Why don't you ask your founding fathers.
The Feminization of Man
- Thread starter Satyr
- Start date
Why don't you ask your founding fathers.
The ones who rarely cooperated with other cultures (quite the contrary, they dominated them), and weren't exactly big fans of democracy?
Now you are talking about cultures and flipping your point. What about 'all men are created equal' as in access to opportunities and human rights? what about the laws set up to protect it's citizens?
Are you unamerican?
Yes, I'm very Unamerican.
What do you know your a woman. You don't observe the opposite sex for a possible mate.
Me and you. We're different.
You are an idiot too. You want to live with your old lady slaving away at the stove and you chopping wood for yer fire. After yer slapped your wife for burning your big greasy breakfast, you'll hightail to your neighbors to find someone to fuck with. Sounds nice.
The specimen {peta9} displays the very characteristics of feminization I spoke about in my essay.
All social interactions and unions are a product of need - a union of weakness for the sake of common survival.
A union that necessities the restriction or suppressions or sublimation of individual freedoms and personality and options and will.
As such its members glorify the morality and the attitudes and the ideas that promote cohesion and harmony, wanting to avoid any honest evaluation of what they are and how they work.
The prefer to live in the delusional world where their submission, forced by their weakness, is never exposed and the 'positive', that which promotes the individuals integrations and safety and sense of belonging, is made magical or into a transcending force of 'goodness'.
This is stupidity in a nutshell.
Subjectivity made a virtue.
The essay itself, by the way, includes women in the process. Women also are becoming more feminized - prissy, pampered, obtuse, demanding, weak, submissive to male authority - even if to a lesser extent since they are feminine to begin with, to one degree or another.
The institution protects them from the reactions to their emerging attitudes and it shields them from the full extent of their errors in judgment and stupidity.
The 'masculization of women', as one poster observed, is due to feminization, as males becoming more feminine in their thinking and behaving pronounces the fact that females are being changed to a lesser degree, since they are feminine to begin with and it is also the result of this feminization because when males are made into women in their demeanor and attitudes then females relate to them as women, displaying the same competitive attitudes they reserved for their own kind in the past.
Their male mate is made into a kind of girlfriend that must display that kind of relating towards her.
Furthermore the representation of masculinity by institutional power makes the symbolic position of its figurehead i.e. leader, president, boss; accessible to both males and females. The subjugated males are now competing with females, by having their options restricted and strictly controlled by the system, for positions of symbolic masculinity.
In essence the emasculated males are competing with women for the alpha-males good graces; their submissions and discipline to its authority rewarded with access to resources and to reproductive possibility.
The institution becomes the only acceptable or tolerated masculine entity, represented symbolically by the one willing to able to play the part in accordance with the rules.
This emasculation is achieved by eliminating from the playing-field all masculine attributes and advantages and making then socially and culturally unwanted as well as by making them obsolete due to technologies.
A woman, a weakling, an imbecile, a child can now carry a gun, leveling the gap in quality between himself and a superior competitor, for example, and offering him the possibility of playing the macho part.
Furthermore the system, using the institutions and being a monopoly of masculine power, protects the weakest because the system needs large populations to stabilize its complicated structuring. This integration of inferiority demands rules which prohibit anything that creates disharmony and exclusion.
All must be included using mediocrity, force, indoctrination and rules concerning civil behaviors and etiquette.
The weak must be defended agaisnt the realization of their own inferiority.
For instance, inferior males escape the reality of their genetic value by using monogamy and moral rules concerning adultery.
Of course these are minimally successful due to the relative newness of human cultures and the memes that support them, thusly often creating friction between them and the genetic predisposition that have evolved up to this point.
It is this friction that creates mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions or diversions as well as the idea of criminality or anti-social behavior, based on a standard of acceptable behavior which is dubbed 'normal'.
The system depends on uniformity to create its own stability and so it eliminates or quarantines anything that diverges from its acceptable norm, leveling the playing fields, the standards of measuring value, any expression of superiority which uses means prohibited and restricted in their use to the institutions themselves - such as violence and physical force.
All are made the same in behavior using these rules of conduct and behavior we call sociability.
Differences between the races or the sexes or any minority grouping are educated (trained) out of the individual or spun into insignificant and superficial or censored using peer pressure and political-correctness.
Political-correctness in particular, and because it was mentioned, is an institutional systemic tool of censoring expression and ideas.
It is a way of eradicating any unwanted ideals and mimetic challenges which would de-harmonize the whole.
Stupidity and ignorance are promoted using these methods plus the added method of specialization, as the mind becomes an expert in one piece of one field of human knowledge and awareness, while remaining oblivious to the rest or to a greater picture, as it is the function of philosophy to provide such an overview.
The modern day is a highly un-philosophical era.
An era misconstruing sophistry for philosophy and knowledge for intellect.
An era dependent on producing experts with no greater awareness and obtuse automatons dependent on the system and totally subservient to it - a feminine culture where contentment trumps truth and Perspectivism, added to rampant skepticism, equates all opinions and makes all views, no matter how absurd, equally valid.
An anti-intellectual age; an anti-male age.
:shrug:
All social interactions and unions are a product of need - a union of weakness for the sake of common survival.
A union that necessities the restriction or suppressions or sublimation of individual freedoms and personality and options and will.
As such its members glorify the morality and the attitudes and the ideas that promote cohesion and harmony, wanting to avoid any honest evaluation of what they are and how they work.
The prefer to live in the delusional world where their submission, forced by their weakness, is never exposed and the 'positive', that which promotes the individuals integrations and safety and sense of belonging, is made magical or into a transcending force of 'goodness'.
This is stupidity in a nutshell.
Subjectivity made a virtue.
The essay itself, by the way, includes women in the process. Women also are becoming more feminized - prissy, pampered, obtuse, demanding, weak, submissive to male authority - even if to a lesser extent since they are feminine to begin with, to one degree or another.
The institution protects them from the reactions to their emerging attitudes and it shields them from the full extent of their errors in judgment and stupidity.
The 'masculization of women', as one poster observed, is due to feminization, as males becoming more feminine in their thinking and behaving pronounces the fact that females are being changed to a lesser degree, since they are feminine to begin with and it is also the result of this feminization because when males are made into women in their demeanor and attitudes then females relate to them as women, displaying the same competitive attitudes they reserved for their own kind in the past.
Their male mate is made into a kind of girlfriend that must display that kind of relating towards her.
Furthermore the representation of masculinity by institutional power makes the symbolic position of its figurehead i.e. leader, president, boss; accessible to both males and females. The subjugated males are now competing with females, by having their options restricted and strictly controlled by the system, for positions of symbolic masculinity.
In essence the emasculated males are competing with women for the alpha-males good graces; their submissions and discipline to its authority rewarded with access to resources and to reproductive possibility.
The institution becomes the only acceptable or tolerated masculine entity, represented symbolically by the one willing to able to play the part in accordance with the rules.
This emasculation is achieved by eliminating from the playing-field all masculine attributes and advantages and making then socially and culturally unwanted as well as by making them obsolete due to technologies.
A woman, a weakling, an imbecile, a child can now carry a gun, leveling the gap in quality between himself and a superior competitor, for example, and offering him the possibility of playing the macho part.
Furthermore the system, using the institutions and being a monopoly of masculine power, protects the weakest because the system needs large populations to stabilize its complicated structuring. This integration of inferiority demands rules which prohibit anything that creates disharmony and exclusion.
All must be included using mediocrity, force, indoctrination and rules concerning civil behaviors and etiquette.
The weak must be defended agaisnt the realization of their own inferiority.
For instance, inferior males escape the reality of their genetic value by using monogamy and moral rules concerning adultery.
Of course these are minimally successful due to the relative newness of human cultures and the memes that support them, thusly often creating friction between them and the genetic predisposition that have evolved up to this point.
It is this friction that creates mental disorders and sexual dysfunctions or diversions as well as the idea of criminality or anti-social behavior, based on a standard of acceptable behavior which is dubbed 'normal'.
The system depends on uniformity to create its own stability and so it eliminates or quarantines anything that diverges from its acceptable norm, leveling the playing fields, the standards of measuring value, any expression of superiority which uses means prohibited and restricted in their use to the institutions themselves - such as violence and physical force.
All are made the same in behavior using these rules of conduct and behavior we call sociability.
Differences between the races or the sexes or any minority grouping are educated (trained) out of the individual or spun into insignificant and superficial or censored using peer pressure and political-correctness.
Political-correctness in particular, and because it was mentioned, is an institutional systemic tool of censoring expression and ideas.
It is a way of eradicating any unwanted ideals and mimetic challenges which would de-harmonize the whole.
Stupidity and ignorance are promoted using these methods plus the added method of specialization, as the mind becomes an expert in one piece of one field of human knowledge and awareness, while remaining oblivious to the rest or to a greater picture, as it is the function of philosophy to provide such an overview.
The modern day is a highly un-philosophical era.
An era misconstruing sophistry for philosophy and knowledge for intellect.
An era dependent on producing experts with no greater awareness and obtuse automatons dependent on the system and totally subservient to it - a feminine culture where contentment trumps truth and Perspectivism, added to rampant skepticism, equates all opinions and makes all views, no matter how absurd, equally valid.
An anti-intellectual age; an anti-male age.
:shrug:
Last edited:
Satyr:
I have been considering for some time now how to respond to the lengthy article you linked in the first post of this thread.
I started a reply, but then realised that to go through your piece point-by-point would take far more time than I can afford. Nevertheless, I would like to make some comments, piecemeal though they might appear to you.
The biggest problem I have with your thesis is that it makes many entirely unsupported claims. In your "disclaimer", you try to defend that by saying that it's all based on your own observations and ideas. However, by failing to back up your claims with evidence and references to other sources, you leave yourself wide open to complaints of factual inaccuracy, or just downright mistake. Overall, I think your article would be much stronger and perhaps more persuasive if you grounded it in concrete data and evidence-based findings.
But perhaps you view your article more as a polemic than as a scholarly article. Polemics are inevitably the idiosyncratic opinions of one person. The less they are based in evidence and the more they are based in opinion and personal experience, the more latitude is left for the reader to simply agree or disagree, according to his or her own inclination. Certainly, your piece reads like a polemic.
Given the lack of independent evidence you provide, I can do little here that to point out where I, as an independent reader, personally disagree with you. Since you have largely not bothered with statistics or hard "fact", I see little reason to waste my time responding with such data. Therefore, in what follows I will largely work in the confines of your own "disclaimer", and draw on my own opinion and observation. As far as I can see, you can have no particular complaint about such tone-matching.
I quote snippets of your text below.
Your definition of "human nature" is unclear to me. Commonly, human nature is taken to be primarily biologically based. Culture and socialisation sits on top of that, and is often referred to as the result of "nurture" rather than "nature". Yet you appear to conflate nature and nurture, making various statements that claim that culture and socialisation have changed "human nature", resulting in the "feminization" you complain of. A multigenerational cultural or socialisation process cannot, as far as I can see, affect "human nature", if that is defined as the biological inheritance of the species.
You see the need for co-operation among human beings within a society as "weakness". It is not immediately obvious to me why rabid individualism should be taken as a sign of strength and social behaviour as a sign of weakness. Much of your complaint about "feminization" seems to be based on this premiss, because you identify socialisation as a "feminine" trait, and therefore weak. I think you need to go back a step and explain why socialisation is a weakness in the first place.
Your assumption here is that paternalism is superior to equality of the sexes. You also don't explain what "all things superior" is supposed to mean. You appear to assume, without basis, that paternalism is superior. But maybe you justify that claim below. Let' see...
Another unsupported assumption: democracies help persons "of questionable quality" to rise to the top, with the implication that other political systems handle things better. I suppose you're thinking of patriarchal systems again.
Most people regard democracies as bastions of free thought - far more than theocracies or other patriarchies. I guess what I'm getting at here is that you complain about western civilisation while apparently having nothing better to offer.
The concept of "unnatural" sexual selection mystifies me. What do you mean by that? You ought to be more careful using the word "unnatural" in an unqualified way like this.
This is your first mention of a supposedly "female" characteristic. Like most of the ones you claim, no justification is provided. Don't you owe it to the reader to explain why you consider that women are "simple mirrors of the world around [them]"?
A big claim, considering that you haven't explained what man's "true nature" is up to this point.
Another big claim which could do with some supporting argument.
And again. This one comes with a ready-made cop-out, since any argument to the contrary can be met with "It's true - you just don't know it". Convenient for a polemic, but not very convincing.
The female archetype
A whole bunch of big claims, and again unsupported except by your own all-seeing "experience". Every one of them can be disputed.
You continue in the same vein for this entire section, making unsupported claims about the "nature" of women. It reads almost like the rantings of a misogynist.
So, on the one hand females are powerful because they control reproduction and social conformity. And yet, the "rules" under which such conformity arises are imposed by males, apparently, since the female has no agency and merely conforms to the needs and values of the group. Quite contradictory.
Male Archetype
According to you, it is up to men to break out of the straightjacket somehow imposed on them by women, despite men being in control.
But re-reading these two "archetype" sections reveals much more about the author than the archetypes, don't you think?
Let's see. Women are:
socially dependent, superficial regarding attractiveness to the opposite sex, manipulative, lacking in individuality, tribally wishy-washy, social chameleons, have no "distinctive quality", unquestioning, submissive to "any dominant power", slaves to genetic drives, prone to adopting any value system in the immediate environment, totally devoted to "the immediately perceptible and practical".
Men, on the other hand, are:
"definers of what it means to be human" (at least some of the time), leaders, more intellectual, flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance, creative, imaginative, mentally fexible, an abstract thinker, a natural dominator, consider women "only a means to an end", need control and possession, independent and self-reliant, natural skeptics, adversaries of all that bind them, courageous, must earn respect (unlike women, who are just "born into value and importance").
None of this is new, of course. It's the kind of stuff we're heard forever and ever from defenders of the patriarchy. A simultaneous idealised admiration and fear of women. Women are either the Madonna or the whore, and yet are somehow seen as both at once. They are compliant, and yet threatening; submissive yet controlling. Freud had much to say about this kind of thing.
Let's skip to the Epilogue to save some time.
The polemic turns into a lament for what might have been. What if men had total control of society? How much happier and better adjusted it would be. Obviously, the state men are in these days is primarily women's fault.
This raises the question of what kind of society you, Satyr, would like to see in an ideal world where this unfortunate "feminization" hadn't taken hold. Perhaps that would be a good place to start your reply to this post.
I have been considering for some time now how to respond to the lengthy article you linked in the first post of this thread.
I started a reply, but then realised that to go through your piece point-by-point would take far more time than I can afford. Nevertheless, I would like to make some comments, piecemeal though they might appear to you.
The biggest problem I have with your thesis is that it makes many entirely unsupported claims. In your "disclaimer", you try to defend that by saying that it's all based on your own observations and ideas. However, by failing to back up your claims with evidence and references to other sources, you leave yourself wide open to complaints of factual inaccuracy, or just downright mistake. Overall, I think your article would be much stronger and perhaps more persuasive if you grounded it in concrete data and evidence-based findings.
But perhaps you view your article more as a polemic than as a scholarly article. Polemics are inevitably the idiosyncratic opinions of one person. The less they are based in evidence and the more they are based in opinion and personal experience, the more latitude is left for the reader to simply agree or disagree, according to his or her own inclination. Certainly, your piece reads like a polemic.
Given the lack of independent evidence you provide, I can do little here that to point out where I, as an independent reader, personally disagree with you. Since you have largely not bothered with statistics or hard "fact", I see little reason to waste my time responding with such data. Therefore, in what follows I will largely work in the confines of your own "disclaimer", and draw on my own opinion and observation. As far as I can see, you can have no particular complaint about such tone-matching.
I quote snippets of your text below.
Your definition of "human nature" is unclear to me. Commonly, human nature is taken to be primarily biologically based. Culture and socialisation sits on top of that, and is often referred to as the result of "nurture" rather than "nature". Yet you appear to conflate nature and nurture, making various statements that claim that culture and socialisation have changed "human nature", resulting in the "feminization" you complain of. A multigenerational cultural or socialisation process cannot, as far as I can see, affect "human nature", if that is defined as the biological inheritance of the species.
You see the need for co-operation among human beings within a society as "weakness". It is not immediately obvious to me why rabid individualism should be taken as a sign of strength and social behaviour as a sign of weakness. Much of your complaint about "feminization" seems to be based on this premiss, because you identify socialisation as a "feminine" trait, and therefore weak. I think you need to go back a step and explain why socialisation is a weakness in the first place.
Your assumption here is that paternalism is superior to equality of the sexes. You also don't explain what "all things superior" is supposed to mean. You appear to assume, without basis, that paternalism is superior. But maybe you justify that claim below. Let' see...
Another unsupported assumption: democracies help persons "of questionable quality" to rise to the top, with the implication that other political systems handle things better. I suppose you're thinking of patriarchal systems again.
Most people regard democracies as bastions of free thought - far more than theocracies or other patriarchies. I guess what I'm getting at here is that you complain about western civilisation while apparently having nothing better to offer.
The concept of "unnatural" sexual selection mystifies me. What do you mean by that? You ought to be more careful using the word "unnatural" in an unqualified way like this.
This is your first mention of a supposedly "female" characteristic. Like most of the ones you claim, no justification is provided. Don't you owe it to the reader to explain why you consider that women are "simple mirrors of the world around [them]"?
A big claim, considering that you haven't explained what man's "true nature" is up to this point.
Another big claim which could do with some supporting argument.
And again. This one comes with a ready-made cop-out, since any argument to the contrary can be met with "It's true - you just don't know it". Convenient for a polemic, but not very convincing.
The female archetype
A whole bunch of big claims, and again unsupported except by your own all-seeing "experience". Every one of them can be disputed.
You continue in the same vein for this entire section, making unsupported claims about the "nature" of women. It reads almost like the rantings of a misogynist.
So, on the one hand females are powerful because they control reproduction and social conformity. And yet, the "rules" under which such conformity arises are imposed by males, apparently, since the female has no agency and merely conforms to the needs and values of the group. Quite contradictory.
Male Archetype
According to you, it is up to men to break out of the straightjacket somehow imposed on them by women, despite men being in control.
But re-reading these two "archetype" sections reveals much more about the author than the archetypes, don't you think?
Let's see. Women are:
socially dependent, superficial regarding attractiveness to the opposite sex, manipulative, lacking in individuality, tribally wishy-washy, social chameleons, have no "distinctive quality", unquestioning, submissive to "any dominant power", slaves to genetic drives, prone to adopting any value system in the immediate environment, totally devoted to "the immediately perceptible and practical".
Men, on the other hand, are:
"definers of what it means to be human" (at least some of the time), leaders, more intellectual, flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance, creative, imaginative, mentally fexible, an abstract thinker, a natural dominator, consider women "only a means to an end", need control and possession, independent and self-reliant, natural skeptics, adversaries of all that bind them, courageous, must earn respect (unlike women, who are just "born into value and importance").
None of this is new, of course. It's the kind of stuff we're heard forever and ever from defenders of the patriarchy. A simultaneous idealised admiration and fear of women. Women are either the Madonna or the whore, and yet are somehow seen as both at once. They are compliant, and yet threatening; submissive yet controlling. Freud had much to say about this kind of thing.
Let's skip to the Epilogue to save some time.
The polemic turns into a lament for what might have been. What if men had total control of society? How much happier and better adjusted it would be. Obviously, the state men are in these days is primarily women's fault.
This raises the question of what kind of society you, Satyr, would like to see in an ideal world where this unfortunate "feminization" hadn't taken hold. Perhaps that would be a good place to start your reply to this post.
Wow, an actual on-topic response!!
I'm impressed!
James R
I find it interesting that all opinions, for the vast majority calling themselves free-thinkers, must gain respectability by adhering to some external authority figure, usually some institutional source.
For me the only thing my viewpoints must adhere to is common conception and experience of reproducible, consistent, predictability we call logic.
If I conceive that 'all that goes up must come down' as being a rule which exhibits a consistent predictability within a given environment then I call this logical even if no other agrees with me or there is no communal decree as to its validity.
The only validation I seek is through testing and personal observation or another's observations as they relate and correspond to my own experiences.
It is obvious that the system censors or spins any data which might result in disharmony. All data is culturally biased since all data takers influence the results in the way they ask the question and the way they interpret the results - or, perhaps in the way they are allowed to interpret them. The argument that an opinion is more 'true' based on its popularity is the biggest bias of all.
Throughout time thinkers have proposed theories and ideas that contradict and confront popular opinion and common sense.
There was a time when institutionalized science decreed the central position of the Earth in relation to other celestial bodies.
Even today the holy gospel of modern science, Newtonian Physics is under pressure to prove itself worthy of the label 'truth'.
Can you imagine a proposition which confronts the very fabric of human society and harmonious coexistence?
Speaking agaisnt established moral and cultural standards can result in quarantine, ridicule and a general economic and personal demise.
People do not like fooled or being shown to be fools.
People especially do not like having their investments in time and energy being shown to be worthless.
Society is a human investment; a very personal one.
Do you remember that Dean who dared utter the opinion that women were inferior to men in the sciences?
What messages do you think this sent to anyone even considering the option of uttering an honest remark having to do with such a culturally sensitive topic?
Imagine a Hitler's Germany allowing scientific inquiry which concluded in the equality or even superiority of the Jewish mind...or do you believe yourself more free in your own social and cultural environment?
Every system subjugates its members. The only thing that changes is the methodology and the degree.
Your Democracy isn't as free as you would like to beleive it is. Just think back to the collusion between State and Media, which became blatantly apparent during the Iraq War, and then think to yourself if other institutions are as objective or honest or ideal as you think they are or they pretend to be.
There were even a whole slew of 'scientists' who supported the notion that Global Warming was a liberal invention.
are there not 'experts' or scientists who maintain that God is a reality or a probability?
Science is not a completely objective practice, especially in modern times where science relies so much on grants and government backing.
Nevertheless the decline of the male is mentioned in many 'polemics' and in even science documents.
I remember coming across a science book dedicated to the decline of the Y-chromosome.
I present Feminization as a still subtle effect which has become obvious, and is characterized as Metrosexuality or progress or civilization or explained using multiple methods.
Another word for it is domestication, and here few would be as offended because the word lacks the personal sexual implications - sex being such an integral part of self-definition especially amongst the modern obtuse unthinking 'thinkers'.
The usage of the word 'Feminization' is made for particular reasons, such as the direct link between behavior and reproductive roles which nurture particular mind-sets not to mention certain physical forms - the two not being disconnected.
Feminine and Masculine, beyond the sexual connotations, express a way of seeing or confronting the world.
But what data do you seek?
Do you not have eyes and ears or any senses at all?
Do you always need another to do the thinking and seeing for you?
Do you just accept whatever is offered in books...like the Bible let's say?
Open your eyes to the world and analyze it.
Science is accessible to all, even if modern science has become so energy and resource demanding that few can indulge in it if they want to become experts in particular fields.
But philosophy isn't about the particular but about incorporating and assessing and constructing models of the general.
Besides your challenge is based on the false premise that science has reached some pinnacle of knowledge and unprejudiced clarity. Science has replaced religion amongst some pseudo-intellectuals.
You and I both know that scientists believed, at one time or another, what proved to be afterwards erroneous, and you and I know that every age creates its own particular brand of science.
If by evidence you mean pieces of information which have been approved and expressed by what you deem reliable sources then no, I do not provide 'evidence'. I provide arguments and a position derived from my personal analysis and exploration.
If you think it is 'philosophy' ot occupy yourself with what others thought or said, then go for it.
Yuo are, then, but a regurgitating parrot - a sophist pretending he is thinknig by repeating what another has said in exactly the same way and suing his arguments and 'evidence'.
But if by 'evidence' you mean information that is readily and immediately available to you, as it is to me, as a seeing thinknig human being, then I provide much evidence. Although I beleive that if I applied myself I can provide the 'evidence' you need since there is supposedly scientific 'evidence' supporting anything from alien abductions to God in this information age full of experts and individuals with degrees.
If you look around you and you cannot perceive a general change in attitudes, caused by cultural forces, or you do not perceive a difference in mental and psychological qualities between men and women then so be it.
live within that world and then wonder at the 'mystery' of the 'fine sex'.
My positions are based on deductive and inductive reasoning.
Appearance is a fact. It says something about what appears; an interpretation of the apparent. It hides nothing, for to assume that it does is to imagine that there is more to what appears.
Any differences speaks of a difference in essence.
There is no illusion or duplicity only more or less accurate interpretations of the apparent.
All differences are not accidental nor are they superficial. There is no mind/body separation; one is an extension of the other.
Also, nature is not wasteful; it does not create for only aesthetic effect and it is not redundant.
All natural manifestations serve a purpose and are a product of necessity.
Therefore the physical differences between men and women are not superficial nor are they insignificant enough so as to be considered unimportant.
If science has adequately explored or wants to explore, for obvious cultural reasons, these differences is another matter.
I see them in practice daily and I don't require a graph, unlike you, to notice them or to consider them seriously and beyond my cultural and social prejudices.
I do not suppose more than what is apparent.
I do not suppose an equality of 'nothingness', nor beginnings or ends, nor a One, an absolute, where there is only perceived multiplicity and variations of it.
If you come to the debate with some desired concept of Oneness then you come to the table prejudiced by your need.
The concept of 'free-will' designates a separation a cutting away from this past...an indifference - independence.
To free yourself, for example, from the implications and determinations of your sexual identity you would have to become indifferent from the entire past that necessitated it; you would have to break away from sex altogether.
You would have to go beyond your own nature. Let us avoid falling into a discussion if this is possible at all.
The moment you accept your past as defining your present you accept your essence as it is determined by it.
Our species shares a biological and environmental background which results in common behaviors and attitudes, even if we delude ourselves that we are somehow unique or above nature.
I've found, in my own experience, that those proclaiming their own uniqueness or humanity the most are the least worthy of using any of these concepts to describe themselves.
As such human nature is a product of natural environments as opposed to environments where human intervention has sublimated or redirected or suppressed certain elements and nurtured, glorified and promoted others.
The environments after human intervention I call "artificial" knowing that all which appears is natural.
My designation is based on specific criteria.
That which is powerful, within a given environment, does not require to adapt or to change or to compromise.
The individual organism that requires another's support must be unable to dominate or to support itself on its own. All interactions require a compromise a tolerance of the other, and so a suppression of those aspects of self that may be threatening or detrimental to the other accepting and tolerating us.
Therefore all social behavior is both a result on weakness, a lack to cope on one's own, and requires a supression, a sacrifice of self.
This part of self that is sacrificed is the masculine part in both men and women, but given the fact that females have evolved with less of this masculine antagonism and uncompromising resistance, they are more adaptable or easily integrated - they more easily suppress or sublimate what masculine traits they possess to the degree that they posses them.
Here the superior is simply that which exhibits traits which are above or exceed the average.
The trend here is towards mediocrity, but since comparison never ceases the trend is endlessly towards the common denominator and the eradication of anything that is not average or common - the different which offers an advantage.
It is this advantage that is constantly erased so that those that do not posses it can feel safe and equal to those that do.
It is this mental or physical advantage, inequality, which destabilizes unities.
Temporality is this inequality resulting in constant flow and change.
In essence this drive to harmonization is a drive towards thew non-existent absolute or perfect or stable.
All votes are equal, no matter that the vast majority of them are produced by ignorant, stupid individuals. You have many of them participating in this forum and in this thread.
Integration and social harmony supersedes any other consideration.
you, as a mediator, attempt to erase or prevent any exhibitions of de-harmonizing conflict, using unacceptable social methods.
this, you do, to include as many members as possible within the forum and the conversation, for obvious reasons.
So, your role is to protect the weak and vulnerable or fragile or stupid from harasment or the reality of their own quality.
You do this by preventing certain expressions of superiority and by promoting civility, which is nothing but censorship and control.
By doing this you lower the level of the forum. more and more imbeciles feel safe in expressing any stupidity they find rational and you enforce a hypocritical respect towards them, thusly increasing participation by increasing mediocrity.
Anything that even hints at a difference in potential or quality is eradicated or degraded or ignored.
The races become the same and the sexes likewise.
All is leveled to produce social and cultural harmony.
The only difference allowed is that of productivity or 'goodness' using cultural standards.
Even the testing, evaluating and 'scientific methodology' conforms to a testing that does not exclude but includes.
Here the focus is more on the similarities rather than any possible differences.
The motive is clear and it is driven by a culturally defined moral imperative.
If we take Sarte at his word and consider consciousness as a negative process where identity is found through negation then this drive towards non-negativity is a counter-consciousness one.
The less conscious a mind is made the more inclusive, tolerant and willing to encompass all within the label of' Self, it is.
The loss of individuality.
The mind is made stupid and less self-aware so as to become more malleable. Then its identity is determined exclusively by what Heidegger called Otherness.
To a clever mind all environments are equal.
Let us also consider if what we refer to as 'democracy' is actually a democracy and not a plutocracy hiding behind a dead ideal.
Let us also consider what necessitated the emergence of democracy and in what social unities is it more effective.
Blind, ignorant, romantic idealism does not result in clarity and wisdom, it results in delusion and error and slavery.
When man intervenes to alter natural selection for the sake of integration, assimilation and group harmony then it is logical to assume that it takes primordial, instinctive drives and diverts them or represses or sublimates them, to create an ideal...a meme.
Gene contra Meme.
In human environments, particularly in the west, the concept of survival of the fittest has been replaced by survival of the wealthiest or weakest.
Here fitness, even biological quality, has been abstracted and equated with the concept of money or property or an ideal citizen of 'healthy' individual that simply adapts by not resisting to whatever the environment provides.
This slight change results in great psychological and social consequences.
Women are more passive or exhibit certain character traits because of their biological sexual reproductive roles.
That our species split into male/female at all proves a need for different roles in this area. Different roles supposes or necessitates different physical forms and potentials but also, and here the majority find offense, mental ones.
That mental attributes just as physical ones are not as clear cut, often exhibiting divergence, does not disprove the fact that there is a distinct diversion between the sexes.
That certain women look or think more like men does not disprove the thesis, it only reinforces it by alluding to an average female nature which is other than an average male nature, just like the fact that there are very tall women disproves that males are on average taller than women.
Also, I do not mention that females do not posses the masculine traits I see being eliminated.
The disclaimer makes this clear.
This, males attempt to control, either by force or by seduction or by moral or institutional authority - indoctrination.
In fact civilization is based on this male desire to control female sexual power.
A female is a means to an end.
Where's the contradiction, except within your needy mind?
Did you read the essay?
Must I draw the lines for you?
I thought it was made clear in my essay that society depends on integrating as many individuals into its unity. This includes the rambunctious and rebellious males.
How do you accomplish this?
You must offer them reproductive possibility; the key to accessing this possibility being their submission to a cultural and social norm.
How?
You subjugate female sexual choice using morality and institutions such as marriage and cultural ideals such as monogamy and you 'educate', train, indoctrinate females with a cultural ideal they then become genetic filters for - they become tools of conformity.
Women are but followers in this competition - both the reward and the means.
This competition results in the demise of males, as a byproduct.
I can go into why and how this happens if you like and at another time.
These male traits are being eradicated from females, as well.
Listen all human creativity and thinking and activity is a product of need.
The extent that this need controls or clouds this activity determines its subjectivity.
If you assert that your opininos are less subjective than mine then let us test this assertion.
Interesting that nobody can say anything negative about women without being accused of prejudice or fear or or illness or some sexual dysfunction.
It's a cultural method of censorship.
Fall into line or your mental and physical health will be questioned and aspersions will be cast agaisnt your manhood.
If this doesn't work then you will be isolated.
What did you say about science and democracy again?!
Who fears women?
I find them simple and funny and sometimes more fun than males.
But if you would like to challenge my views by simply using this old and worn out method then go for it.
Fascinating.
Secondly all social interactions necessitate a degree of feminization.
I think we've covered the ground where all social behavior is a symptom of inadequacy and weakness in relation to an environment - a necessary for survival compromise.
Thirdly I believe I've mentioned in the past my ideal society being that of Timocracy.
It is the system the Greeks lived under before Democracy.
I'm impressed!
James R
Philosophy rarely deals with statistics. It incorporates an awareness into a model as it relates to external phenomena. Philosophy is personal as it expresses a personal point of view with that of another or with a common experience.
I find it interesting that all opinions, for the vast majority calling themselves free-thinkers, must gain respectability by adhering to some external authority figure, usually some institutional source.
For me the only thing my viewpoints must adhere to is common conception and experience of reproducible, consistent, predictability we call logic.
If I conceive that 'all that goes up must come down' as being a rule which exhibits a consistent predictability within a given environment then I call this logical even if no other agrees with me or there is no communal decree as to its validity.
The only validation I seek is through testing and personal observation or another's observations as they relate and correspond to my own experiences.
It is obvious that the system censors or spins any data which might result in disharmony. All data is culturally biased since all data takers influence the results in the way they ask the question and the way they interpret the results - or, perhaps in the way they are allowed to interpret them. The argument that an opinion is more 'true' based on its popularity is the biggest bias of all.
Throughout time thinkers have proposed theories and ideas that contradict and confront popular opinion and common sense.
There was a time when institutionalized science decreed the central position of the Earth in relation to other celestial bodies.
Even today the holy gospel of modern science, Newtonian Physics is under pressure to prove itself worthy of the label 'truth'.
Can you imagine a proposition which confronts the very fabric of human society and harmonious coexistence?
Speaking agaisnt established moral and cultural standards can result in quarantine, ridicule and a general economic and personal demise.
People do not like fooled or being shown to be fools.
People especially do not like having their investments in time and energy being shown to be worthless.
Society is a human investment; a very personal one.
Do you remember that Dean who dared utter the opinion that women were inferior to men in the sciences?
What messages do you think this sent to anyone even considering the option of uttering an honest remark having to do with such a culturally sensitive topic?
Imagine a Hitler's Germany allowing scientific inquiry which concluded in the equality or even superiority of the Jewish mind...or do you believe yourself more free in your own social and cultural environment?
Every system subjugates its members. The only thing that changes is the methodology and the degree.
Your Democracy isn't as free as you would like to beleive it is. Just think back to the collusion between State and Media, which became blatantly apparent during the Iraq War, and then think to yourself if other institutions are as objective or honest or ideal as you think they are or they pretend to be.
There were even a whole slew of 'scientists' who supported the notion that Global Warming was a liberal invention.
are there not 'experts' or scientists who maintain that God is a reality or a probability?
Science is not a completely objective practice, especially in modern times where science relies so much on grants and government backing.
Nevertheless the decline of the male is mentioned in many 'polemics' and in even science documents.
I remember coming across a science book dedicated to the decline of the Y-chromosome.
I present Feminization as a still subtle effect which has become obvious, and is characterized as Metrosexuality or progress or civilization or explained using multiple methods.
Another word for it is domestication, and here few would be as offended because the word lacks the personal sexual implications - sex being such an integral part of self-definition especially amongst the modern obtuse unthinking 'thinkers'.
The usage of the word 'Feminization' is made for particular reasons, such as the direct link between behavior and reproductive roles which nurture particular mind-sets not to mention certain physical forms - the two not being disconnected.
Feminine and Masculine, beyond the sexual connotations, express a way of seeing or confronting the world.
But what data do you seek?
Do you not have eyes and ears or any senses at all?
Do you always need another to do the thinking and seeing for you?
Do you just accept whatever is offered in books...like the Bible let's say?
Open your eyes to the world and analyze it.
Science is accessible to all, even if modern science has become so energy and resource demanding that few can indulge in it if they want to become experts in particular fields.
But philosophy isn't about the particular but about incorporating and assessing and constructing models of the general.
Besides your challenge is based on the false premise that science has reached some pinnacle of knowledge and unprejudiced clarity. Science has replaced religion amongst some pseudo-intellectuals.
You and I both know that scientists believed, at one time or another, what proved to be afterwards erroneous, and you and I know that every age creates its own particular brand of science.
It all depends on how you define the word "evidence".
If by evidence you mean pieces of information which have been approved and expressed by what you deem reliable sources then no, I do not provide 'evidence'. I provide arguments and a position derived from my personal analysis and exploration.
If you think it is 'philosophy' ot occupy yourself with what others thought or said, then go for it.
Yuo are, then, but a regurgitating parrot - a sophist pretending he is thinknig by repeating what another has said in exactly the same way and suing his arguments and 'evidence'.
But if by 'evidence' you mean information that is readily and immediately available to you, as it is to me, as a seeing thinknig human being, then I provide much evidence. Although I beleive that if I applied myself I can provide the 'evidence' you need since there is supposedly scientific 'evidence' supporting anything from alien abductions to God in this information age full of experts and individuals with degrees.
If you look around you and you cannot perceive a general change in attitudes, caused by cultural forces, or you do not perceive a difference in mental and psychological qualities between men and women then so be it.
live within that world and then wonder at the 'mystery' of the 'fine sex'.
My positions are based on deductive and inductive reasoning.
Appearance is a fact. It says something about what appears; an interpretation of the apparent. It hides nothing, for to assume that it does is to imagine that there is more to what appears.
Any differences speaks of a difference in essence.
There is no illusion or duplicity only more or less accurate interpretations of the apparent.
All differences are not accidental nor are they superficial. There is no mind/body separation; one is an extension of the other.
Also, nature is not wasteful; it does not create for only aesthetic effect and it is not redundant.
All natural manifestations serve a purpose and are a product of necessity.
Therefore the physical differences between men and women are not superficial nor are they insignificant enough so as to be considered unimportant.
If science has adequately explored or wants to explore, for obvious cultural reasons, these differences is another matter.
I see them in practice daily and I don't require a graph, unlike you, to notice them or to consider them seriously and beyond my cultural and social prejudices.
I do not suppose more than what is apparent.
I do not suppose an equality of 'nothingness', nor beginnings or ends, nor a One, an absolute, where there is only perceived multiplicity and variations of it.
If you come to the debate with some desired concept of Oneness then you come to the table prejudiced by your need.
Human nature, as with any nature, is a product of a historical background - it is the sum of a phenomenon's past.
The concept of 'free-will' designates a separation a cutting away from this past...an indifference - independence.
To free yourself, for example, from the implications and determinations of your sexual identity you would have to become indifferent from the entire past that necessitated it; you would have to break away from sex altogether.
You would have to go beyond your own nature. Let us avoid falling into a discussion if this is possible at all.
The moment you accept your past as defining your present you accept your essence as it is determined by it.
Our species shares a biological and environmental background which results in common behaviors and attitudes, even if we delude ourselves that we are somehow unique or above nature.
I've found, in my own experience, that those proclaiming their own uniqueness or humanity the most are the least worthy of using any of these concepts to describe themselves.
As such human nature is a product of natural environments as opposed to environments where human intervention has sublimated or redirected or suppressed certain elements and nurtured, glorified and promoted others.
The environments after human intervention I call "artificial" knowing that all which appears is natural.
My designation is based on specific criteria.
My conclusions and reasoning is easy to follow.
That which is powerful, within a given environment, does not require to adapt or to change or to compromise.
The individual organism that requires another's support must be unable to dominate or to support itself on its own. All interactions require a compromise a tolerance of the other, and so a suppression of those aspects of self that may be threatening or detrimental to the other accepting and tolerating us.
Therefore all social behavior is both a result on weakness, a lack to cope on one's own, and requires a supression, a sacrifice of self.
This part of self that is sacrificed is the masculine part in both men and women, but given the fact that females have evolved with less of this masculine antagonism and uncompromising resistance, they are more adaptable or easily integrated - they more easily suppress or sublimate what masculine traits they possess to the degree that they posses them.
All value judgments are comparisons. Sometimes comparisons of one individual, one unity with another or with a perceived average.
Here the superior is simply that which exhibits traits which are above or exceed the average.
The trend here is towards mediocrity, but since comparison never ceases the trend is endlessly towards the common denominator and the eradication of anything that is not average or common - the different which offers an advantage.
It is this advantage that is constantly erased so that those that do not posses it can feel safe and equal to those that do.
It is this mental or physical advantage, inequality, which destabilizes unities.
Temporality is this inequality resulting in constant flow and change.
In essence this drive to harmonization is a drive towards thew non-existent absolute or perfect or stable.
Democracies equate the average with the desirable.
All votes are equal, no matter that the vast majority of them are produced by ignorant, stupid individuals. You have many of them participating in this forum and in this thread.
Integration and social harmony supersedes any other consideration.
you, as a mediator, attempt to erase or prevent any exhibitions of de-harmonizing conflict, using unacceptable social methods.
this, you do, to include as many members as possible within the forum and the conversation, for obvious reasons.
So, your role is to protect the weak and vulnerable or fragile or stupid from harasment or the reality of their own quality.
You do this by preventing certain expressions of superiority and by promoting civility, which is nothing but censorship and control.
By doing this you lower the level of the forum. more and more imbeciles feel safe in expressing any stupidity they find rational and you enforce a hypocritical respect towards them, thusly increasing participation by increasing mediocrity.
Anything that even hints at a difference in potential or quality is eradicated or degraded or ignored.
The races become the same and the sexes likewise.
All is leveled to produce social and cultural harmony.
The only difference allowed is that of productivity or 'goodness' using cultural standards.
Even the testing, evaluating and 'scientific methodology' conforms to a testing that does not exclude but includes.
Here the focus is more on the similarities rather than any possible differences.
The motive is clear and it is driven by a culturally defined moral imperative.
If we take Sarte at his word and consider consciousness as a negative process where identity is found through negation then this drive towards non-negativity is a counter-consciousness one.
The less conscious a mind is made the more inclusive, tolerant and willing to encompass all within the label of' Self, it is.
The loss of individuality.
The mind is made stupid and less self-aware so as to become more malleable. Then its identity is determined exclusively by what Heidegger called Otherness.
True, but we aren't talking about a change in regime here, but we are analyzing the one we prefer, because of habituation, to find its negatives and imperfections so as to become more aware of its methods and motives and so become more free within it.
To a clever mind all environments are equal.
Let us also consider if what we refer to as 'democracy' is actually a democracy and not a plutocracy hiding behind a dead ideal.
Let us also consider what necessitated the emergence of democracy and in what social unities is it more effective.
Blind, ignorant, romantic idealism does not result in clarity and wisdom, it results in delusion and error and slavery.
I've already alluded to my definition of what is 'artificial' or 'unnatural'.
When man intervenes to alter natural selection for the sake of integration, assimilation and group harmony then it is logical to assume that it takes primordial, instinctive drives and diverts them or represses or sublimates them, to create an ideal...a meme.
Gene contra Meme.
In human environments, particularly in the west, the concept of survival of the fittest has been replaced by survival of the wealthiest or weakest.
Here fitness, even biological quality, has been abstracted and equated with the concept of money or property or an ideal citizen of 'healthy' individual that simply adapts by not resisting to whatever the environment provides.
This slight change results in great psychological and social consequences.
I believe I explain it in the essay itself.
Women are more passive or exhibit certain character traits because of their biological sexual reproductive roles.
That our species split into male/female at all proves a need for different roles in this area. Different roles supposes or necessitates different physical forms and potentials but also, and here the majority find offense, mental ones.
That mental attributes just as physical ones are not as clear cut, often exhibiting divergence, does not disprove the fact that there is a distinct diversion between the sexes.
That certain women look or think more like men does not disprove the thesis, it only reinforces it by alluding to an average female nature which is other than an average male nature, just like the fact that there are very tall women disproves that males are on average taller than women.
Also, I do not mention that females do not posses the masculine traits I see being eliminated.
The disclaimer makes this clear.
Females are powerful biologically because they control who fertilizes their precious ovum and whose offspring they gestate and nurture.
This, males attempt to control, either by force or by seduction or by moral or institutional authority - indoctrination.
In fact civilization is based on this male desire to control female sexual power.
A female is a means to an end.
Where's the contradiction, except within your needy mind?
Did you read the essay?
Must I draw the lines for you?
I thought it was made clear in my essay that society depends on integrating as many individuals into its unity. This includes the rambunctious and rebellious males.
How do you accomplish this?
You must offer them reproductive possibility; the key to accessing this possibility being their submission to a cultural and social norm.
How?
You subjugate female sexual choice using morality and institutions such as marriage and cultural ideals such as monogamy and you 'educate', train, indoctrinate females with a cultural ideal they then become genetic filters for - they become tools of conformity.
Males only compete with other males as to who defines what is 'truth' and what is 'moral' and what is 'good' and what is 'just'.
Women are but followers in this competition - both the reward and the means.
This competition results in the demise of males, as a byproduct.
I can go into why and how this happens if you like and at another time.
This is where you are still influenced by the absolute female/male dichotomy.
These male traits are being eradicated from females, as well.
Yes of course, all this is a product of fear whereas your opposition is not.
Listen all human creativity and thinking and activity is a product of need.
The extent that this need controls or clouds this activity determines its subjectivity.
If you assert that your opininos are less subjective than mine then let us test this assertion.
Interesting that nobody can say anything negative about women without being accused of prejudice or fear or or illness or some sexual dysfunction.
It's a cultural method of censorship.
Fall into line or your mental and physical health will be questioned and aspersions will be cast agaisnt your manhood.
If this doesn't work then you will be isolated.
What did you say about science and democracy again?!
Who fears women?
I find them simple and funny and sometimes more fun than males.
But if you would like to challenge my views by simply using this old and worn out method then go for it.
Is that what you got from it?
Fascinating.
First of all there is no ideal society.
Secondly all social interactions necessitate a degree of feminization.
I think we've covered the ground where all social behavior is a symptom of inadequacy and weakness in relation to an environment - a necessary for survival compromise.
Thirdly I believe I've mentioned in the past my ideal society being that of Timocracy.
It is the system the Greeks lived under before Democracy.
Last edited:
Satyr get off the feminism.
Does it make you superior to think about feminism.
Get off the philosophy.
Quit thinking about how feminism and feminazation of man is going to affect man kind.
If you have the answer you would not be spreading it.
I think.
It's bizare.
Express it clearly.
Point form.
This is why feminism is going to take hold.
Feminism is going to show how the feminazation of man is actual.
Feminization of man is something necessary to society.
Instead of getting caught up in very lengthy posts about a disentegration of man or whatever.
Care to explain?
Does it make you superior to think about feminism.
Get off the philosophy.
Quit thinking about how feminism and feminazation of man is going to affect man kind.
If you have the answer you would not be spreading it.
I think.
It's bizare.
Express it clearly.
Point form.
This is why feminism is going to take hold.
Feminism is going to show how the feminazation of man is actual.
Feminization of man is something necessary to society.
Instead of getting caught up in very lengthy posts about a disentegration of man or whatever.
Care to explain?
There is another rather strange study about this subject. Studies have shown that western males are producing less sperms and less teststerone due to contaminations in water and household products by traces of estrogen. Biolgists have also traced this general decrease in male hormones to some animals, including wild animals. The future of man seems dim. By 2080, western countries will be shipping their sperm from Africa and the Middle East.
If the subject does not interest you then do not open this thread or must ....shut....the....fuck....up.
Knowing when not to speak is also a sign of intelligence.
Oh, I think you and this entire forum has gotten "off philosophy" for a long time now.
How is this an 'intelligent community' then?
In name only, I suppose.
A forum where idiots can gather, pretending that their interested in intellectual discourse when they just want to shoot-da-shit and pick up chicks, or maybe just to pretend like they are smart.
A very popular forum, granted, but intelligent? Hardly. The very thing that makes it popular is what makes it stupid.
Sorry, did I disturb your nap time, precious?
Had what "answer", moron?
Is that what you call this mind-stew of feces and retardation you are slowly cooking?
Bon apetit.
Ah, so you don't get it....is that it?
Too bad, precious...it's not meant for you then. Go back to playing with your balls and talking about it with your friends.
Are you giving me homework?
Watching you think, I believe it's a bit too late for the future tense.
And what a perfect example, you make.
After peta9, you are a precious specimen.
Indeed.
I thought I had. :shrug:
Oh well, I guess talking down to you must get even lower so that the average dork on this sight can even try to pretend to understand.
Hey, where's Ballsy to protect you from your own stupidity?
Too busy with her own, I suppose.
Ah Ballsy...what an ignorant, stupid cunt you are.
I think this forum suits you.
I don't know what this means but I'm sure than in your little mind it's a 'good point'.
Chatha
Yes...well not exactly what I was talking about but close enough.
God I love this forum.
Last edited:
the feminization of men is not needed in society, just like the masculinization (put that in your dictionary) of women is not needed or wise for that matter in society.
nature functions perfectly well the way it is, it has taken millions of years to cultivate our feminine and masculine traits. now we have got to a stage where the weak try to justify screwing up natures craftsmanship, by trying to inflict a position upon males to be less masculine. modern society protects the weak and punishes the strong. which in-turn will only result in our species turning into a pile of crap, that cannot defend itself or support strong traits to pass on through the gene pools.
women are being effected as much as men in this case, women are supposed to seek out masculine strong males who ooze testosterone. so that they can pass on strong seeds into further generations of mankind. the law is the biggest problem with this, because the strong do not run our society, it is run by the weak and stupid, then elected by the idiots. survival of the fittest is what drives nature and reproduction in the animal kingdom. not anymore though it would seem, the weak are allowed to survive and protected by mass amounts of laws, where the strong are suppressed and told to act like the weak.
peace.
nature functions perfectly well the way it is, it has taken millions of years to cultivate our feminine and masculine traits. now we have got to a stage where the weak try to justify screwing up natures craftsmanship, by trying to inflict a position upon males to be less masculine. modern society protects the weak and punishes the strong. which in-turn will only result in our species turning into a pile of crap, that cannot defend itself or support strong traits to pass on through the gene pools.
women are being effected as much as men in this case, women are supposed to seek out masculine strong males who ooze testosterone. so that they can pass on strong seeds into further generations of mankind. the law is the biggest problem with this, because the strong do not run our society, it is run by the weak and stupid, then elected by the idiots. survival of the fittest is what drives nature and reproduction in the animal kingdom. not anymore though it would seem, the weak are allowed to survive and protected by mass amounts of laws, where the strong are suppressed and told to act like the weak.
peace.
Empty:
No. You've missed the gist of what Satyr is saying, probably because you don't have the patience to read long essay.
A rough summary (correct me if I'm wrong, Satyr): As population size increases, feminization of men is required in order to maintain social stability and cohesion. This is because masculine traits (individualism, rebelliousness, assertiveness, aggression, curiousity, an adventurous nature) destabilize social groups, whereas feminine 'passive' traits (most importantly, the willingness to assimilate) have a stabilizing effect.
No. You've missed the gist of what Satyr is saying, probably because you don't have the patience to read long essay.
A rough summary (correct me if I'm wrong, Satyr): As population size increases, feminization of men is required in order to maintain social stability and cohesion. This is because masculine traits (individualism, rebelliousness, assertiveness, aggression, curiousity, an adventurous nature) destabilize social groups, whereas feminine 'passive' traits (most importantly, the willingness to assimilate) have a stabilizing effect.
i missed nothing, i read his paper start to end ages ago, it is a very good piece of work.
the feminization of man is not needed alongside population growth. the only stability it needs is enough women and men living alongside each other. we need women to be women, and men to be men simple as that. when you start to assimilate men as women and women as men, thats when problems will arise.
why should we ever require men to act like women, and women to act like men?. social stability works when people are not made to act like something they are not. which i think satyr agrees with.
peace.
Satyr:
It's more a case of comparing and differentiating yourself from what has gone before. By making yourself aware of the kinds of arguments that have been made before, you will know if what you are proposing is original thought or just a re-hash of something that others have said before. Potentially, you waste time reinventing the wheel, instead of skipping to the forefront of knowledge and debate.
Personally, I find little if anything in your essay that expresses an original point of view. To me, it reads like any average nineteenth century "scientific" treatise trying to establish how and why the woman and the "feminine" is inferior to the male and masculine. The only difference is that in the 21st century the desire of certain males to put women in their place has become more urgent and desperate, since women are increasing demonstrating by their activities and achievements and positions in society that the old 19th century arguments were fatally flawed.
You make this kind of claim at several points in your response. You argue that the "system" puts down your views, and that anybody holding an opposing view must be merely indoctrinated by the "system". You appear to be unable to accept that anybody might reach an opposing point of view through the same processes you claim you employed - rational thought, observation of the world. No, it can only be that they are blinded by their acculturation, while you are the only one who sees clearly. Does this not seem just a little, well, fanatical to you?
It's far too easy to answer every objection with "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? He is a slave to the consensual morality and cultural ethos of his environment, whereas I alone can see beyond the 'system'."
This is why I think you need to ground your arguments in something other than your own presumed authority.
For example:
You imply that I would be incapable of imagining such a thing. I get the impression you imagine all the world is complacent and unseeing, except for you. Certainly, the contempt you show for other people on this forum is a sign that you've practically stopped listening to see if somebody else might have a thought worthy of your consideration. It's so much easier to assume that everybody else is stupid and beneath your contempt than to actually engage with them.
Do you really think I am unaware of these things? Do you think you're the only one who can see flaws in American democracy, or in global warming "skepticism" or in scientific practice? I think you underestimate the number of smart, well-educated people there are.
Did you read the book, or just the back cover? I hope you did not simply assume the reasons the book gives are the same as yours.
You're being patronising again. What makes you think I don't look at the world like you do, and yet see something different? What makes you think I don't do my own thinking? What makes you think I defer to "authorities" such as the bible?
You need to realise that you are not the only seeing man in a world of the blind. That's just ego.
Insults now? Let's not return to that modus operandi, ok? It's not a good look.
And what of the person who imagines himself to be saying something original, when all he is doing is repeating things that have been discussed and debated by many great minds before?
History repeats itself. It is easy to assume that things must be different in the lifetime you personally have experienced than they were in the past. Every generation considers itself to be the inventor of human nature. The truth is, human nature doesn't change that rapidly.
The differences between men and women, male and female thinking and inclinations, is a huge area of scientific enquiry. If you imagine that such research is not done for reasons of "political correctness" or similar, then you need only read a few medical journals to be quickly disabused of that idea.
On the other hand, it could be argued that organisms which are capable of surviving on their own can thrive by engaging in cooperation with similar (or even different) organisms. Individual "domination" is not the only possibility for "domination", if that is your ideal. A group is often far more effective at "dominating" than any single individual; you admit as much in other parts of your argument.
Cooperating involves some sacrifice, as you say, but I question your assumption that any loss of autonomy is necessarily a diminution of the individual. I don't hold, as you do, that the individual is the be-all and end-all. Moreover, I disagree with you that individualism and collectivism are traits that can be easily split along gender lines.
So, if women are more collectivist, then they are "superior" in that? Or does superiority only apply to male traits?
Surely half of all people are of above-average intelligence. How, then, can you conclude that the "vast majority" of votes are produced by ignorant, "stupid" individuals? How smart is smart enough, in your opinion?
Actually, I see my role here not so much as protecting individuals as in protecting the quality of the content, in terms of discussion and debate.
Some people seem to think being able to insult others and belittle is an expression of superiority. I disagree. Is there "control" here? Yes, certainly. This is not anarchy.com. I think it results in a superior forum.
A forum is kind of a mini-society, so you can draw the appropriate analogies from this concerning what I think about the wider world and its similar "controls".
Regarding quality, I would argue that it is only the worst-"quality" contributions that are removed, which ought to up the average level.
You appear to be advocating a moral system that equates to "survival of the fittest", a kind of social Darwinism. People who advocate such a system generally consider the "weak" to be expendable, as perhaps you do yourself. Human "constructions" such as compassion and mercy may seem to be "lesser" traits to you, but I take a different view. Thankfully, social Darwinists are in the minority. I fervently hope they always will be.
The split into male/female occurred long before our species was on the horizon, and it had nothing to do with roles. Sex is just a good way to promote genetic diversity and robustness.
Along the same lines, it could be argued that a male is just a means to an end for a woman.
Your whole argument is one of privileging a male point of view above the female, and I admit I can't see any compelling reason to do so. Probably it's because I'm indoctrinated.
I assert that you have made a simple error of fact here.
You're the one drawing a dichotomy, not me. It's your list.
On the contrary, I explicitly said in my previous post that I would respond with my subjective reaction to your subjective thesis.
It could be. But it could also be an accurate assessment.
We can only decide on a case-by-case basis. Right?
The sad fact is that there are too many examples to count where a sexist male turns out indeed to have mental and/or physical health issues that feed into his attitudes.
timocracy:
1. A state in which the love of honour is the ruling motive
2. A state in which honours are distributed according to a rating of property
Care to elaborate?
It's more a case of comparing and differentiating yourself from what has gone before. By making yourself aware of the kinds of arguments that have been made before, you will know if what you are proposing is original thought or just a re-hash of something that others have said before. Potentially, you waste time reinventing the wheel, instead of skipping to the forefront of knowledge and debate.
Personally, I find little if anything in your essay that expresses an original point of view. To me, it reads like any average nineteenth century "scientific" treatise trying to establish how and why the woman and the "feminine" is inferior to the male and masculine. The only difference is that in the 21st century the desire of certain males to put women in their place has become more urgent and desperate, since women are increasing demonstrating by their activities and achievements and positions in society that the old 19th century arguments were fatally flawed.
You make this kind of claim at several points in your response. You argue that the "system" puts down your views, and that anybody holding an opposing view must be merely indoctrinated by the "system". You appear to be unable to accept that anybody might reach an opposing point of view through the same processes you claim you employed - rational thought, observation of the world. No, it can only be that they are blinded by their acculturation, while you are the only one who sees clearly. Does this not seem just a little, well, fanatical to you?
It's far too easy to answer every objection with "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? He is a slave to the consensual morality and cultural ethos of his environment, whereas I alone can see beyond the 'system'."
This is why I think you need to ground your arguments in something other than your own presumed authority.
For example:
You imply that I would be incapable of imagining such a thing. I get the impression you imagine all the world is complacent and unseeing, except for you. Certainly, the contempt you show for other people on this forum is a sign that you've practically stopped listening to see if somebody else might have a thought worthy of your consideration. It's so much easier to assume that everybody else is stupid and beneath your contempt than to actually engage with them.
Do you really think I am unaware of these things? Do you think you're the only one who can see flaws in American democracy, or in global warming "skepticism" or in scientific practice? I think you underestimate the number of smart, well-educated people there are.
Did you read the book, or just the back cover? I hope you did not simply assume the reasons the book gives are the same as yours.
You're being patronising again. What makes you think I don't look at the world like you do, and yet see something different? What makes you think I don't do my own thinking? What makes you think I defer to "authorities" such as the bible?
You need to realise that you are not the only seeing man in a world of the blind. That's just ego.
Insults now? Let's not return to that modus operandi, ok? It's not a good look.
And what of the person who imagines himself to be saying something original, when all he is doing is repeating things that have been discussed and debated by many great minds before?
History repeats itself. It is easy to assume that things must be different in the lifetime you personally have experienced than they were in the past. Every generation considers itself to be the inventor of human nature. The truth is, human nature doesn't change that rapidly.
The differences between men and women, male and female thinking and inclinations, is a huge area of scientific enquiry. If you imagine that such research is not done for reasons of "political correctness" or similar, then you need only read a few medical journals to be quickly disabused of that idea.
On the other hand, it could be argued that organisms which are capable of surviving on their own can thrive by engaging in cooperation with similar (or even different) organisms. Individual "domination" is not the only possibility for "domination", if that is your ideal. A group is often far more effective at "dominating" than any single individual; you admit as much in other parts of your argument.
Cooperating involves some sacrifice, as you say, but I question your assumption that any loss of autonomy is necessarily a diminution of the individual. I don't hold, as you do, that the individual is the be-all and end-all. Moreover, I disagree with you that individualism and collectivism are traits that can be easily split along gender lines.
So, if women are more collectivist, then they are "superior" in that? Or does superiority only apply to male traits?
Surely half of all people are of above-average intelligence. How, then, can you conclude that the "vast majority" of votes are produced by ignorant, "stupid" individuals? How smart is smart enough, in your opinion?
Actually, I see my role here not so much as protecting individuals as in protecting the quality of the content, in terms of discussion and debate.
Some people seem to think being able to insult others and belittle is an expression of superiority. I disagree. Is there "control" here? Yes, certainly. This is not anarchy.com. I think it results in a superior forum.
A forum is kind of a mini-society, so you can draw the appropriate analogies from this concerning what I think about the wider world and its similar "controls".
Regarding quality, I would argue that it is only the worst-"quality" contributions that are removed, which ought to up the average level.
You appear to be advocating a moral system that equates to "survival of the fittest", a kind of social Darwinism. People who advocate such a system generally consider the "weak" to be expendable, as perhaps you do yourself. Human "constructions" such as compassion and mercy may seem to be "lesser" traits to you, but I take a different view. Thankfully, social Darwinists are in the minority. I fervently hope they always will be.
The split into male/female occurred long before our species was on the horizon, and it had nothing to do with roles. Sex is just a good way to promote genetic diversity and robustness.
Along the same lines, it could be argued that a male is just a means to an end for a woman.
Your whole argument is one of privileging a male point of view above the female, and I admit I can't see any compelling reason to do so. Probably it's because I'm indoctrinated.
I assert that you have made a simple error of fact here.
You're the one drawing a dichotomy, not me. It's your list.
On the contrary, I explicitly said in my previous post that I would respond with my subjective reaction to your subjective thesis.
It could be. But it could also be an accurate assessment.
We can only decide on a case-by-case basis. Right?
The sad fact is that there are too many examples to count where a sexist male turns out indeed to have mental and/or physical health issues that feed into his attitudes.
timocracy:
1. A state in which the love of honour is the ruling motive
2. A state in which honours are distributed according to a rating of property
Care to elaborate?
James R
If we are the sum of the past then we represent the accumulated ideas and environmental effects of what has gone on before us. There is no such thing as 'uniqueness'.
But you trying to use it to bruise my ego is certainly the most unoriginal aspects of your, and of those like you, tactics.
I also love the reference to the 19th century, alluding, I suppose, that what is in the past is inferior to what is in the future or present.
Playing upon your own and the anonymous reader's modern sensitivities.
Using a label to challenge an idea, without following it up with arguments is, to say the least, beneath contempt.
If your only challenge was to point out that my views were subjective, because they were not supported by mainstream science or that I'm not unique or that my views are archaic, then I would urge you to notice your own prejudices and the absence of reasoning in your own opinions.
Avoiding the challenge by playing some morality and humility game.
You do not know what I've considered.
Unlike you, I am a fast learner. how long must I engage morons before i realize that its both unfruitful and that it can only result in frustration and name-calling?
you, are a good example.
Here you are presenting a challenge to the thesis by commenting on my style or my arrogance or my person or using some authority, you call science and which supposedly contradicts my views, to insinuate soemthing you cannot support with sound arguments or rational thought.
how easy it is to pretend knowledge when someone points to your ignorance.
What you know or don't know shows in your positions and quality of reasoning.
To what extent you recognize that the system you live in is not a Democracy I leave it up to you to decide, and save face.
What makes me think so?
You, your arguments and your positions.
Your challenge, demanding graphs and statistics is that of a mind that requires external validation to hold onto an opinion as valid. A dependent mind.
I beleive Schopenhauer spoke about guys like you.
All book-smarts and expertise and knowledge, like a dumb computer spewing what it was programmed to.
An academic or a sophist.
I mean why moderate a forum supposedly about personal opinions?
Call it what it is a free-exchange of regurgitated knowledge.
Talking about what others talked about.
You aren't even discussing the topic anymore.
Typical.
Retard, an artist doesn't invent his style out of thin-air. He selects and combines the styles of his mentors and those that came before into a personal expression.
No invention, no idea, no creation is original. It is based on the accumulated past and its recombination into something new.
Need is what makes soemthing necessary.
All activities are motivated by a need.
The flux, itself, is a manifestation of universal lack - an absence of an absolute - perfection.
The running of the weak and cowardly self into the unity of a greater self- the dilution felt as a relief.
Collectivism necessitates the suppression of any traits that prevents assimilation and unification.
Hell if we call light darkness and darkness light, then the universe is full of light with only patches of darkness.
How wonderful.
Are you the standard?
No wonder.
Is your idea of intellectual exploration pulling- punches and protecting another of your honest opinion?
Then maybe 'truth' and clarity is not your goal.
Defending the weak as a way of protecting yourself, aren't we, precious?
An argument based no insecurity...and then you talk to me about fear?
Describing nature does not mean you agree with it.
Avoiding reality only results in error and further weakness.
If you are too afraid to see the world and yourself as it is, then what makes you think you are a thinker?
So, sex promotes robustness but the sexes are not roles, they do not play a role in this creation?
Are you fuckin' for real?
How fuckin' childish are you?
Read Hanson's The Other Greeks.
Not honors, retard, rights and privileges.
You earned your vote and you paid the price for your decisions using the vote.
In other words if you chose to go to war, it was you and your offspring that went to fight it.
The accumulation of property was restricted so as to prevent one individual from acquiring too much influence and power and all members had to be productive with their property.
Your first error is in not understanding anything I've said.
If we are the sum of the past then we represent the accumulated ideas and environmental effects of what has gone on before us. There is no such thing as 'uniqueness'.
But you trying to use it to bruise my ego is certainly the most unoriginal aspects of your, and of those like you, tactics.
I also love the reference to the 19th century, alluding, I suppose, that what is in the past is inferior to what is in the future or present.
Playing upon your own and the anonymous reader's modern sensitivities.
Does it make sense?
Using a label to challenge an idea, without following it up with arguments is, to say the least, beneath contempt.
Now you are repeating yourself. Running out of ammo?
If your only challenge was to point out that my views were subjective, because they were not supported by mainstream science or that I'm not unique or that my views are archaic, then I would urge you to notice your own prejudices and the absence of reasoning in your own opinions.
Do you know what is even easier?
Avoiding the challenge by playing some morality and humility game.
You do not know what I've considered.
Unlike you, I am a fast learner. how long must I engage morons before i realize that its both unfruitful and that it can only result in frustration and name-calling?
you, are a good example.
Here you are presenting a challenge to the thesis by commenting on my style or my arrogance or my person or using some authority, you call science and which supposedly contradicts my views, to insinuate soemthing you cannot support with sound arguments or rational thought.
Yes.
how easy it is to pretend knowledge when someone points to your ignorance.
What you know or don't know shows in your positions and quality of reasoning.
To what extent you recognize that the system you live in is not a Democracy I leave it up to you to decide, and save face.
I skimmed through it. It had more to do with the biological phenomenon and was only partly connected to the socio-cultural phenomenon I describe.
If you don't want to be considerd a simpleton then you should avoid sounding like one.
What makes me think so?
You, your arguments and your positions.
Your challenge, demanding graphs and statistics is that of a mind that requires external validation to hold onto an opinion as valid. A dependent mind.
I beleive Schopenhauer spoke about guys like you.
All book-smarts and expertise and knowledge, like a dumb computer spewing what it was programmed to.
An academic or a sophist.
I mean why moderate a forum supposedly about personal opinions?
Call it what it is a free-exchange of regurgitated knowledge.
Talking about what others talked about.
Hey stupid, you can't insult me using that tactic.
You aren't even discussing the topic anymore.
Typical.
Retard, an artist doesn't invent his style out of thin-air. He selects and combines the styles of his mentors and those that came before into a personal expression.
No invention, no idea, no creation is original. It is based on the accumulated past and its recombination into something new.
The interpretations and conclusions are watered down.
Retard, why would an organism dop something necessary?
Need is what makes soemthing necessary.
All activities are motivated by a need.
The flux, itself, is a manifestation of universal lack - an absence of an absolute - perfection.
Here you are glorifying the greater Self as opposed to the self.
The running of the weak and cowardly self into the unity of a greater self- the dilution felt as a relief.
Collectivism necessitates the suppression of any traits that prevents assimilation and unification.
Excellent point, moron. Let's see, if we interpret death as a going to a 'better place' a beyond then survival of the fittest can be spun into a negative whereas the less worthy live longer and the more worthy die fast.
Hell if we call light darkness and darkness light, then the universe is full of light with only patches of darkness.
How wonderful.
Did you get anything about mediocrity and what I said before, or should I repeat myself over and over again?
and who decides what "quality" is and what standard is used?
Are you the standard?
No wonder.
And the problem with civilization is that it demands a faked respect and a self-censoring.
Is your idea of intellectual exploration pulling- punches and protecting another of your honest opinion?
Then maybe 'truth' and clarity is not your goal.
Of course you do, sweetheart.
Defending the weak as a way of protecting yourself, aren't we, precious?
An argument based no insecurity...and then you talk to me about fear?
Describing nature does not mean you agree with it.
Avoiding reality only results in error and further weakness.
If you are too afraid to see the world and yourself as it is, then what makes you think you are a thinker?
What?!
So, sex promotes robustness but the sexes are not roles, they do not play a role in this creation?
Are you fuckin' for real?
Exactly...so much for romantic idealism, huh genius?
They weren't Klingons idiot!!!
How fuckin' childish are you?
Read Hanson's The Other Greeks.
Not honors, retard, rights and privileges.
You earned your vote and you paid the price for your decisions using the vote.
In other words if you chose to go to war, it was you and your offspring that went to fight it.
The accumulation of property was restricted so as to prevent one individual from acquiring too much influence and power and all members had to be productive with their property.
Satyr:
You claim to want a debate, yet as soon as anybody tries to debate you, you appear to be able to respond only with insults. You seemingly can't help yourself. Does this kind of thing happen everywhere you have posted your "essay"? I'm sure it does.
Let's count out the number of insults you've suddenly found it necessary to insert into your reply:
Now, if I am to continue this debate beyond the next post, I request that you try to restrain your urge to insult and belittle. If you cannot, I see little point in entertaining you further.
A substantive reply to the non-insulting content your post follows in my next post.
You claim to want a debate, yet as soon as anybody tries to debate you, you appear to be able to respond only with insults. You seemingly can't help yourself. Does this kind of thing happen everywhere you have posted your "essay"? I'm sure it does.
Let's count out the number of insults you've suddenly found it necessary to insert into your reply:
Now, if I am to continue this debate beyond the next post, I request that you try to restrain your urge to insult and belittle. If you cannot, I see little point in entertaining you further.
A substantive reply to the non-insulting content your post follows in my next post.
yeah satyr i agree with what you are saying and i support your position, but you do insult a little too much james is right.
but james he still had some valid points flying around in-between the verbal ass kickings.
peace.
but james he still had some valid points flying around in-between the verbal ass kickings.
peace.