The Feminization of Man

[Xev]

Not really.

Same number of jobs + twice the avialable workers = less money

Supply and demand.

Simple economics.

First, women have been a part of the industrial workforce since the industrial revolution. Second, the number of jobs has fluctuated - some traditional fields like farming need fewer workers and some like information technology need more (being as they didn't exist before the 40s or so, play along). Third, the workforce has changed with changing global conditions.

Last, you're incredibly stupid. Why don't you do the species a favor and kill yourself?

 

[Klippymitch]

First, women have been a part of the industrial workforce since the industrial revolution. Second, the number of jobs has fluctuated - some traditional fields like farming need fewer workers and some like information technology need more (being as they didn't exist before the 40s or so, play along). Third, the workforce has changed with changing global conditions.

Last, you're incredibly stupid. Why don't you do the species a favor and kill yourself?

The reason women were put into the work force was because of the shortage of available male workers during World War 2. Thanks to the draft most of the young males were gone fighting or preparing for the war.
The males came back and the wifes went back home to take care of the kids. The economy was booming at the time.
Women started to slowly enter the wok force until we get to the state of the nation to which we are today. The economy sucks and is showing alot of signs of shrinkage.

And plus with what I said above about simple economics it's pretty easy to understand a small portion of the answer why?

 

[Giambattista]

The reason women were put into the work force was because of the shortage of available male workers during World War 2. Thanks to the draft most of the young males were gone fighting or preparing for the war.
The males came back and the wifes went back home to take care of the kids. The economy was booming at the time.
Women started to slowly enter the wok force until we get to the state of the nation to which we are today. The economy sucks and is showing alot of signs of shrinkage.

And plus with what I said above about simple economics it's pretty easy to understand a small portion of the answer why?

In deference to what Xev said in the previous post

First, women have been a part of the industrial workforce since the industrial revolution.

I may not be a history major, but I'm pretty sure I remember factories full of women doing typical women's jobs, mainly in the textiles arena, much earlier than WW2. Granted, they weren't Rosie the Riveter at the time, but their was a place in the industrial workforce for them.

 

[Satyr]

Satyr, why do you suggest that society needs men to be "femanized", personaly i dont see a strict need for it myself. i actualy see it doing more harm in the long run than good. your position on this at certain sections tends to imply that it is not needed and it is harmful, yet you say that there is an actual need for it, why is this?.

Every group can only tolerate one leader or authority figure.
A unity full of antagonism would quickly disintegrate.
In the end someone has to back down and submit to a subordinate possition.

A harmonious unity depends on total submission to the authority. the army accomplishes this through variuos techniques, creating blind followers of orders.
The arnmy is not an entity full of masculine minds, as many incorrectly assume.
There are no questioning, confrontational towards authority soldiers, and if there are they are quickly dealt with.

society needs male traits comming from men, and female traits comming from women, why would we ever actualy need to cross incorperate traits from one sex to another?. wouldent it be more fitting to leave men to be men and women to be women?. that is the way it has worked for millions of years with the hand of nature sculping it, why fix what is not broken?

peace.

If you add to the equation the absence of frontiers and dwindling spaces and resources you get the why modrn systems are characterized by a more docile unquestioning, submissive mind.

Even the rise of modern day religions was the result on population pressures and the need to incorporate more and more individuals nito a system demanding more and more resources to support.

I connect it back to Entropy, where fragmentation forces a reaction of more and more complicated ordering mechanisms able to access more energies so as to resist temporality.
This, in turn, forces the parts into more and more submissive positions or into specialization.

The human body is a product of this proecess.


Xev

Uhmm, the fact that you get to run about insulting people without consequence, while the rest of us can't say "fuck" or "cocksucker."
But then, I suppose you should feel special. LIke, and I shall return to this simile, a retard on pudding day.

And why is this hypocrisy on my part?
You now sound like a snivveling child trying to get its way by bitching and crying.
Unfair, you say?

No, seriously? You're on the other half of the more retarded feminists I've hung with. They might buy the idea of women being unilaterally oppressed over time. You buy the idea of men being unilaterally superior. Both of you are locked into this model of human behavior that states that, gee, one group is dominant and has all the power and all the money and all of the fucking Sour Patch Kids candy, and the other one has shit.
It doesn't really work that way.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think.
Good job.

FOILED! You saw through my cunning plot to seduce MIkenostic by mentioning minutae of my life, therefore making him insane with the need/i] to possess my troubled, gothic self, and then he will be more amenable to my super-duper-evil-plot to take over sciforums by means of GIANT FUCKING FLYING LLAMAS that shoot laser beams from their eyes.
In fact, here's a picture of me plotting:



Either that or, you know, I have a rapport with him 'cause he's cool and mentioned part of my weekend activities. The Detroit zoo, and I guess a lot of other zoos, will let you come during feeding time, and it's awfully fun.

I love watching you scramble.


Gustav

/saddened

satyr is indeed a sage and seer for our times
his portends of the future are inevitable

i see the savages resisting
what a tawdry spectacle

on a side note
i presumed that steve jones had used your thesis, The Feminization of Man as foundation for his acclaimed book Y: The Descent of Men

See now I have to add it to my Amazon Wish-List.

I love the sarcasm though.

Perhaps some have to look-up the word Satyr on the web.
It might explain some things about my style and if it doesn't it'll be all the more funnier. :shrug:

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Any species can plateu in its evolution, like trilobites staying more or less the same for millions of years. And we're not immune. That's all I mean.

what works stays. That said, your 'more or less' remark already indicates the big truth. No species stays the same.

A general bauplan can be so succesful as an adaptation that members of this group remain in the competition game. They never reach a plateau though. The only plateau a species reaches is extinction.

 

[Xev]

A general bauplan can be so succesful as an adaptation that members of this group remain in the competition game. They never reach a plateau though. The only plateau a species reaches is extinction.

That's true, I'm inarticulate here. I meant species that become very specialized and can't adapt to a changing environment. Maybe it's a non-issue.

The reason women were put into the work force was because of the shortage of available male workers during World War 2. Thanks to the draft most of the young males were gone fighting or preparing for the war.

Yeah, except that I said "the industrial revolution," which was in the mid/late 1900s, not the second world war, which was in the mid 20th century.
And women worked before then, at least among the working classes. Who the fuck do you think tended the farms and livestock during the crusades and internicine wars of the dark ages? Robots?

And why is this hypocrisy on my part?
You now sound like a snivveling child trying to get its way by bitching and crying.
Unfair, you say?

Not on your part, unless you're a mod. Did I not say "the mods?" I think I did.

I love watching you scramble.

Okay, maybe it's because I am secretly in love with you and trying to make you jealous of Mikenostic. ALLOW ME TO SERENADE YOU, MY BANANA-BLOSSUM!


We both lie silently still in the
dead of the night
Although we both lie close together
We feel miles apart inside
Was it somethin' I said or somethin' I did
Did my words not come out right
Tho' I tried not to hurt you
Tho' I tried
But I guess that's why they say

Every rose has its thorn
Just like every night has it's dawn
Just like every cowboy sings a sad, sad song
Every rose has its thorn!

Though it's been a while now
I can still feel so much pain
Like the knife that cuts you
The wound heals, but the scar, that scar remains

I know I could have saved our love that night
If I'd known what to say
Instead if making love
We both made our separate ways

Now I hear you've found somebody new
And that I never meant that much to you
To hear that tears me up inside
And to see you cuts me like a knife



So, ready with that list of wars that were explicitly fought over women?

 

[shichimenshyo]

poison?!?!?!?! uke:

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That's true, I'm inarticulate here. I meant species that become very specialized and can't adapt to a changing environment. Maybe it's a non-issue.

A side issue. I will make a thread in the biology subforum if I feel like it.

 

[Xev]

poison?!?!?!?! uke:

I ain't looking for nothing - BUT A GOOD TIME!

Monkey
I would enjoy learning something from the biology subforum beyond the fact of evolution.

 

[Satyr]

Okay, maybe it's because I am secretly in love with you and trying to make you jealous of Mikenostic. ALLOW ME TO SERENADE YOU, MY BANANA-BLOSSUM!

I see that you are secretly reading my mind.
The interesting thing is this offers more of a glimpse into yours than into mine.

We both lie silently still in the
dead of the night
Although we both lie close together
We feel miles apart inside
Was it somethin' I said or somethin' I did
Did my words not come out right
Tho' I tried not to hurt you
Tho' I tried
But I guess that's why they say

Every rose has its thorn
Just like every night has it's dawn
Just like every cowboy sings a sad, sad song
Every rose has its thorn!

Though it's been a while now
I can still feel so much pain
Like the knife that cuts you
The wound heals, but the scar, that scar remains

I know I could have saved our love that night
If I'd known what to say
Instead if making love
We both made our separate ways

Now I hear you've found somebody new
And that I never meant that much to you
To hear that tears me up inside
And to see you cuts me like a knife

Stop it....you made me cry.

So, ready with that list of wars that were explicitly fought over women?

I would say every war ever fought was over spreading a particular seed.

The reason why women are not as readily put to death or are saved before all others is because they represent a potential womb gestating a males seed, from that particular tribe.

 

[Xev]

I see that you are secretly reading my mind.

It's a buckshot approach, hun.

The interesting thing is this offers more of a glimpse into yours than into mine.

Even if it did, who would care? Even if you exposed all of the psychological weaknesses and inferiorities that I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you has, the effect that it would have on the substance of argument would be nil.

Here you are again, buying into the American kike-religion of psychology. Its promise is: it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, how intelligent or how beautiful you are, you can always be torn down by some little shit who can repeat phrases about mental well-being. Talk about a revolt of the weak!

I would say every war ever fought was over spreading a particular seed.
The reason why women are not as readily put to death or are saved before all others is because they represent a potential womb gestating a males seed, from that particular tribe.

Ah, how very specific. I like how I ask for you to back up your statement and you respond with some vague, non-falsifiable theory.
But even if this is so, it hardly proves that women had a high status throughout history. The mutant creatures in HIlls have Eyes kidnapped women for breeding purposes, but they killed them afterwords. So did the cannibals in "Jenna jameson vs. the zombies," for that matter.

Besides, with the advent of genetic engineering, gender differences will be entirely voluntary within a hundred years, if we survive as a species that long.

 

[James R]

Satyr:

It appears you don't want a debate. You want to belittle and insult other people.

I've lost interest in you. Goodbye.

 

[Satyr]

Even if it did, who would care? Even if you exposed all of the psychological weaknesses and inferiorities that I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you has, the effect that it would have on the substance of argument would be nil.

Whoa, babycakes...no need to become so defensive.

When will you get over your paranoia?
Not everyone is out to 'get you'.

Here you are again, buying into the American kike-religion of psychology.

Are you a Scietologist now or is this your way of degrading what possible assessments I might make?
A preemptive strike? You Americans are known for those.

Its promise is: it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, how intelligent or how beautiful you are, you can always be torn down by some little shit who can repeat phrases about mental well-being. Talk about a revolt of the weak!

Who said anything about 'well-being', sugar?

There is no such thing, just various degrees of discomfort.
Life is about discomfort.

Such low self-esteem packed into that ever changing style of yours.

Did you just call me a "little shit"?
I am offended. I would hope that I'm, at least, a big shit.

Ah, how very specific. I like how I ask for you to back up your statement and you respond with some vague, non-falsifiable theory.
But even if this is so, it hardly proves that women had a high status throughout history.

Did I say such a thing?
I said they had value and that they had sexual power.

If you cannot relate then this has more to do with you than the average.
I always thought you were distinct and special.

The mutant creatures in HIlls have Eyes kidnapped women for breeding purposes, but they killed them afterwords. So did the cannibals in "Jenna jameson vs. the zombies," for that matter.

Fascinating.

Besides, with the advent of genetic engineering, gender differences will be entirely voluntary within a hundred years, if we survive as a species that long.

Yes, and?

Is this your vengeance?

Baby cakes, this still doesn't stop women from being idiots in the here and now.
Tomorrow?!
Que sera, sera.

Satyr:

It appears you don't want a debate. You want to belittle and insult other people.

I've lost interest in you. Goodbye.

Nice excuse.
Run with it.

I wonder what reasoning lies behind the conclusion that one must tolerate stupidity for the sake of 'debate'.

Respect, [insult removed], is not given it is earned. At least the kind that is worth anything.
Pseudo-intellectuals, like you, who depend on this sense of civility and offering respect indiscriminately and who display this faked seriousness which is supposed to give off an aura of objective reasoning, and cold logic, are so fragile and so sensitive to anything that breaks through this persona of aloofness that they run for the hills at the first sign of reality.

You are like a rick old fart, sitting around his study wearing a smoking jacket and sipping a bandy, to pretend that he's other than an animal or that he's sophisticated and civilized, then being confronted by the basic 'truth' of a Neanderthal placing a spear up agaisnt his throat.

If you were truly indifferent then none of this would matter to you.
Your ego is supported by a thin strand of pretense and that's all you've got.

This is how [insult removed] you are:

But perhaps you view your article more as a polemic than as a scholarly article. Polemics are inevitably the idiosyncratic opinions of one person.

Really, and philosophy or free-thinknig is what?
Is this forum only dedicated to talking about what other people thought or said?
Sophistry 101 - the academics kingdom...all information and no analysis.
Read any Schopenhauer lately?
Try Parerga and Parelipomena.

Well then this explains a lot about Sciforums and you being one of its expert moderators, doesn't it?

A dining room of vomited leftovers and you the head chef.
dinner is ready, children.
No pushing and shoving so everyone gets a healthy helping of regurgitated spew and go to bed with a full belly...and empty head.

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.

No shit Sherlock.
Are we here to agree or are we here as regurgitators of established 'truths'?
You know...experts.

You are either a liar or a hypocrite.
This is what you said...

This is a straw man. I have not demanded graphs and statistics.
What prejudices do you imagine I have? Just that I'm incapable of sitting apart from the dominant paradigm, as you are? By the way, I've actually made no references to mainstream science; that's something you introduced.

Right after you had made these statements...

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.

What other "independent evidence" did you have in mind and what?!... a reference to statistics and, what you call, "hard facts"?
What pray tell are "hard facts" and who decides their 'hardness'?

Are they the facts sanctioned and approved by a majority or by experts or are they the information derived through institutional authorities?

This is why I think you need to ground your arguments in something other than your own presumed authority.

Being what?
Shall we speak about other people's perspectives and pretend we are thinking on our own?
Is that how you pretend you are some kind of intellectual?

No, maybe uttering a personal perspective has to pass the 'uniqueness' test. That's when imbeciles, [insult removed], try to insult or intimidate an opinion you find offensive into silence, by mentioning that another has also held such an opinion.

What prejudices do you imagine I have? Just that I'm incapable of sitting apart from the dominant paradigm, as you are? By the way, I've actually made no references to mainstream science; that's something you introduced.

So, you were referring to science other than the mainstream variety?

 

[Xev]

Whoa, babycakes...no need to become so defensive.
When will you get over your paranoia?
Not everyone is out to 'get you'.

You have attempted to "analyze" quite a few of the people responding to you, I'm simply the latest and most sophisticated because you have more ammunition. They respond in kind, I find it amusing.

Are you a Scietologist now or is this your way of degrading what possible assessments I might make?

Psychology. I have the highest respect for people who cut things up and figure out how they work.

There is no such thing, just various degrees of discomfort.

You could as easily say, "there are only varying degrees of comfort."

Life is about discomfort.
Such low self-esteem packed into that ever changing style of yours.

This makes no sense without context, and probably wouldn't make sense within context.
But ahhh, low self esteem. Another stupid American idea. People should feel good about themselves and confident even when they really have no reason to be so proud.
You know who has high self esteem? A retard. On pudding day.
Why should I have high self-esteem? I'm nervous, depressive, euphoric, critical. I bite my nails and I write poetry, most of which is bad. I do not think that I am pretty, I underachieve at my job. This is generally considered to be quite a bad thing, but why? You of all people should understand the fallacy of approaching the world the way a housewife on Valium does.

Is this your vengeance?

The blurring of gender roles? Since all of that will happen long after I am dead (most likely) it would be a rather poor vengance on....whom?
Besides, that's not all that could be on offer - who knows what human limitations are innate and which are fluid? I'm all about that. And the really cool drugs that I'm sure will be invented, I'm more pissed about that than the blurring gender roles: it's my hypothetical grandchildren who get to trip on such a range of weird shit, not me.

Baby cakes, this still doesn't stop you from all being idiots in the here and now.

I find this....ironic.

 

[Satyr]

You have attempted to "analyze" quite a few of the people responding to you, I'm simply the latest and most sophisticated because you have more ammunition. They respond in kind, I find it amusing..

Sweet cheeks, do you find all analysis created equal?

Psychology. I have the highest respect for people who cut things up and figure out how they work.

You don't sound like it.

You could as easily say, "there are only varying degrees of comfort."

yes, but I choose to be honest and imply that discomfort is the natural state of things, as death is an easier state than life, and darkness more ubiquitous than light.
What demands constant energy/effort to maintain itself is more vulnerable and ephemeral.

This makes no sense without context, and probably wouldn't make sense within context.
But ahhh, low self esteem. Another stupid American idea. People should feel good about themselves and confident even when they really have no reason to be so proud.

Then you are an American.

You know who has high self esteem? A retard. On pudding day.

What the fuck is up with "pudding day"?
Did you see a movie again?

Why should I have high self-esteem? I'm nervous, depressive, euphoric, critical. I bite my nails and I write poetry, most of which is bad.

Bite yor nails?
Come, come....we know better.

I do not think that I am pretty, I underachieve at my job. This is generally considered to be quite a bad thing, but why? You of all people should understand the fallacy of approaching the world the way a housewife on Valium does.

Oh I agree with you.
But then you are allowing all these things to affect your opinion of your self.

I've told you this before....playing the game isn't buying into it.
Unfortunately it's the only game in town.
Why would you 'losing' matter and why would you winning be shameful?

The blurring of gender roles? Since all of that will happen long after I am dead (most likely) it would be a rather poor vengance on....whom?

On those that you could not satisfy.

Besides, that's not all that could be on offer - who knows what human limitations are innate and which are fluid? I'm all about that.

You don't?
Then you don't know your own self.

All human limitations are fluid. They are just not as fluid as you would like them to be.

And the really cool drugs that I'm sure will be invented, I'm more pissed about that than the blurring gender roles: it's my hypothetical grandchildren who get to trip on such a range of weird shit, not me.

Escapism.

I find this....ironic

You know its true but, for you, this is more because you want to restructure standards where you are 'good enough' to them.
Who cares?

Use them, playing their games, and expecting nothing more besides.
If you are strong, within the limitations of your own limits and talents, then the are your material and you the creator.
Knowing your limits and talents determines what creations you go for.

 

[James R]

Satyr:

When you're ready to debate without insults, then maybe we can talk. In the meantime, back to your playpen.

 

[Xev]

You don't sound like it.

You do realize the essential difference between a science that studies the workings of the human mind, and a pissant little pseudoscience that spouts platitudes about the human soul?

yes, but I choose to be honest and imply that discomfort is the natural state of things, as death is an easier state than life, and darkness more ubiquitous than light.

Fair enough.

Then you are an American.

I gave an example of something I disagree with, you try to turn it into something I agree with.
Don't lie to make a point.

What the fuck is up with "pudding day"?
Did you see a movie again?

Several. The similie makes me happy.

But then you are allowing all these things to affect your opinion of your self.

They are my "self," whatever transient thing that is. Why shouldn't they affect my opinion of myself?

On those that you could not satisfy.

The hot naughty nurses? I admit that I failed at that task.
Otherwise you'll have to stop insinuating and get to the damn point already.

You don't?
Then you don't know your own self.

I'm talking about manipulating the human genome. An infant science at its best - why the hell SHOULD I know what will be possible?
Do pay attention. You resemble most, at this point, a ADD child under the influence of marijuana, at DIsneyland.

You know its true but, for you, this is more because you want to restructure standards where you are 'good enough' to them.
Who cares?

I know that your statement was ironic, coming from you? Why thank you.

Use them, playing their games, and expecting nothing more besides.
If you are strong, within the limitations of your own limits and talents, then the are your material and you the creator.
Knowing your limits and talents determines what creations you go for.

Still jacking off over the ideals of the Renaissance without understanding their context? Tsk tsk.

 

[Satyr]

You do realize the essential difference between a science that studies the workings of the human mind, and a pissant little pseudoscience that spouts platitudes about the human soul?

Yes, but all sciences went through a stage of infancy.

They are my "self," whatever transient thing that is. Why shouldn't they affect my opinion of myself?

Okay 'affect' was the wrong word, 'determine'.

The hot naughty nurses? I admit that I failed at that task.
Otherwise you'll have to stop insinuating and get to the damn point already.

This is a public forum.

I'm talking about manipulating the human genome. An infant science at its best - why the hell SHOULD I know what will be possible?

Imagine.

Do pay attention. You resemble most, at this point, a ADD child under the influence of marijuana, at DIsneyland.

Cute.

Still jacking off over the ideals of the Renaissance without understanding their context? Tsk tsk.

Please oh please explain the context.

 

[shorty_37]

This is quite entertaining, sit back and enjoy the show lolol.

 

[Xev]

Yes, but all sciences went through a stage of infancy.

Then we developed a methodology. Psychologists - the "healers of human souls" or whatever, therapists, etc, do not follow it. This isn't to say that they never do any good, but it simply does not use the scientific method.

This is a public forum.

And I'm publicly asking you to get to the damned point. In spite of being amusing, you really suck at argument - insults here, calling someone a retard there, 2-buck psychoanalysis over there, but you can't define and defend a position, even for your sycophants.

Use them, playing their games, and expecting nothing more besides.
If you are strong, within the limitations of your own limits and talents, then the are your material and you the creator.
Knowing your limits and talents determines what creations you go for.

It's one eighth Nietzsche and the rest is fail-tastic submission to the limits of what others want.
Play the game, manipulate people without care, you belabor this approach with me. A lot. I'm wondering why you would care if I follow it, why you would let out the secret of your happiness if it works, why you are so insistent that other people do as you are doing.