of western culture is based, and unlike the more direct and obvious controlling practices in other cultures, it is more difficult to always perceive where and how we have been manipulated into thinking and behaving in certain ways. For many the current state of affairs, in the western world, is taken to be the epitome of human achievement, the height of human development and the worthy successor of a cultural revolution that began on the rocky Aegean shores of ancient Greece and has reached for the distant Martian plateaus in our time, but they neglect to consider the true spirit of this ancient stance towards life and only judge it from its superficial constructs and external facades. The Hellenic spiritual revolution, which we now call western civilization, was not an external one where great monuments are built in the Egyptian style or where man is judged by his external creations [Although even this is a part of it, it is not the goal] or his discipline to greater forces, the true spirit of western thought was in how it perceived the individual, mans place in the universe and in how it judged mans value and potential.
    Evidence of how western ideals have been mutated and subverted through time is in how we at present perceive the world around us and from where we accept our own self-worth and meaning.
    For instance, many of us in the west, influenced by marketing practices from an early age, find it obvious that certain product name-brands are associated with a particular ideal and that the acquisition of certain material products and the image constructed to go along with them, is of the utmost importance and relevance and the means by which we advertise and express our own self-worth and quality to the world. Owning a BMW or a Mercedes or a Versace or a Rolex, is how we exhibit our social status, as capable consumers, and attract others, especially females, to our genetic potency dictated, in this case, not by natural symbolism but by a socioeconomic one, we have been sold on, and guided by an ideal, we have accepted as our highest. The quality of the products we own and consume must supposedly symbolize our personal quality, whether it is present or not.
    But why these particular products of human ingenuity, no different than many others, are associated with a specific image and why, is for most of us unrecognizable and just a matter of ‘common sense’ that is mostly undisputed. Yet here we can find evidence of how we have been manipulated into believing that mercantile quality is equal or a fair substitute for substantive quality and external objects can fill in for an inner void.
    The current popularity of spirituality and the rediscovery of past spiritualism, particularly amongst urban populations where the distance between man and nature is the greatest and where the fruits of mans labour are mostly of an impersonal nature, is a symptom of this systematic, capitalistic redefinition of value and self-worth that serves the socioeconomic system by forcing a continuing striving for materialistic acquisitions, which in-turn drives modern economies, and maintains a constant state of tentative hopefulness for material wealth, that is supposed to be the ultimate answer to boredom, meaninglessness and misery, and keeps the masses working and dreaming despite the odds being stacked against them and the overall interests of the system itself to preserve the status quo of class disparity.
    Most of us do not question the ideals of our chosen value system but only discipline ourselves to its premises and, in true female fashion, we become simple mirrors of the world around us.
    Material wealth, that was meant to symbolize the quality of an individual by his access to resources in a natural system, has now come to symbolize, not only the physical or mental excellence that leads to abundance but the total obedience and compliance of said individual to a larger whole that is rewarded with superficial riches for his/her submission.
    In a system where materialism prevails, consumerism reigns and where the preservation of already acquired status is desired, wealth is most often inherited than earned and when earned it is frequently at the price of an entire lifetimes toil making the enjoyment of the consequent privileges, once again, a matter of heritage for later generations that can never fully appreciate what they themselves have not earned and therefore do not deserve.
    Here we can also find the causes for the current generational gap and the roots of this recent pampered undisciplined naiveté and unmerited over-expectation of western urban youths that has resulted in them not respecting or valuing anything, including their very selves.
    This obsession with materialism, particularly in the west, has come at the expense of all other human endeavours and, serving the demands of a particular system, has resulted in a loss of human identity, spirituality and natural interconnectedness. We no longer relate to each other as thinking, feeling human beings connected with all of creation intimately but we relate to each other as consuming owners, protective maintainers of that which we own and covet and egotistical misers that take the things that they buy to be what defines them as individual human beings.
    The very concept of possession, that results in affluence and privilege and through which all modern civilization is made possible, is based upon a myth, the myth of ownership. In nature there is no real ownership, not even life is truly owned by an individual but is only ‘leased’, metaphorically speaking, and temporarily enjoyed. In the end all must be returned to the primordial ‘soup’ from which new creations will spring forth and new unions will take place. Reality is a work in progress with no final destination making the very idea of ownership a ridiculous farce.
    Like all manmade concepts it, ownership, suffers from the desire to usurp natural rules, for practical and psychological reasons, and so requires a remoulding of human nature.
    Man is forced to redefine his place in the universe in order to overcome his physical and mental weaknesses by taking advantage of the power of numbers, and in so doing loses the intimacy and interconnectedness of existing according to his true individual spirit.
    Modern man has lost his/her pride in himself and in his/her true nature and, now, substitutes the cavernous emptiness in his/her soul with matter of dubious certainty, titles and affairs of outer origin and thusly forever detaches personal value from the self. Even the personal names man associates himself with become a generic stamp shared by many that possess no intimate relation to personal becoming; Tom, Dick and Harry just non-specific labels of non-distinctness that can be easily replaced by a simple number representing a statistic; Mary, Susan and Helen names saying nothing about the individual besides her participation within a particular cultural and religious group.
    [Family names although more unique and specific suffer from the same impersonality since they merely reveal an individuals cultural, religious, national heritage, never chosen but imposed, and a genetic bloodline but say little more about the actual person they supposedly label]
    Modern man is more likely to find self-worth and self-importance in external sources than internal ones as he desperately seeks for a connection with his real nature and searches for evidence of his real identity. This, in my view, is due to the steady decline of man as an individual personality, which makes it obligatory to substitute personal quality with an adopted external façade of quality that can be shared by multiple individuals who inevitably begin thinking and behaving in imitation of each other. We call this pop-culture in North-America.
    The methods by which man is shaped and sculpted in social environments contain natural instinctive drives and manmade imaginative institutional inventions that either take advantage of aforesaid drives or totally subvert and suppress them.
    One of these human inclinations, that are blatantly manipulated, is the sexual instinct.
    The fundamental human compulsion is to mate and to procreate. This biological standard of personal success is still in man, despite his self-asserted evolution beyond primitiveness, the major source of acquiring his self-meaning. It is also the means by which the natural system, the original system of human emergence, has controlled and shaped our behaviours in the past and still maintains a dominant grip on our psyche in the present.
    Because of this, sexuality is the major motivating factor behind all human actions and creations. We may say that mankind is obsessed with sex and procreation because mankind is constantly preoccupied by his own mortality, making life merely a constant struggle against death.
    Sex is the central focus of all individual thought, whether we know it or not, and it plays an important part in how man is guided and moulded, not only by nature, but by culture and civilization that now uses and mutates it to its advantage.
    In this game of sexuality, played by mortal beings, the basic participants of male and female archetypes [Keeping in mind that there might be other gender types in our universe] are elemental and worth analysing further, for it is through this interrelation and ‘dance’ of sexuality that man comes to be and his quality and nature is determined.


    Female Archetype
    To say that women are the weaker sex is to not do justice to their entire natural role and it ignores the true power women possess within social groups where, like all individual weakness, it procures strength through numbers and finds safety in groups.
    In fact a woman’s place within a social group is a privileged one, as we will see further on, and it has been mans intervention and imposition of authoritarian, paternalistic socio-political systems that has stripped women of the full extent of their power, as expressed through female sexual choice and the feminine unobtrusive mirroring of cultural norms, by subjugating them to cultural and religious dogmas that inhibit natural mechanisms and corrupts human instincts.
    Left to her natural devises, a woman plays the part of genetic ‘gatekeeper’ and social ‘filter’ that propagates the ideals and values of a group and weeds out unwanted physical, mental, social, cultural, religious or psychological traits.
    In natural environments women’s sexual choices are guided by natural motivations, in social/economic/cultural/religious environments a woman’s sexual choice is further complicated by other considerations that battle with the pre-existing natural ones for domination.
    Through a woman’s choice, and how this choice is focused and determined by natural inclinations and social upbringings, a woman acts as an instrument of selectivity that dictates the future of mankind and his destiny.
    This ‘gatekeeper, ‘filter’ role is made possible by the female’s two basic characteristics:
    Social Dependence
    A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived through her participation and her position within a group; her entire self-worth is derived by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the opposite sex and, as a consequence, in how she becomes a willing and capable social and cultural tool. She finds purpose in how effectively she can be used as an instrument and a means to an end.
    As such her power is achieved in how well she understands, manipulates, is assimilated, conforms and reflects the morals, values and virtues of the group she participates in and in how close to a physical aesthetic ideal she reaches that exposes her fertility and genetic history.
    A woman, in essence, has no real individuality but plays any part she deems is attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing.
    It is noteworthy that in marital unions it is mostly the woman that is asked to change families, adopt a new clan and the name that goes along with it or is forced to change her religious and cultural life and rarely is it the man that is expected to do so unless he has been sufficiently emasculated and deprived of his unique identity and personality.
    Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures like a valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, willingly and easily due to her temperament.
    A man, reversely, is forever associated with his original national, racial, tribal or cultural identity and is forever a representative of his creed since he can only function as a reproducer of his own kind.
    A female is a social chameleon that mirrors the colors of her surroundings and blends into the background with little or no distinctive quality. In fact, her success is determined by how thoroughly she takes on the characteristics of the ideal female role of her immediate environment and in how successfully she reproduces the ideals and ideas of her group.
    In this willingness to accept unquestioningly and completely any dominant power and finding in her ‘belonging’ her highest achievement, women become the tools of indoctrination and genetic engineering.
    Sexual Selection
    A woman possesses the most valuable and desirable part of an ephemeral human existence; she produces and controls the human ovum which ensures and directs the propagation of the species and decides its destiny.
    Where men can produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and impregnate thousands of women, women produce, in comparison, a scant amount of eggs and can only gestate a minimal amount of offspring in the course of a lifetime.
    Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traits and characteristics while it condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice based on well thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate; in fact she is merely following her genetic drive, her instinctive motivations and her cultures prejudiced virtues.
    It is this female ovum that males fight to control and to inseminate and through this control to ensure their own continuance. This is one of the fundamental principles of evolutionary mechanics.
    It is therefore a woman’s aesthetic appeal that reveals her physical health, her fertility and her mental faculties to bear and raise capable, fit offspring. It is this physical appeal that men find irresistible and makes their devotion and sacrifices towards women possible, it is also through this physical appeal and the ends to which men will go to acquire access to a healthy ovum, that women achieve their highest power through and the means by which they manage to control men of often higher metal and physical strength than themselves.
    These two female ‘powers’, if left unhindered by male intervention elevate women to a privileged position of social strength as a valuable ‘asset’.
    The female propensity to willingly and completely adopt the value systems she finds herself in and in her overall control over who she will be impregnated by makes her a ‘custodian’ of social conformity and a tool of genetic manipulation.
    But a woman’s choice isn’t as easy as it first may appear. If she isn’t a part of a culture where her choice is taken away or restricted by male dominance, she is further troubled by two forces battling over her attentions:
    1}Intellectually, and if sufficiently indoctrinated within a cultural framework, she is pulled to the socially acceptable and upwardly mobile male who, like her, has adopted and completely conformed to the social/cultural/religious norm and by doing this has ensured his social success giving him access to resources restricted to the lawful and socially disciplined.
    These resources are essential for women that are forced to live through a long gestation period, making them more helpless than they would normally be, and a following infant maturation process that takes decades and capital to be considered a success.
    2}Physically and instinctually she is still bound to her genetic predispositions and still instinctually attracted to the archetypical male ideal, who through his natural inclinations may appear violent, vulgar, arrogant, proud, confrontational, and unyielding when judged according to our ‘modern’ standards but valuable within smaller groups where individual traits become more decisive, when compared to the more effeminate, docile, socially indoctrinated, tolerant and passive ‘modern’ male, that is most valued within larger populations where individual traits and talents are less decisive.
    In many species the male has been completely eradicated from the social group and only plays a provisional role of inseminator; then being destroyed to preserve the more controllable, submissive, female, maternal, socially stable environment [Ants, bees, termites, wasps etc.]. Interesting also that where female dominance reigns, such as in the before mentioned species, an absence of individual personality and instinctive mindlessness is the prevailing characteristic.
    The previously mentioned two female sexual considerations are what play a part in the misunderstanding and incomprehensibility of women to the average male that cannot reconcile what women say and what they often do in contradiction to what they say. It is the cause of this supposed female ‘mystique’ caused also by a general male indifference, as to the inner workings of a female mind that gives women an advantage considering their insatiable appetite for the inner workings of a males mind.
    A woman’s superiority can be found in how she establishes and maintains relationships and in her practical application of knowledge and experiences.
    It isn’t, so much, that women are smarter than men when it comes to psychology and social relationships but that they devote more of their brainpower and time to these concerns. It is for this reason that females develop faster and acquire better communication skills early on. The quickness by which she reaches child-bearing maturity makes her relevant and her skill in linguistic expression and understanding allows her to evaluate the underlying social mechanics and her methods of adapting to them which establishes her position and social value.
    But the total devotion of a female mind to the immediately perceptible and practical gives them an added advantage in social matters. A woman is subconsciously adept in understanding body language and in interpreting psychological states through the perception of external details and subliminal messages. They call this: ‘woman’s intuition’.
    She is always a step ahead of males in picking up and interpreting the minutiae of physical information, freely given off by all of us, that are needed by her to read personalities, qualities and interpersonal relationships and power struggles. Her total commitment to appearances also makes her superficial and completely uninterested or unaware of abstract concepts or underlying realities.

    Male Archetype
    A man’s role within a social group is a more precarious one.
    He is both expendable and an intrinsic part of the health of the whole; he can be a definer of what it means to be human or be a mere failed attempt at it; he can be the determiner of greatness or a symbol of degradation; he can be a leader and guider of a group or relegated to a peripheral role; he can be the goal or the error.
    The demands upon the male intellect, because of the afore mentioned, are greater than in females; he must be flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance dictated by the form of the group he wishes to become a successful, respected leader of and the environment he is forced to exist within.
    A mans mind is divided between the necessary perception of appearances and the need to find advantage by evaluating and perceiving the non-perceptible, through the abstract.
    If a woman is the buyer of genetic potential then a man is inevitably the seller and as such possesses the creativity, imagination, mental flexibility and abstract thinking of one that must consistently prove his value to the whole in order to ensure his relevance and importance.
    But these necessary characteristics of a successful male are also the source of his natural domination and the eventual control over the forces of nature that resulted in the restriction of female sexual power and made women servants to male reason.
    For males women are only a means to an end and hold no interest to them beyond this, a fact many women use to their advantage, if they recognize it as such.
    A mans natural inclination is to inseminate as many females as he possibly can and then guide them and his offspring with his strength and power into copies of himself; modern day practices of man as caretaker and homemaker is the direct result of mans feminization where he has submitted to authorities more powerful than himself and accepted a certain mode of behaviour that is expected from him while contradictory to his inclinations.
    The male type is governed by his need to control, to possess, and to be independent and self-reliant; he is a natural sceptic and adversary of all that binds him, restricts him or attempts to dominate him. It is this unyielding, courageous male attitude that has lead to human dominion over nature and to mankind’s unquestionable success and has opened up frontiers for human exploitation. Ironically it is also this success that has made maleness expendable and unwanted within growing social systems where a more disciplinable, humble, demure, malleable type is more desirable.
    Where there is uncertainty and fear, males become intrinsic, where there is safety and predictability males become detrimental to harmony and uniformity. Where there are un-chartered frontiers and unconquered worlds, men become vital, where there is un-inquisitiveness and limitations imposed upon human action and thought, men become dangerous and obtrusive.
    Unlike women, men are not just born into value and importance by just being a member of their gender but must earn any respect and privilege or perish in the effort. It is this that drives men to higher and higher levels of mental and physical perfection and has stretched human existence to such an extent that it now threatens to separate him from his roots and through this stretching has thinned out his spirit.
    It is this creativity that is harnessed by ‘modern’ societies by making all men investors in them by allowing them to procreate. An accomplishment achieved, by the way, by the subjugation of women.
    Man himself is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men, and because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise.
    Is the male archetype a primitive expression of the human condition destined to become extinct or marginalized? That remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, where maleness is extinguished so is the spark of individuality, creativity, personality and un-harnessed potentiality.


    Sexual Attraction
    The game of sexual attraction is an intricate dance of flirtation and insinuation that hides a deeper practical motivation.
    Steven W. Gangstad PhD said on the matter
    “Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial attraction.”
    For women the ‘game’ of sexual attraction has additional complications and considerations; for her the implications and consequences of a sexual relationship will have far reaching results for her and her progeny that makes her decision making a more complicated one.
    Her natural instinctive inclinations, as I’ve already stated, attract her to the archetypical male. The physical and mental strength that will be inherited, through her, by her offspring, makes these natural attributes precious and irresistible to her. But the further consideration of being impregnated by a male with access to material resources, that will make her long gestation comfortable and the following years of infant rearing successful, is essential to a female’s choice.
    In natural environments the physical and mental prowess of a male went hand-in-hand with his resourcefulness and his access to the essentials whereas in our modern world this is rarely the case.
    In a ‘modern’ social environment access to resources and material wealth is mostly accessible to males of a conforming predisposition that have been assimilated within the cultural frameworks and adopted the ideals and values of their environment. This ‘female’ predisposition has enabled most males to pay the precious price [time and effort] of social ascension to reach goals given to them by external sources without question or hesitation and has facilitated their assimilation and subjugation to a stronger entity [that of society] as women do. This is more evident in crucial position of social status such as political posts or positions through which information and therefore indoctrination is disseminated, such as the media. Here we can see the promotion of individuals that more closely mirror the ideology of the governing elite or the morality and value systems of the power centers acquiring quick access to positions of power and influence and rewarded with affluence and privilege as a consequence, whereas those diverging from the status quo or exhibiting any free-thought are conspicuously left behind, eradicated or ignored.
    Furthermore, the demands of social progression exact such a high price on the individual male as to make any dedication to physical and mental development, impossible or rare. Men and women are so stressed and occupied with daily concerns of economic survival, consumerism and economic ascension that the ‘self’, the only thing that truly matters, is neglected.
    In modern social environments where physicality and intellectual power is not as relevant to survival and where, inversely, it is a female psychology and easy indoctrination that enables success, the sexual choice demanded from women is made even more difficult.
    Her femaleness is still fascinated by maleness and all the attributes that go along with it but from a practical point of view, she must take into consideration her mates social status, wealth and conventionality as to ensure the well-being of her future offspring.
    A further aspect of the sexual attraction game that sheds some light on how female choice is made and what romantic love is many times based on, is, what I call, the ‘bad-boy’ factor.
    ‘Bad-Boy Factor
    It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially for males, but few really comprehend why this is so.
    The founding principle of confidence is indifference to specific particulars and a poise derived by the certainty that eventual success is attainable in the general.
    For example, when attempting to find a job confidence is derived by the self-assurance that a job will be found eventually despite any particular, specific failures, whereas non-confidence is based on the desperation of being dependant on the acquisition of a single, particular job position which becomes exaggerated in significance. This confidence, in turn, gets translated to physical composure, mental focus and efficiency of movement which desperation, through panic and anxiety, lacks.
    That confidence rests on a foundation of indifference may be a difficult concept to accept, especially in matters of sexual intimacy where ‘love’, ‘compassion’, ‘trust’ ‘respect’ and ‘dependence’ are considered to be the romantic ideal, but nevertheless I believe evidence abounds as to its veracity. The ‘bad-boy’ factor is a case in point.
    It is evident, to all that understand the characteristics of the ‘bad-boy’, that the brash, swaggering and often abusive confidence, that makes them irresistible to females, is rooted in a general indifference caused by an overabundance of sexual options. For certain men, that can have their pick of women, the specific individual woman becomes irrelevant, making them confident and arrogant enough to display their true male character and individual personality with little regard as to the consequences.
    Confidence and independence also expresses an abundance of choice caused by access to superfluous resources that makes a specific supply of marginal importance.
    For females, that are genetically predisposed to seek out resources and genetic health, this aspect of maleness becomes attractive because it also reveals a males marketability and desirability. When a male has multiple sexual options then he must be an asset worth considering, when he has limited choices then his obsession with a particular female, far from remaining flattering, becomes unattractive and even repulsive.
    This will also explain the phenomenon of adultery where males that are married or attached somehow become more attractive to females just because they are taken by other females and it sheds some light into the phenomenon where women remain in often abusive relationships.
    It is ironic that women find men attractive that are relatively indifferent to them specifically and find men unappealing that are infatuated with them specifically [The ‘nice’ guy they want to remain friends with].
    It is also noteworthy, that in a more general application of the indifference rule, that we become more successful in the things we do not really need, desire or obsess over and less so in the things we badly yearn for. Life itself, when the matter of death is overcome and a general indifference to mortality is achieved, becomes more enjoyable and rewarding but when we frantically deny death and find clever ways to ensure immortality through religion, we display the desperation and anxious strain that restricts life and limits our existence.
    To ‘not care’ does not mean to ‘not value’ but it does mean to be ‘independent from’. This independence displays itself in confidence, pride, self-reliance and contentment that others will perceive intuitively, and wishing to share in it, will be inevitably attracted to.

    Epilogue
    Given, the before mentioned gender archetypes, it is relatively clear that the ‘perfect’ type for social participation is the feminine one. The female, with her instinctual need to belong and to maintain cohesion and harmony, with her complete reliance on external reflections for self-realization and her willing and total adaptation to shared ideals and ideas, makes her the ideal type for large social environments such as found in modern civilizations and nation-states.
    The male, on the other hand, with his independent, uncompromising individuality, rebelliousness, imaginative creativity and prideful psychology makes him more ideal for smaller social groups where individual personality and distinctiveness plays a more important role in group survival.
    It is therefore not surprising that distinctly female traits are idolized and the human mind is inseminated with the female ideal in our present day world of mounting populations and diminishing resources.
    Where peace and stability are of the utmost importance, being female or ‘feminine’ is an obvious advantage.
    But beyond this social influence and cultural prejudiced leanings, women as sexually selective powers become the guarantors that the socially acceptable human characteristics that are rewarded with privileged positions of social status, will also be rewarded by their reproduction in future generations by selecting males that exhibit the right mixture of female and male predispositions, even if instinctively and physically they are still more attracted to the more ‘primitive’ male archetype.
    The gradual extinction of the male started in the human species when human physical weakness forced man to evolve social sensitivities in order to improve survival odds. It was later speeded up through genetic degradation which resulted in fatigue and a psychological ineptness to accept nature, and her cruel ways, as the order of things, leading to a general disillusionment with life and existence, as expressed through nihilistic religions in the east and in philosophical nihilism in the west.
    Socrates was the first, well known, victim of this trend and the culminating focal point of Hellenic degradation. The final blow was struck when the western body, weakened by centuries of decadence and comfort [due to unforeseen success] was eventually infected with the moral/ethical systems of a people condemned, by history and chance, to be outcasts and the slaves of more powerful civilizations. The attraction to this slavish moral system to the unfortunate growing masses of the underprivileged, multiplying consistently due to mans survival superiority, domination over nature and past spiritual nobility, is understandable. Along with it came equalitarianism, complacency and uniformity caused by the numerical superiority of the weak and the intellectual and spiritual fatigue of the strong caused, in turn, by the unceasing struggle and the stifling effects of exaggerated intellectual scepticism.
    In more recent times, in the west, with the emancipation of women, the role of maleness and manhood has been further diminished. We see signs of a western hermaphroditization in the changing aesthetic male ideal physical form as promoted by popular culture. The slim build and the adolescent, almost girlish, look, the hairless torso all reveal the feminization of manhood; the emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual extinction. In nature any display of homosexuality is one of dominance and not of affection or sexual attraction. Many have taken this natural display of authority as evidence for the ‘normalcy’ of homoeroticism.
    We must remember that nature is efficient and nothing exists without a purpose, or else it atrophies and disappears like the human appendix or a muscle that is never used. It is then perplexing why homosexuality would exist in nature, since it has no purpose and the act of sexual interaction, existing to facilitate propagation, would be practiced between members of the same gender.
    In truth homosexuality is a distinctly human mutation and an extreme result of human male degradation.
    Female emancipation that resulted in the flattening of gender differences is now followed by a drive towards homosexual emancipation, where male/female distinction will be further eroded making gender roles and gender divisions of no relevance.
    Mankind is on the road to a hermaphroditic existence where procreation will be conducted in test-tubes and sex will become a matter of entertainment with little spirituality or procreative significance.
    The levelling of man continues.
     
  10. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    i am wearing some right now. kinda erotic if you dont mind me saying so
     
  11. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Reply

    To spookz

    >i am wearing some right now. kinda erotic if you dont mind me saying so<
    Thanks for your very insightful contributions to this thread.
    I will have to consider them further since they have sparked some thought in me which have germinated into ideas that need exploration.
    From your short, to the point and yet profound statements I can see you are a being of deep thought and great wisdom.
    Enjoy your underwear.

    To Medecine*Woman

    >M*W: First, welcome to sciforums. I am concerned about your statement, "...the slow degradation of man...". Why do you think it's a "degradation?" It's the process of evolution toward a more perfect human. I believe that more perfect creation will be androgynous.<
    I see uniformity and non-distinctness as a degradation you, like a true woman, may see it as an elevation. Weakness always want everyone else to be on its level so that it ceases to be weak in comparison.

    >M*W: "...towards male redefinition...". Why do you think it is the male being redefined? If there is a blending (or coming together) of the genders, then it should affect females as well. Not only is your statement sexist, it's illogical.<
    I am presenting my personal perspective, which happens to be male.
    Obviously this process also affects women.
    Perhaps I will explore the ramifications of female alteration in another post.

    >M*W: "...imposed an anxious unnatural loss of identity and purpose...". Again, I don't believe this is an "unnatural" process. I believe it to be natural and evolutionary. If you are referring to Biblical ascepts (which I'm not), the Bible says that "God created them male and female he created them." This would mean androgynously.<
    The Bible is not where I get my perspective from. Life is.
    If it is a natural process then it is a sign of human weakness. Nature punishes weakness with extinction.
    If extinction is a ‘natural process’ then I am here to resist it, in true male fashion, while you are here to accept it and surrender to it, in true female fashion.

    >M*W: I went to your website so I could understand you a little better, but it indicated a virus and my computer wouldn't let me open it. From this post, however, your misogyny is prevalent and you're homophobic. Not once did you indicate how this might be affecting your female counterpart. Females are becoming more androgynous, too, but you seem to only think it's the males becoming feminized! It's equal to both genders. Laws are being enacted to protect society from people who think like you do. It is true, your worst nightmare is emerging from the spiral of evolution and becoming the androgynous Homo spiritus. I'm afraid anything you have to say about the feminization of man doesn't mean shit.<
    The misogyny and homophobic remark was expected and the usual tactic of those fearing that a perspective may have some sway and strength.
    I am not here to restrict myself to political-correct positions in fear as to how others will perceive my remarks. I am not here to censor my thoughts so that I won’t be labelled with terms that, in our present modern world, should insult me or shame me.
    If you believe the current strategies to enforce self-censorship by shaming or contradicting a position merely by using modern moral standards that have made any honest discussion about gender roles, race relations and general social commentary a discussion meant for sheep baying the same, feel-good, mythologies and pretending they are being constructive by repeating the accepted popular ideals and ideas of their historical time and cultural background, then you are more foolish than you appear to be.
    I could just sit here and deny your accusations, state how I’ve had homosexual friends and that my most intimate relationships have been with women, but why bother?
    Your opinion of me is irrelevant. Your position against mine is what interests me more….but you have none so you become one of those people I must endure or ignore.
    Perhaps from your perspective an ant society with its harmony and female balance is something to aspire to; perhaps the blind worker bee, doing her duty, with no question or personality, where everything works with little confrontation or opposition and where everyone is just like everyone else; perhaps the castrated, thoughtless communion of beings that rests on a bedrock of non-individuality, humility, conformity, boredom and non-distinction is what you prefer. You would rather lose your identity, if you’ve had any at all, than risk being responsible independent being that must endure and persevere against the forces of nature.
    But of course I recognize the “androgynation” of women, penis envy is known to me, but my position is that the preferred type in society is one exemplified by the female archetype and so this trend is not one where genders meet in some hypothetical middle ground, since the androgyny trend is a temporary phenomenon caused by the sudden emancipation of women after centuries of subjugation. This female “androgynation” is a venting or vindictive phenomenon practiced by women that want to ‘get back’ at men or who want to explore the possibilities now open to them.
    I see signs, especially amongst women, of a reaction against this trend and a return to past gender roles. The destruction of the nuclear family has been the consequence of this female emancipation and I believe this as well as the stressful, cut-throat male social environments females suddenly found themselves in have disillusioned women and made them rethink their original positions.
    Unfortunately the basic characteristics of femaleness still remain, no matter the Tom-boyish superficial exteriors because society would not have it any other way.
    You restrict your definitions of female or male archetypes to strictly sexual aspects or aspects of social status and economic opportunity, whereas I define them with the added aspect of spiritual predisposition towards existence itself.
    To be male or female is a state of mind not only a job opportunity or a sexual organ.
    Just because a woman is ‘butch’ or works in a traditionally male dominated environment does not mean she is becoming male since the current male has been so degraded as to be more akin to a butch female than a true male.

    To XEV
    >Bling. And hence the trend towards hysterical hypermasculinity (illustrated by the white, middle class young man who aspires to the role of a "pimp") or confused attempt to be a woman (note the "metrosexuals")

    Charming. It's nothing horridly new, but there comes a time when one simply is exploring what we already know.

    Gender we all know and see, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on the more taboo subject of race. Do you not see something of the same happening?<
    Sorry for boring you with something you already know, but I’m sure there are some out there that know nothing and that can benefit from my perspective.
    I am mostly troubled by the loss of purpose, found amongst modern western males that have no connection to nature and to themselves and desperately seek an identity.
    In modern urban environments males are confused as to how to behave and in how they fit in to the universe, something few females experience because they simply accept the world around them and find whatever position within it they can.
    This male anxiety, caused by the reasons I mention and by an absence of a ritualistic right-of-passage that made males feel connected with their group and with their nature in general, is making many males behave in the “hyper-maleness” you mention.

    As for the race thing, I believe I allude to it in a single passage in my essay but, I suspect, it plays a smaller role in my consciousness than it does to one brought up or living in the US where race has been the focus for centuries and has been used to distract the populace from the more relevant class relations.
    I do believe race plays a part on how a man thinks or acts or in his/her general potential.
    If there are external physical differences then how can there not be internal intellectual ones?
    Many have even tried explaining away the possibility of racial differences by denying black superiority in athletic events based on speed or in oriental superiority in mathematics and so on. Most will like to eradicate any evidence or thought that would hint at a racial advantage or disadvantage making it possible, in the US, to lower educational standards so that the myth and illusion of equality and social harmony is maintained.
    I believe a human being can only be judged by his/her mind as they manifest themselves in his/her opinions and actions; but as melanin gives certain individuals a skin pigmentation that protects them from exposure to prolonged sunlight I think to deny that there are also internal mental differences is to restrict your thoughts to ideas that are socially and culturally acceptable and to not consider a possibility that may explain the human condition better.
    This strategy of denying physical differences so as to deny intellectual ones can also be found in gender descriptions where brain size differentials are explained away or minimized to maintain modern sensibilities.
    I certainly see a levelling of man racially and more importantly culturally.
    Many cannot even see that the recent events in the Middle-east and Iraq are a consequence of this war between cultures, as Huntington would agree, that seeks to level all of mankind into a single, shallow, western pop-culture or overt consumerism, and trite capitalism. The fact that others resist or go to extreme lengths to save their own culture and tradition, either by violence or isolation, should not surprise us.
    I also see this anti-intellectualism, as expressed by a ridiculing of intelligence [nerd, geek etc.] and refocusing mans attentions to mere surf ace concerns, where only what is immediately perceived and understood is respected and considered, as one more aspect, along with gender levelling, cultural levelling and racial levelling, that threatens to make mankind nothing but a mindless, un-unique automaton.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2003
  12. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    Enjoy your underwear.

    thanks, i will
    btw, i shaved my genitalia and derriere today. it looks hot
     
  13. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    Re: For those unable to access my web-page

     
  14. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    The way it looks to me is somewhat different. Some of what you say is correct, and otehr bits are skewed somewhat. My first pointis that it is easily turned round to "the masculinisation of women." Nowadays, theres more women working outside the home in jobs that were often thought of as masculine. Instead of being a secondary earner, forever part of the male, the woman is more independent. I believe studies have shown that these women are towards the aggressive and more "masculine" end of the spectrum. Ultimately, it seems that:

    "Furthermore the terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ are not restricted to strictly gender descriptions but will be used, here, as a state of being or becoming that may be used to describe both men and women. So it will be clear that there are men with female dispositions and women with male ones even though the majority of us will express the characteristics and psychological leanings of their own gender more often than not. "

    Is a sensible point. However, I view the present state as being the realisation of what you say in the quote above, that people have different dispositions, and in todays near freedom, we can each find our more personal evironment and where we fit. Rather than all men trying to confrom to the ideal of strong, manly, poorly emotional, patriarchal etc, each can be himself. Therefore, compared to "the good old days" men are appearing in general to be less masculine, whereas in my opinion, they arent, merely are free to demonstrate less masculinity than they were previously permitted. The same goes for women, it is no longer de riguere to get married and have children, you can have a career etc.

    "In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies that were the product of a slavish resentment of all things superior and because of a general decadence caused by attrition and complacency, the paternalistic system has eroded enough to make equalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation possible."

    But did we not already have christianity in the times of the crusades, the hussite rebellion, the Byzantine wars, the expansion into the "new world" etc etc. Let alone the Victorians, the Rennaissance etc.

    "In cultures where paternalistic dominance is still prevalent, such as in the Middle-East and India [And only until recently in the west], social engineering is still controlled by males that are governed by their particular cultural perspectives and it is facilitated by the supremacy of religious dogma, by existing totalitarian political systems and by the subjugation of females to the cultures demands."

    And at its strictest is merely a continuation of the now, in modes of survival that are threatened by external circumstances. Therefore of little use to its benefactors, ie the men.

    "Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems"

    Strange. I thought that was a definition of a dictatorship. "give us certainty" the masses cry, "for we are afraid of ourselves and weary of the unknowables of the future."

    Apart from bits like that, i would generally agree with you about the dangers of consumerism and materialism etc.
     
  15. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "The demands upon the male intellect, because of the afore mentioned, are greater than in females"

    But surely, as you have pretty much said already, female brains are different, so i find this kind of comparison silly.

    "the emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual extinction. In nature any display of homosexuality is one of dominance and not of affection or sexual attraction. Many have taken this natural display of authority as evidence for the ‘normalcy’ of homoeroticism. "

    But yet, research shows that most homosexuals are born that way, whether genetic or intra uterione causes, or a mix of both. Which makes it more than a lifestyle choice, instead its how they are, same as heterosexuals are hetero. Which ties in with increased personal freedom that is nearly the norm nowadays, and one of the weapons against fanatical islam. And christianity for that matter.
     
  16. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    Considering that different cultures have different 'roles' for both male and females, I cannot see how there can be a female archetype or a male archetype that is not defined only within a specific culture. All physical differences necessitate differences in behaviour that do not rise beyond the immediate results of said physical differences. What this means is that most roles that are attributed to the genders are applicable in the cultural context and invented by men, through millenia of cultural evolution. Looking at animal behaviour, we can easily see that a majority of the roles or mannerisms attributed to both male and female are not universal. Any change of role definitions in society between the two geneders are a reflection of a change in society's views of the two genders. You present your argument as if this so called 'feminization' of man is a bad thing. There is also a shift of the female role towards the traditional male role. Neither shift is bad or good in the natural sense. And the shift merely represents a relative female liberation. The roles of the females as presented before cannot be applied for females are doing what men traditional used to...and some men are disregarding this traditional male image for it is no longer enforced.
     
  17. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    I can't stand machoness, even though I've been guilty of it too.
     
  18. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Messages:
    704
    Reply 2

    tablariddim
    >I can't stand machoness, even though I've been guilty of it too.<
    Then you are already a woman, despite the thing between your legs. You're a woman in your head.

    thefountainhed
    >You present your argument as if this so called 'feminization' of man is a bad thing. There is also a shift of the female role towards the traditional male role. Neither shift is bad or good in the natural sense. And the shift merely represents a relative female liberation. The roles of the females as presented before cannot be applied for females are doing what men traditional used to...and some men are disregarding this traditional male image for it is no longer enforced.<
    It is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing if it is considered in relation to the culture it perpetuates.
    Since I already stated my view of modern western culture and in how females, of both genders, become ‘gatekeepers’ of the status quo and filterers of human characteristics, you can see how in this respect it is a negative thing.
    If taken in the natural system, where disease and mental deficiency is eradicated through this same femaleness then it becomes a positive thing.
    In my view, females in our culture function as propagators of the female archetype.
    That was my point.

    guthrie
    >But surely, as you have pretty much said already, female brains are different, so i find this kind of comparison silly.<
    We are different but not alien so comparison is possible, especially when a hermaphroditical middle ground is being nourished.

    >But yet, research shows that most homosexuals are born that way, whether genetic or intra uterione causes, or a mix of both. Which makes it more than a lifestyle choice, instead its how they are, same as heterosexuals are hetero. Which ties in with increased personal freedom that is nearly the norm nowadays, and one of the weapons against fanatical islam. And christianity for that matter.<
    Where have I disagreed?
    Did I not say that through female sexual choice, female attributes are being selected making the feminization of man innevitable?

    >But did we not already have christianity in the times of the crusades, the hussite rebellion, the Byzantine wars, the expansion into the "new world" etc etc. Let alone the Victorians, the Rennaissance etc. <
    Do you think effects take hold immediately or in time, through genetic processes?
    Since Christianity then was still relatively new and the ‘domestication’ of man had just begun, it is obvious that in comparison to today’s demure, passive, effeminate man the men of the past will be considered more vulgar and brutish.
    Must I spell everything out for you or can you fill in the blanks where I did not get into details?
    If not then perhaps an entire 500 page book is needed.

    >Strange. I thought that was a definition of a dictatorship. "give us certainty" the masses cry, "for we are afraid of ourselves and weary of the unknowables of the future."<
    You forget that men have pride and a need for the illusion of freedom.
    What you call Democracy is a dictatorship masking as a free society and manifesting its control and power through more subtle ways of manipulation and mass control.
    Do you actually believe most people’s opinions are based on personal insights and not just mind control and intellectual indoctrination?
    Are your views your own or just what you were raised to think?
    Are your sensitivities, your values and your virtues your own or just adopted ideas?
    Is not the fact that they are shared evidence that they may not be personal?
    Did you read my essay?
    Read it again.

    Medicine*Woman
    >1) This is psycho-babble.
    2) You're evolvo-phobic.
    3) You're wasting everyone's time on something in which you have
    absolutely no control over.
    4) Deal with it or shut-up.<

    1] Nice comeback. now do you have any real arguments?
    No, I forgot you are a woman.
    2] Yes, that 'phobic' thing again. I guess you can deny any idea using this method.
    What are you afraid of? Hmmmmm.....who cares?
    3] Nihilism and surrender expressed in a few words. a true female attribute.
    Why fight? Why struggle? Why resist?
    It's so easy to just submit and just go with the flow.
    Isn't that what I've been arguing against?
    I suggest that if you do not want to "wasteyour time", since I think you must have so much more interesting things to do, that you do not read my posts again.
    That will save us both much precious time.
    4] Again the modern answer, given in the popular method.
    The surrender to what is.
    If men were like you, dear, we would still be living in caves.
    I mean imagine the man of the past taking his females advice and never going out to see what the hell fire was.
    I can hear her now:
    "Hey, buster its cold, so what?! Stop whining and deal with it"
    or
    "Hey, Galileo the earth is the center of the universe, deal with it and shut up."
    or
    "Hey, Wright brothers, man can't fly!! Deal with it."

    You are such an inspiration and a good example of what I meant by the 'female' archetype.
    Thanks for providing first hand evidence in support of my views.
     
  19. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    please address me as sally from now on
    thanks
     
  20. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    Ohh Sally.... hey there, girlfriend! So if you like, soo want to hang out and stuff, just give me a buzz, kay?
     
  21. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
  22. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,795
    Re: Reply 2

    I've certainly got a feminine side that's true, but what man doesn't to some degree? Or to re-phrase that; what man in history Never had a feminine side?

    Do you think that strong women, weak or effeminate men and homosexuality are just a recent or modern invention? You obviously do, because you obviously see some period in history when men were men and women were women and everyone knew their place in a happy, just and prosperous society, one, free of women headed males content to be gentle and considerate as they created art and fashion and dance and design (they must have come along muuuch later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    So where and when did this period occur, you know, when all the men were mucho macho and all the women were merely subservient child minders, presumably of single status as a qonsequence of the mucho macho's wanton habit of fucking and leaving? This period, where you draw your presumption of the ideal man as his gender should have him to be according to you?

    Because it is just a presumption isn't it? Because it never existed at any time.

    Macho men societies exist/existed for sure; women are/were used as chattell for sure, but a society where all the men were merely Wandering scoundrels impregnating the fair maidens they met en route in their travels to and from hunts and wars could only be mythical at best, only partly true at worst.

    Macho men, to a high degree, tend to suffer from all the following maladies and virtues: boastfulness, courageousness, aggressiveness, toughness, sexism, racism, lacking in empathy or sensitivity esp to women, selfishness, obsessiveness, possesiveness, greedyness, untrustworthyness, deceitfulness, hatefulness, compassionlessness , rudeness , cruelness, ness, ness, ness etc

    Most people (all genders) suffer from the same shit actually, but to a lesser degree and with better balanced aspects; like with everything, there's a threshhold point where benign transforms into malignant.

    I can't stand machoness!

    I think you're just pissed off that more men want to become more civilised. Oh I think I got it! Your best buddy got hitched to another and your lonely bitterness inspired your strong complaint against feminality (my word). Am I nearly right?
     
  23. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "We are different but not alien so comparison is possible, especially when a hermaphroditical middle ground is being nourished."

    But why make comparisons if both types of thinking are necesasry? Furthermore, do you have any evidence for the statement with regards to energy use in the brain?

    "Did I not say that through female sexual choice, female attributes are being selected making the feminization of man innevitable?"

    You seem to be confusing homosexuality with feminisation, when it is not the same. Besides, do you have any evidence that women are selecting less "macho" partners?

    "Do you think effects take hold immediately or in time, through genetic processes?"

    Actually, I dont think there are appreciable pressures. To usggest that it has all been building up to a century or so of feminisaiton is nbaieve in the extreme. Look at the history of the west, since when ahs there been such selection for feminisation? As opposed to selection for war, of successful merchants, etc etc? You are making a blanket and unsupportable statement here.

    "Did you read my essay?
    Read it again. "

    Not thanks. I am tiring of your kind of demagoguery.

    "What you call Democracy is a dictatorship masking as a free society and manifesting its control and power through more subtle ways of manipulation and mass control."

    Since when has it been much different, from Machiavelli back to the Romans and the Greeks? You fail to make a serious case for things being that much different overall from these periods in history.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page