The Feminization of Man

S

Satyr

Banned
Banned
:cool:

At my favorite handgout Ilovephilosophy...
The Feminization of Man
...or at my home turf...
The Feminization of Man

The process persists and idiots are made to feel like they are more than they are...They are given posts and positions and titles and all the tools and social/cultural garments to pretend that they are "equal"...They are sheltered and shielded from the repercussions of their own stupidity and they are made to feel powerful and worthy...They are made "innocent victims" and politically-correct automatons; administrators of censorship and civilized hypocrisy.

The dull made interesting and the dim 'good enough' and respectable.
Welcome to the future...children.

Don't expect any responses in this den of dim-wits.

:shrug:

The Wandering Mind
 
Last edited:
I stopped reading at this part:

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.
Click to expand...

I see these difference as complex when viewed from a design perspective, am i wrong?

oh, crap. that was you. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Given that the male archetype, armed with nuclear weapons, if left to it's own tendencies for territorialism will result in the destruction of everything on the planet, feminization or the replacement of the dominator model with a partnership model, may be our only hope for the continuation of the human race into the future.
 
John99 said:
I stopped reading at this part:



Slight is his understanding of the human body. I see these difference as complex when viewed from a design perspective, am i wrong?

oh, crap. that was you. :eek:
Click to expand...

no, his comparison is correct. as the male and female develop in the womb there is not much difference. the bodyparts he mentioned are simular in biological form and function.

peace.
 
Satyr said:
:cool:

The Feminization of Man

The process persists and idiots are made to feel like they are more than they are...They are given posts and positions and titles and all the tools and social/cultural garments to pretend that they are "equal"...They are sheltered and shielded from the repercussions of their own stupidity and they are made to feel powerful and worthy...They are made "innocent victims" and politically-correct automatons; administrators of censorship and civilized hypocrisy.

The dull made interesting and the dim 'good enough' and respectable.
Welcome to the future...children.

Don't expect any responses in this den of dim-wits.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

It is not your place to tell men how they ought to be. Go clean your kitchen.
 
I have to agree U. S. society is become 'diluted'. As a nation we are protecting the less desireable genetic strains. Those strains that would be removed in natural selection' are now protected by 'welfare'. Summing up a far more complex circumstance, the U. S. is no longer the productive society and culture it once was. I see this as a net loss.

No doubt someone will jump to the conclusion I seek some sort of genetic breeding program and the wholesale execution of certain 'classes'. I do not. I do think we need to revise the way we 'help the unfortunate' and look toward the betterment of society rather than maintain some misguided feel good stance of cultural suicide and shame for being productive and prosperous.

Men are not taught to be men anymore. They're either taught to be 'politically correct' or taught to be thugs and ruffians. One extreme is foppish and without drive or original thought, the other is destructive. Neither are much value to society, frankly.

Spidergoat brought up the theory of male destructiveness. It has been overdone, but has a kernel of truth to it. In short, men and women are different. Men are doers and women are nurturers - in very brief (yes, it is more complicated than that, but we don't need to do so for this discussion).

Men and women need each other to survive. Both sexes and mindsets have their function and purpose. Neither sex without the other do well very long. It's the 'cooperation' part that is most problematic. Good luck.
 
Feminization of a man is a necessity in a stable, highly managed society. What you need your manness for, watch sports, express allegiance? Feminine qualities is what makes management easy (ier). Besides, drop in the testosterone level and sperm count is rather a global phenomenon. Body of a man responds to the societary needs.
 
Those strains that would be removed in natural selection' are now protected by 'welfare'.
Click to expand...
Really? That says a genetically superior male who very unlikely have dared to stroll projects areas at night. It could be that your genetically superior highness is being protected.
 
i don't really need to make a case for natural selection, though i do appreciate the idea that some "weaknesses" are preserved because as a society we exercise the ability to save lives independent of a consideration of which lives "ought" to be saved.
<P>
i find the "feminization" or as i read it "weakening" of the strength of character, in both men and women is similiar to what Kurt Vonegut wrote about in his short story "Harrison Bergeron" "sandbagging the ballerina"- the p.c. view that self esteem is better than doing esteemable things - allows humans to select the "easy" approach to living, not the challenging - to be able to acknowledge greatness (except "reality shows" :p) without having to exert any effort to find their own, as long as the greatness isn't real, or demand any participation on anyone's part

I'm not sure if this tendency to "feminization" is gender specific - the cooperation of most to aim for middle dull - as long as women continue to be appreciated for being even lower dull... it maintains the illusion that there are xx & xy's

i hold hope and delight that i have been able to be and find others who will not participate in the slippery slope slide toward weakening of character that you are observing.
 
I find it absurd and trite. It's similar to the same old things I've heard from old assholes who complain things somehow were always better in the past.

It's downright disgusting. Some things were and definitely many things were not. The 'back to nature' animal regression idea is stupid and that's exactly what this stoneage fuker is arguing for. You would swear he's got a reptilian tick he can't turn off.
 
Satyr said:
:cool:
They are made "innocent victims" and politically-correct automatons; administrators of censorship and civilized hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

PC stuff is often ridiculous. But somehow 'real men' conservatives and reactionaries seem to think PC was invented by liberals and feminists.

Nope.

They invented one form of it.

What is PC? It is a set of rules about what one should say and act that is rigid and controlling and ladened with guilt and shame.

Gosh darn it. Conservatives and 'real men' and reactionaries have there own set of rules that is at least as rigid. In school it is enforced by fists and words like faggot. And there were all sorts of rules about what one could say, how one should move, etc. to be a non-faggot, good girl etc. and these rules were definitely not ones coming from what is usually referred to as PC people.

Conservatives and 'real men' and reactionaries don't notice their own version of PC 1) because they are just as sure these rules are right as any PCer 2) they lack introspective abilities.

And of course these conservative, reactionary, real man rules also held powerful sway in workplaces and in the public world and in much of people's social worlds and they still do.

It used to be PC to view blacks as niggers deserving to be slaves. It used to be PC to put porn in a female electricians locker and to call her a whore or a dyke. It used to be PC to assume that women who were raped brought it on themselves in practically every case. A man defending a woman who was raped or defending their gay friend from random harrassment would be labeled non-PC. Not being reactionary, conservative or manly enough.

Conservatives and 'real men' and reactionaries do not notice the way their rules dominated the psyche of vast swathes of america, for example, but suddenly when faced with another PC wake up and dislike control. Not men enough to notice how much PC control, shaming, harrassing, shitting on, not hiring, whispering about, beating up, dehumanizing of others they and their kind engaged in and continue to engage in, they do manage to suddenly get clever about other people's PC. when do they get clever? Only when there is some real competetion between the two PC sets of rules. What do they get clever about? Only the other PC and not their own.

Whining and playing the victim to PC rules is a wonderful distraction, but sooner or later they will have to face themselves and how they have avoided fear so long by trying to dehumanize and control others. Then they stand a chance to find out that being a real man is not dependant on denial of fear and confusion.
 
spidergoat said:
Given that the male archetype, armed with nuclear weapons, if left to it's own tendencies for territorialism will result in the destruction of everything on the planet, feminization or the replacement of the dominator model with a partnership model, may be our only hope for the continuation of the human race into the future.
Click to expand...

I believe that the perfect balance between both male and female is the only true answer. Anyone seeking "complementarianism" by keeping both genders in rigid confines according to their outward genitalia is wrong. This is my opinion.

Genitals = penis = this vs. Genitals = vagina = that

That, to me, is a formula for failure.
 
peta9 said:
It's downright disgusting. Some things were and definitely many things were not. The 'back to nature' animal regression idea is stupid and that's exactly what this stoneage fuker is arguing for. You would swear he's got a reptilian tick he can't turn off.
Click to expand...

If by 'stoneage fuker' you mean Satyr, you're not far off. I haven't bothered to actually read his link, though I think I already did in the past. I swear I had an argument with him once before, though I'm not sure if he wasn't simply arguing for his own pleasure. He's very acerbic and condescending with that sharp tongue of his, but in simple terms he would like us to return to the caves. That's what I remember of his previous arguments. :confused:
 
Grantywanty said:
PC stuff is often ridiculous. But somehow 'real men' conservatives and reactionaries seem to think PC was invented by liberals and feminists.

Nope.

They invented one form of it.

.......

Whining and playing the victim to PC rules is a wonderful distraction, but sooner or later they will have to face themselves and how they have avoided fear so long by trying to dehumanize and control others. Then they stand a chance to find out that being a real man is not dependant on denial of fear and confusion.
Click to expand...

Great observation here.

One man's PC is another man's gospel! :bawl:

by the way, I've patented that statement! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top