The Feminization Of Man

It's funny, because I always thought that the spirit of division was introduced by those who wanted to maintain power in society - eliminating that old spectre of freedom of association - because a society of snobs that all look down on one another is totally powerless in the face of even the weakest of administrations.

These days - and possibly always, I'm not sure - the divisions that are taught in the mainstream seem mostly to underline the gender divide because male/female marital relationships are (by chance) the strongest and most lasting form that we have, mostly because they are backed by a legal arrangement which most relationships don't have.

Consequently those who fear people's ability to communicate with one another (seeing it as a threat to their power, which it is) deem it most profitable to attack gender relations, and by association, marriage.

Once you no longer believe that your spouse is capable of telling you the truth, you don't listen to them when they tell you that you really don't need Swiffer disposable cleaning cloths, or that idiotic sportscar that costs $1500 to repair when someone scratches the paint, or to shave your body hair. Then, like good little consumers, people feel obligated to purchase the mops and sportscars and razors and other marketed crap that they believe is a part of their gender identity.

(A similar effect can also be witnessed in Disney's parent/child divisive advertising...)

Even old Robert Wright, in his <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/702-4070906-3132040">The Moral Animal</a> is promoting gender division to sell a product - namely, his own field of study, Evolutionary Psychology. The book is quite well organized and coherent, and yet in the end it's still marketing...

By and large the rest of society are thoughtless hulks - most people barely have the mental agility to wear the succession of masks referred to heretofore - and it's true that one person is very unlikely to seriously change that fact.

BUT

Sometimes we have to realize that there are reasons why this is true and that they are not "genetic". With this realization a person can at least (1) improve those people in their immediate environment, thereby making their life less crummy, and (2) recognize that they themselves may be making mistakes as well, and try to learn about them and get past them.

Number one idiotic mistake is believing that the gender divide is anything but social - if you ever want to understand this, ask someone, anyone really, how gender differences arose from hunter-gatherer culture. This is always good for a laugh.

They will almost always tell you that:
- Men would go out each day and spear mammoths - hence the male genetic predisposition towards playing SPORTS and EARNING MONEY
- Women would stay home and do their nails, or perhaps vacuum the cave, but never anything of any consequence - hence the female predisposition towards HOUSEWORK and NOT EARNING MONEY
- There is a second social class of Men in the village whose job it is to leech food off of other Men and have sex with the Women when the other Men are not looking - hence the male genetic predisposition toward SCREWING AROUND

The great part is that this is obvious crap, and yet it's the first thing out of anyone's mouth when they want to excuse bad behaviour, such as not giving women equal pay. After all, women evolved to work for lower wages, they say...

As long as you're trying to be the lone wolf, don't let a bunch of christian fundies and diaper salesmen tell you how to think about other people.

P.S. Don't pay too much attention to Nietzsche! He has an absolute talent for reducing complex systems to very simple measures, eliminating levels of meaning thereby. The whole "pain as currency" concept is a pretty good example of his brand of philosophical orthogonalization.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow

And of course your power, derived from your need to ‘associate with another, is threatened by those that attack those associations.
Should I assume you are an 'equalitarianism promoter' and a believer that all human beings are fundamentally the same, making any gender or racial inferences ridiculous?
If yes, then why does distinctness scare you so much?
A question for the introspective mind.
If I say, men have penises and women don’t, as my take on gender differences, am I making a point or a biased remark?
If there are material differences or physical manifestations of physical distinctions then why do you assume there are no internal psychological ones?

That’s it hold on to your middle-class modern capitalistic, Christian angst and defend your own delusions.
I mean why question geo-centrism if it makes us feel unimportant or inferior?

Are you minimizing genetic predisposition because you are uncomfortable about the ramifications in relation to you?
People usually preaching the ‘we are all equal’ crap or have this romantic idea that all that is needed to improve the world is education are those that feel that they could possibly have inherited the wrong end of the stick.

That’s right, and vaginas are a social construct as well, I presume.
Classic female response.
The weakest amongst us want, desperately, to exclude any hypothesis invoking any sense of superiority in contrast to inferiority. The weak hide behind this ideal of harmony and uniformity to mask their insecurities about not measuring up.
So what do they do?
They flatten everything, they give the benefit of the doubt even where doubt is unnecessary, they hold on to their sense of equality, not for altruistic reasons as they would have us believe, but for simple egotistical, self-serving and cowardly reasons.

So I guess male superior muscle strength is just a coincidence.
Do you think anything in nature exists without a purpose?
Why are there differences between genders at all?

This last part is the most hilariously absurd of all.
That’s right, Nietzsche was an idiot, Big Blue Head is the healthy one here.

Spoken like a true defender of the status quo; so much to lose from deconstruction that anxiety and fear are followed by any attempt at it.
God forbid we deconstruct ‘love’, for example, imagine what it may reveal about us or how it may diminish our ability to indulge in this piece of human delusion.
No the ‘Head’ would rather remain on the surface of things, swimming in a pool of illusionary self-gratification, holding on to ideals that protect his vulnerabilities and enable him to go on living with his myths.
Here’s a good example of what happens after generations have been brought up within the comforting hands of social necessity and have been forced to live, like dogs, in a state of eternal adolescence.
Any sign of cruelty or viciousness, any hint of manliness terrifies the shit out of them.
“No please don’t fight!” they scream in fear “Someone may get hurt!”
Especially troublesome when that someone may be them.
No let’s all live in oblivious harmony where no uncomfortable distinctions arise, where no hypothesis pointing to superiority or nobility is alowed to be uttered, where no possibility of pain and suffering can be accepted as valuable. Let's livein the soft, tender embrace of oblivion; let us not bite the apple, we may lose paradise.
All this to protect the weak, vulnerable little child hiding in the mind, wanting forever to be sheltered from the cruel and indifferent universe.
Let us believe in God, shall we?!!!
Here is an example of a human that does not even have the courage to acknowledge his own instincts and primordial drives.
He loves ‘civilization’ , it gives him a pretext to feign superiority without having to prove it and he loves his modern society, it allows him the illusion that he deserves existence by earning his place in servitude to the whole.
“WE are all equal!!!!!” yells the degenerated spirit.
“We have been fooled to believe that distinction exists!!!” he screams in hope.
Yet nature does not hear his feeble hopes. Nature offers examples of distinction everywhere. Inequality is the rule of nature and disparity the force of evolution.

But I’ve heard all of this before.
Don’t deconstruct.
Don’t generalize.
Don’t over-analyze.
Something uncomfortable may arise through these practices.
Let us live in our oblivious delusion, where IQ means nothing, being tall or short is insignificant, being fat or thin equal in aesthetic significance; where culture and race and gender are all insignificant details with no real importance; where retarded people procreate, morons hold office and everyone is fed that feel-good chicken soup of the soul where anything is possible and anyone can be anything if they really want to.
Let us raise more generations with heightened expectations and eventual heightened disappointments and let us placate the weak and feebleminded with notions of equalitarianism, altruism and nihilistic spirituality and then let us wonder why there are so many diseases and psychological deformities in our modern day western civilization.
Let homosexuals marry, let necrophiles have a corpse, let beast lovers have a pet and let us accept them all as healthy individuals making choices.
But above all, let us defend the institutions that hold this system together. Marriage for instance. Let us maintain the myth of it and let us not delve too deeply into the underlying purposes or costs.
Marriage is the bedrock of any organized and complicated system. It enables the most unworthy to have access to procreative participation turning morons into defenders of the norm and dolts into interested citizens that have now invested in the system and so must defend it.
Ah humanity, are you destined for extinction?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wanderer, do you feel like working this all up into a proper manifesto?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who says I haven't?

Visit my web-page
http://hometown.aol.ca/c66c/myhomepage/philosophiespolitics.html
But why live in a cabin in the woods and risk my well-being by sending letter-bombs to robot-men?
I'm smarter than that.

Have you heard of the psychological term, institutionalization?
It's when a mind gets used to incarceration and can't function in any environment where he/she is asked to use more of his/her free choice. Choices have been denied him/her for so long that now he/she needs direction and totalitarian external control over his/her person.
Many ex-cons, that get out after many decades in the slammer, are terrified and feel lost in an outside world where they have responsibility over their own actions and suffer from information overload that makes them feel vulnerable in a chaotic environment. They prefer the structured, predictable simple life where options were limited and personal choices directed by outside forces. They don’t need to think in jail, the rules are simple, big dog wins, little dog submits.
Well this is also true of the modern man.
He has been institutionalized, domesticated and degraded. They call it ‘civilized’ to hide its true nature.
Modern man compared to his ancestor is like a dog compared to a wolf or a cow to a buffalo; there's something missing, something very immature and ignoble, something diminished, something demure about all domesticated beasts. All domesticated beasts owe their survival on how they are useful and valuable to another higher entity. Their worth begins and ends in how they serve the needs of another.
Yet, the comfort they have gotten used to, the decadence and safety of being owned and controlled, of living with little sense of responsibility for self or exposure to reality without the encompassing protective social net, is so necessary to them, they have become so dependant on it, just as they are dependant on technology, that any hint of real freedom, of opposition to the jailers rights to jail them, they fight tooth and nail.
They, in fact, become defenders of their own incarceration; guards to their own cell.

Can we not see signs of human domestication and degradation around us today?
Look at all the senseless justifications and excuses for obesity, for mental retardation, for violence. Everyone has a personal reason to not live up to his/her own potential everyone has a sad story that explains his/her state of helplessness and dependence, everyone has an excuse for his actions or inferiorities.
“I have a glandular problem”, “I was beaten when I was a child”, “I have attention deficit disorder”, “I have this syndrome or that syndrome”, “I’m big boned”, “I was abused”, "I was this and I was that"..................................
God forbid the idea that they just might be inferior is raised into the spectrum of possibility. No, the idea of equalitarianism must be preserved and hope must be maintained so that cohesion and peace is kept intact.

Why did I not measure up or why did I fail a test?
It must of been the sun in my eyes or my father's drinking problem or something else, but never me, it's never me.

Then, of course, we have all the dirty little secrets about human sexuality that are routinely swept under the carpet or all those little things about gender roles and racial differences that are minimized so no unwanted ideas can creep into a mind.
We wouldn’t want another Hitler on our hands, would we?
So it’s preferable to construct myths and whitewash the darkness. That’s what all civilization is built on, a presumption.

Look at marriage; the most unnatural human invention of all. It is based on a lie.
Humans are not monogamous but they can be made to think and act as if they were. They can even be made to want to be.
It’s called indoctrination.
Then we try to explain away divorces and the failure of an artificial device to maintain instinctive discipline, with clever little constructs that do not really reveal the real reasons: The stress of modern life, economic factors, no communication, immorality and so on.
Even in Muslim countries, where adultery is punished by death in some instances, the practice continues.
God himself, in the Christian tradition, coveted another mans wife, did HE not?
So we chastise and shame those that follow their natural instinctual drives and we present them as examples to be avoided on TV talk-shows.
All marriage is, in the modern-world sense, is a mechanism that enables the participation of all males into a social unit.
How do you make a male a willing and disciplined defender of the status quo? You give him access and an investment in it.
What larger investment than procreation?
How do you accomplish this?
You take away female natural sexual power and force monogamy and asexuality on a polygamous and sexual being.
Why is the family breaking apart today?
Because females were given back sexual power during the women’s movement and artificial constructs fall apart when the underlying structure is crumbling.
The moral and social framework by which marriage was policed and enforced is diminishing today. The church has little power and heightened individuation has made peer pressure, of social proportions, weak and insignificant.

Then there’s all that bullshit about ‘love’ and all that crap that raises emotion to a level of an ideal, when all emotion is, is a survival tool that serves a function and demands a behavior.
Why do I feel hunger?
Its nature’s way of letting my mind know that I need nourishment.
Why do I need sex?
Its nature’s way of ensuring procreation.
Why is it pleasurable?
Because it makes certain that I cannot deny this need and the alleviation of any need is experienced by the human mind as pleasure.
Why do I love?
It enables the social interaction between individual members of the same species for mutual benefits. All social creatures experience the bonding of individuals with common interests as love.
All social creatures are social because they are burdened with a weakness or a limitation that can only be answered in numbers or through cooperation.
There’s is no other reason to sacrifice individual interests for common ones.
There is nothing in nature with no purpose. The universe is not superfluous, it is efficient.

Here we have in BLUE HEAD a prime example of human domestication. He will defend all his delusions or the premises of his own indoctrination for two reasons.
1} They are to his own interest and he has grown accustomed and dependant on them.
Would not the most physically weak defend the rule of law and the ruleof morality because he fears his own demise without it?
2} To not do so would cast a harsh light upon his intellectual and spiritual ability to perceive anything at all.
Would not a mind that has invested all its energies on one single path be devastated to be told that the path is paved with lies and illusions?
That mind would defend to the death even a path that is hypocritical and false just to justify his own total commitment to it.
To entertain the opposite possibility would be to acknowledge personal inadequacies.

 

So in your enlightened understanding of human nature you're "man" enough to admit that you have no control over anything, and that everything is just as it should be?

Don't pretend you're not defending the status quo, whining about women taking power away from you that you think you deserve.

Actually I've already studied your line of thinking and found it lacking, usually because of the extremely feeble and spurious scientific explanations that it's based on, and the way that people parlay these few flawed findings into a grand sociological theory of why we should not bother to try to change. Sometimes the scientific explanations are not even included, since they are pretty sad.

(BTW, if you want to gather an additional source for your study, try <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/qid=1069093487/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/702-6047630-2212032">The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are</a> by Robert Wright. He, and more generally the Evolutionary Psychologists, are trying to provide proof for what you are merely spouting.)

Here is a fine example of the kind of "fact" that people usually draw upon. I look around - the news tells me that "the family" just isn't working out. Now, Mister Independent, to believe this out of hand, you have to make a couple of boneheaded mistakes.

1) You have to believe in journalistic credibility, which has never yet existed.

2) You have to believe that things are somehow deteriorating now from whatever golden age you believe came before, when everything worked better.

"The family" isn't that different now from a hundred years ago or a thousand. The nature of communities may have changed, but families all through history have been just as dysfunctional, crooked and pathetic as they are now. All of history and literature is full of people pushing their grandmothers into the river, cheating on their spouses, eating their children and having babies with their parents and siblings.

The "power" that was "given" to women during the women's movement didn't amount to a grain of sand. Those people who feel it necessary to treat women poorly have become better at hiding the fact that they do, that's all. The women's movement was just practice for them because they don't change either.

(To examine this hypothesis, see how many of your female friends lose their jobs when they get pregnant.)

Gender equality, racial equality, whatever, NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN TRIED. The battle cry of the reactionary arch-conservative is that people who get a bad deal deserve it because they are bad people, and that by extension women who get a bad deal deserve it because they are women, et cetera.

So
- Don't treat social equality as a failed experiment - you've never even seen an example of it and you probably never will

- Don't use human instincts as an argument for anything because, couched as you are in your social setting, you barely even know what they are

- After you study up on EP (which you should if you plan to keep this act up) don't generalize biological principles from one species to all species

And lastly, don't assume that I think all people are the same. The point of my argument is that those who try to maintain that social inequality is "natural" generally do so because they believe that it will keep them on top. Because, just as no-one believes that they deserve to be poor and neglected, everyone who is rich and kept believes that they are because they deserve to be.

Some people are most definitely better than other people, but because of our present social order, you can't tell very well by looking at their social status because it's largely developed by chance and inherited.

 

By the way, social tendencies don't arise in a population of creatures that develops an unsurvivable weakness. The "weakness" tends to develop after social ties, because whatever capacity is lost is generally lost through being no longer needed by every individual.

Also, our society is a society of knowledge exchange, so in the case of humans your above statement is 100% bullshit. The benefit that we derive in getting basic information from observing one another is enough justification for why we have a society without inventing phantom weaknessess.

 

oh oh so long the posts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so even being called a "reality error", I'll try to give a reality check here

1. men are indeed becoming more femine
2. women are vice versa (never before in writen history as nowadays)
3. I see it as evolution of human society (yeah, homo sapiens sapiens is a social animal). why evolution, because a regresion is to return to a previous state, such a state never was before, it's no regression and only the next generations will be able to judge
4. noone can do a damn thing about it even if they don't like it, so - live and enjoy the show or shut up

p.s. I have nothing against this kind of evolution, seems that people are becoming more "natural"

 

The twit doesn't understand that kin selection only applies to those who are simular in genetic makup, and yet lectures on what one should and should not learn about in the mush-science evolutionary psychology.

Was this in the same place you learned that all men in relatively small populations are closely related?
The inbreeding would explain much.

Ah yes, standard liberal bullshit.
Who cares if it's true, if it will upset people?

I presume, then, that you read Nietzsche at "Ozark University"? Where all men are brothers, in the literal and metaphorical sense, and kin selection affects those not related to each other?
You know, where they taught you about how throwing vauge moral terms into a scientific question was a good debate tactic?

So enlighten us, how precisely does Nietzsche (whose attitude towards asceticism and pain was complex at best) use "pain as currency"?

This isn't even a straw man, it's a lying caricature.
Do you honestly think that sex differences are only the result of upbringing?
Take myself as example - actually, that's a bad idea since I probably have more balls than you - so take history as example.

Or did you learn history in the same place you learned that Nietzsche was simplistic and that all men in small groups are related?

 

Xev said:

This is referring to another thread. Fuck you.

 

Are you implying that you have a penis?

 

Blue Head

I'm man enough to admit that plus a degree of ignorance, as well.
I'm also man enough to say that, at least I know more of human nature than you do.
Your willingness to just surrender is very, very female.
Yet, nobility is in trying and struggling to change even that which may appear unchangeable.
Should mankind admit that we have no control over nature or the universe and just submit to it?

I am not whining about anything. I’m only stating a truth as I perceive it.
In my view it is leading to my genders elimination and degradation and thusly it is also leading to humanity’s as well, but if your opinion is strictly taken from a survival point of view then the feminization of man can be seen as a positive thing, as many have pointed out.
But as a man, Blue Head, I know that there are things more important than just survival.
Dignity, honor and liberty, just to name a few.
For some not living at all is preferable to not living with these.
But then again I suppose there would be those sniveling morons, like you, who would prefer a life in enslavement and without dignity than no life at all.
“Give me liberty or give me death” Some have said, you and those like you, on the other hand, reserve the right to disagree.

You are saying there's a science based on my line of thinking.
Here I was thinking I invented it.
My views are based on personal observations and I'm not aware of any science that has said the same.

If you think I am a defender of some institution or artificial entity, like the nuclear family, then I think you should reread my post.
I am stating a fact from personal observations not basing it on any “journalistic” piece.
Unlike you, when I shape opinions I look firstly into the world and then I open a book to compare it to the opinions of others.
You, and those like you, do the opposite. You open a book construct opinions and then look into the world to find justifications for holding on to them.
I simply say that the deterioration of the family is partly caused by the liberation of women sexually. I am not saying if this is a good or bad thing.
You might me surprised to hear that I believe female sexual; power is a natural thing and so a good thing.

Power wasn't given to women it was taken back.
Do you think a woman's power is only in not being treated poorly?
You are pathetic.
Furthermore who said treating another poorly is a negative or immoral thing?
Mistreatment, abuse and violence, are all aspects of nature and the universe.
Deny them and you deny part of yourself.
But that’s what guys like you do, they snivel and bitch and defend passivity and equality, not because they are sensitive to others [although that’s what they say to themselves] but because they fear that the mistreatment of another may lead to a mistreatment of them. It’s an act of defensiveness by weaklings and cowards, who would rather earn respect by default than earn it with their own value.

In your limited method of categorization you have perceived me as a conservative.
I wonder if you would appreciate the irony of this if you actually understood what I am and what I’m saying.
At this point you are not debating with me and my views but with an imaginary construct of what you have perceived me to be.
Reread my post and re-evaluate it.
I am anti-conservative and pro nature.

I agree.
I never will because social equality is based on a lie.
But should I then imagine what equality or perfection or paradise might look like and then attack it from that perspective?
Should I debate against imaginary concepts that can never be or will never be?
I choose to live in the real world and debate on things that are perceptually available.
You remind me of Communists and Christians who state that the true spirit of Communism and Christianity is pure and perfect and any faults can be found in how man has interpreted them.
In other words if man was perfect then the system would be as well.
Should we construct an imaginary human being which will take these systems and apply them perfectly?
Last time I checked ‘perfection’ like ‘God’ was not to be founding this universe.
If it was then there would be no need for life at all.
I think Big Blue is a naive idealist. He knows that his way of thinking leads to a peaceful harmonious worlds, but he can’t perceive any negative consequences caused by this.
I wonder if Blue Head understands the nihilism imbedded in his views.

Just because you are unable to understand human instincts does not mean I can’t.
What social settings am I trapped in? Do you even know who and what I am or what I’ve experienced?
Maybe you should just admit your ignorance about human nature, since I don’t think you’ve ever introspected or, if you have, you never had the balls to accept what you saw in yourself.

Is that a fact?
So life is totally unconnected?
Have you ever witnessed animals interacting with one another?
Now compare it to how humans interact.
It’s fascinating that we share a large percentage of our genes with all living beings, with some the percentage foes as high as 98%, and yet Big Blue thinks no inferences can be made using another species as an example.
Remarkable, especially since science has been doing just that for centuries.
Blue Head wants so desperately to escape the conclusions drawn from animal behavior that he feigns distinction. But then by his very behavior he proves the truth of what he denies.
You are pathetic, little man.
Tell me do you also believe in ‘God’, in the Christian tradition?

The only status quo I’m defending is the natural one.
I am not a capitalist or a conservative. In fact I believe capitalism is geared to maintain power in people that do not deserve it.
For instance, the offspring of the rich will automatically inherit power and privilege even though they may not deserve it.
Nature is about earning power personally not inheriting it through social/economic or cultural mechanisms. One may gain an advantage through genetic superiority but it does not guarantee ascension to the top.
If you actually read what I’m saying and you read the other stuff I’ve written you will see how off you are in your assessment of me.

The fact that socializing becomes necessary for survival means that there is a weakness present that needs addressing.
The powerful that are self-reliant and dominant would have no reason to socialize.
Even the socialization made necessary by procreation is caused by the weakness of mortality.
A ‘God’ or a ‘perfection’, if we can imagine it, would need no other.

Is that so?
Your propensity to grasp at straws to save your worldview is truly pathetic, even if understandable.
The mind resists anything that can harm it. The weaker the mind the more it has to fear.
And how has humanity reached this stage of social interaction?
Was a primitive society created to exchange knowledge?
Forget into what it has transformed through millennia of human domination and indoctrination, what did it begin as?
Your limited perception, based only on your modern western prejudices and your pathetic human insecurities is something to behold.

 

Ah, whatever man. You guys have fun.

 

Run girly-man run!!!!

Making you run was fun, thanks.
What's the matter that Big-Blue-Head of yours ran out of bullshit to fling around?

Your strategy of ‘Ah just go with it man, no use in resisting', was inspiring and a good example of what's wrong with modern thought and modern man. Apathy, conformity and surrender the words of our day.
Why fight death man? Why resist obesity man? Why struggle man?
Just let go, go with the flow, surrender to the tide and just relaaaaaaaaaax man.
Keep it real, it’s all good.
You got the munchies? Don’t fight back, give in and eat until you can’t fit into your pants and an entire culture has to redefine aesthetics.
Are you uncomfortable with the system? Don’t resist, it’ll only lead to suffering, dude. Give in and play the game and chill-out.
Are you displeased with nature? Please dude, you can’t fight that shit. You are what you are.
Let the universe take you into oblivion and just breath deeply as you place yourself into a Buddhist trance.

If all human beings were like you we’d still be sucking the marrow out of dead carcasses on the savannah and picking lice out of each others hair.
But I forget not all can be queen bees, the vast majority must be mindless worker bees and disposable drones.
Thanks Blue for making me possible. Keep on rocking man.
I’ll leave you now to go back to TV watching, political correctness and your delusions aboutlivingin a democratic, altruistic, equalatarian society and placating yourself with empty idealism and entertaining pop-arts. Feel the love?
Maybe you are living in the best of all possible worlds; you should remain there.
Thinking isn’t for everyone. I learned that the hard way.

 

Actually, I realized it was wrong to bust in here while you and Xev were making puppy eyes at each other. That was inconsiderate, and I apologize. G'bye.

 

before you know it, those femi-nazis will have us all wearing dresses...
















pretty, pretty dresses...

 

That insult is as gay as a Cradle of Filth concert with rubbers and amyl nitrate supplied.

 

What?

Jealousy is healthy if it is used as a motivator.
If it is used as an excuse then it is destructive.
Run Blue….Head….I hope you have legs under your Big….Blue…Head.
Run into the confines of your ideals and hide from the Big…Grey…world.
Maybe you should try the entire spectrum, the red, the green, the purple and yes the black especially.
Your blueness is a sign of restricted awareness.

 

...the fuck? Are you still blabbing? This thread died three weeks ago.

 

Why do you care?

I decided to bring it up to the surface again.
What the fuck is your problem?
Ignore me, will you.

 

my two cents....

It is, in my view, evident that the slow degradation of man has reached an all new high in western societies where the leveling of man has demonized the male type and slowly impoverished the male archetype.

When we talk of ‘man’, we talk about physical form nothing more. You cannot say for sure whether I am a man or a woman unless you see me or I tell you, and even then, there may be deception. This (male) form is not degraded, in fact it could be seen as upgraded but that is neither here nor there. Man (and woman), in my opinion, has lost the meaning to masculinity, this I believe is the problem, and as such is becoming lost, whereas woman (or man) has not lost the meaning to femininity , in fact, it is encouraged at every moment, and in every nook and cranny of modern society.
In order to go deeper into this subject matter we should understand the characteristics of masculine and feminine, which are attributed to all aspects of the universe not only living beings.

In a world where female demureness, willing subjugation and acceptance of authority is preferable to the more rebellious non-conforming male character the trend towards male redefinition and eradication persists.

Female demurness….you’re kidding right?
Already you are generalising big time, you say males are ‘rebellious’ and ‘non-conforming’.
To what?

We can see evidence of it in pop-culture, in how gender roles have mingled and blurred and in how recent homosexual acceptance has destroyed any gender differences and imposed an anxious unnatural loss of identity and purpose.

If we look at a nice motor car, a top of the range Bentley, we see a beautifully crafted machine, designed to give complete comfort, prestige and peace of mind, to its owner, resulting in a pleasurable experience. This is the feminine aspect to the car, the owner enjoys this beautiful toy on different levels. The more beautiful or opulent, the more one enjoys, this is tennant of modern life. The bit we don’t see, the assembly room, the workers, the shell before the paint is applied, the design, the idea, the sweat, is the masculine aspect. Most of us don’t really care for that side unless it adds to the pleasure, we are usually only interested in the finished product, because that is the pleasure principle, which is undoubtedly feminine.

In today’s modern society, the archetypal male, God, is seen to be non-existent,useless and/or unnecessary, or if He is to be accepted He must either be formless or hermaphroditic. This understanding, I believe to be the degredation, where the male has lost or is losing his identity and intelligence affording the female a false sense of grandeur, and as such is drowning hopelessly in the sea of materialism which is feminine by nature. The future is bleak for both male and female IMHO.

Love
Jan Ardena.