The Feminization of Man

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Satyr, Sep 5, 2007.

  1. Satyr Banned Banned

    Which mehtod would you propose to be the best?

    A method based on Adler, Freud or Jung?
    Or did you haver another in mnid?

    You want me to elaborate on my analysis of you?
    A sucker for punishment, you are.

    I`ve been defining and defending positions for years now.
    All my positions are intertwined and mutually dependant.

    Even my metaphysical positions are related to this thread.
    Why would I waste my time explaining or going into detail on what others fail to accept the basic premises of?
    It all gets bogged down on cocepts I think of as self-evident or, at least, reasonable in comparison to others.

    The sanctity of life....the existence of God....goodness prevails...good and evil are clearcut concepts...civilization is not based on hypocrisy and bullshit...we are born with free-will...the seperation of the material world from the spiritual world, mind body dichotome, selective reasoning, nurture over nature, the courage to accept the inevitable and the clarity and will to change what can be changed.
    All roadblocks to undertstanding.
    How can you reason with anyone that accepts crap as facts or as the basis of their well-being and peace of mind and then calls this objective thinking accusing anyone that goes against these premises as being ill or of being governed by fear?

    Are you asking what all this means?
    If I say the sky is blue, will you ask me to explain what this means?
    Information, awareness is what it is.
    What you do with it, how you react to it is up to you.
    Are you asking what I`m doing in response to the Feminization of Man I describe?

    Do you see me insisting or caring?

    Do whatever the hell you like.
    Are you still on Nietzsche?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    HAve you a particular country in mind? The INdustrial evolution began in the UK around 1760 to 1780, by the mid 19th century it had engulfed most of Europe and the USA. Women were employed all the way through it, I remember reading about a bad mill fire in the late 18th century in which a large number of women and girls died. In those days they didn't have fire escapes.
    Also, women back in the medieval period were also involved in their husbands work- they would learn about it from their fathers, marry someone from the same guild, and then carry on assisting them. Then pictures from the Luttrell psalter show a man and a woman breaking clods, and women were also shown reaping corn.
    To put it simply, the 20th century idealised division of labour, the man going out to work/ hunt for money, and the woman keeping the home, is an over simplification.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    "When Adam delved and Eve span
    who then, was the working man?"
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Well, they weren't getting a salary from anyone.
  8. Satyr Banned Banned

    That there would be a division of labor, as there is a division of sexual roles and reproductive roles, is not a cultural invention.
    Nor is it a cultural invention to suppose that this division split a species where one part nurtured and developed certain attributes while sacrificing the development of others in accordance with these sexual and reproductive roles.

    The bower bird builds to attract a mate.
    How absurd to then not consider the possibility that this sexual role has managed to make the male a better nest builder than the female.

    That this division persistent long enough to produce a physical difference is obvious, but many, governed by some cultural value and need to maintain this sense of similarity and common potentials, might deny that these physical differences were also accompanied by mental divergence.

    It is only after male competition has produced a level of technology which makes reproduction almost superfluous and has detached the sexual act from the its repercussion and has made physical difference obsolete does culture come in to teach the elimination of gender roles.
    Gender roles which up until now were but projections of primordial divisions of sexual and reproductive and social roles and which culture and civilization harnessed and directed and gave symbolic dimensions, limiting some aspect and enhancing others, are now uneccesary and even detrimental to social cohesion.
    Detrimental because smaller groups tolerate diversity better than larger ones and so larger groups, seeking to assimilate larger and larger populations of individual human beings demands a stricter and stricter rule of conduct and expression of individuality.

    For example in religiously uniform cultures the topic of religious freedom is irrelevant, whereas if a group a social unity wishes to integrate harmoniously people with diverse religious beliefs then it becomes an issue that must be made irrelevant by eliminating its decisive character and its connection to power.

    Similarly a group wanting to integrate individuals with varying levels of intelligence or physical strengths must eliminate the significance and decisive nature of these attributes and reinvent the standards so as to incorporate more and more people into its fold.

    The feminist excuse that gender is a cultural invention used to subjugate females to paternalistic systems is only partly correct.
    Gender roles are natural roles and extensions of sexual and reproductive roles, necessitating particular behaviors and talents and characteristics.
    That female sexual power had to be subjugated to male dominance is obvious and a technology, a development essential to producing civilization in its early stages.

    In nature males compete over females and access to females, as a focus after competition over other resources has been established.
    For a male a female is a resource.

    To eliminate this disruptive and destructive ebb and flow of male competition, man invented monogamy and the institution of marriage, thusly harnessing a females sexual power and managing to incorporate as many males as possible within its unity.

    The reasons why this is no longer necessary is due to many cultural and social factors which has made this subjugation more and more unnecessary to maintain social harmony.
    This process I call Feminization.

    I call it this and not domestication or institutionalization, not to create controversy or to insult women, because feminization also affects them, but because I perceive a direct link between the attributes which are produced by the primordial sexual and reproductive social roles and the current production of specific mindsets and attributes which benefit harmonization and cohesion.
  9. Xev Registered Senior Member

    That's what I was telling that dude who claimed that there were no women in the workforce before the 70s. I can't talk to you anymore, I'm almost done with Heretics! And my boss is being a cunt.
    *Runs away*

    Satyr: that goes for you too.
  10. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    If there is one thing I have never quite understood, it is the fixation with sex that is apparent in swear words. Perhaps Satyr has something to say on the subject?
  11. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Ah, it's Kilppymitch. I'll see what I can find in my library about percentages of women working etc.
  12. Xev Registered Senior Member

    I said "science." That excludes Freud and Jung.

    I wanted you to clarify a statement. And that's fine, here's why:

    To eliminate this disruptive and destructive ebb and flow of male competition, man invented monogamy and the institution of marriage, thusly harnessing a females sexual power and managing to incorporate as many males as possible within its unity.

    I fooled around with an absolutely gorgeous, caring, sweet, green-haired girl last weekend while my boyfriend hung out with us. I'm fixated on making sure the two of them will be happy and down with a repeat this weekend. You're fixated on male dominance and the compromises that marriage and children entail.
    How can you formulate a criticism relevent to my life?
    Oh, and I'm totally bragging now. See, this is me bragging. Brag brag brag.
    (Yes, I know that nobody cares)

    Also, with the exception of mind-body, mostly ignored by anyone doing philosophy in the real world.

    I see you harping. I know that you are like a Dodge truck in your rugged, masculine individuality, and that you detest my feminine weakness and sensitivity, and that you are just as awesome as can be, but you still DO refuse to shut up about how my approach is inferior.

    Nope, you are. Most of your arguments, "I am teh creator!" and "Socialism and Christianity betray the same worldview" and "OMG we've entered the age of the herd!" and "the weak resent the strong so they change values" are just straight up lifted from Nietzsche.
    If you were whining "OMG social control has become invisible in the guise of reform" or "types of thought can be organized and diagrammed" I'd mock you for lifting off of Foucault and Fodor, respectively.

    Organized labor is a social invention. So, for that matter, is work beyond a sustinance level.

    Oh gawd. First off, ever been in a small town? You really think they tolerate diversity more there than in a city?
    Second, "diversity" is perfectly manufactured. Individuality is this new great myth from the cult of the self, but the whole concept (although I'm sure you are a beautiful and unique snowflake) derives from grossly generalizing thought patterns.

  13. Satyr Banned Banned


    How your adolescent experimentations and your attempt to live on the fringe will work out we shall see.
    Just be prepared to be slowly left behind, if you aren't willing to make compromises.

    I guess what I say is about an average, not some sadomasochist getting his kicks on every weekend or living a secret life on the side, or some homo who's very existence is owed to the system that shelters him from the worse of his difference, or some dude into bestiality ashamed to even admit his passion.

    All sexual drives and desires which are not strictly interested in reproduction expose the individual's inner turmoil or anxieties.
    Repression often comes forth via alternative routes. One of which is sex.
    Wanting to get beaten up during intercourse, let's say, is a symptom of an inner pressure.
    A man wanting another to shove his penis up his ass, and calls this love, is also a symptom.
    That sex in more sophisticated organism takes on added roles as a social lubricant or a psychological pressure release is evidence of the repression all social interactions cause in individual organisms that must compromises and control certain drives and expressions of self so as to remain acceptable and welcomed.
    The cultured man, the civilized man, is a man that exhibits a level of self-control and repression which becomes admirable because it is so welcomed by the whole.
    We call it politeness or civility or culture.

    The relevance is that you are a symptom of decadence and an environment where sex is trivial and only a pastime or a form of escapism.
    The decline of the western traditional family is another symptom.

    What the long-term consequences of this will be we shall see. I have some ideas but they are not certain.

    And yet it underlies many 'progressive' ideologies, as a given.
    It's called selective reasoning where one logic is applied in one area and another, often a completely contradictory one, in another.

    In fact when it suits them the liberal glorifies empiricism as the height of human reasoning and the purest of all methodologies in the search for reality.
    But when it does not suit his social and ideological interests empiricism is defamed, degraded and cast aside as superficial or hiding 'deeper realities' or a common source which equates all multiplicity as a farce.

    In racial matters, for example, color is deemed irrelevant and skin-deep, just as beauty is to comfort the less than beautiful.
    And yet we use color to determine quality in every other area.
    And yet they do not follow their own logic and consider form and taste and smell and texture similarly irrelevant and superficial, because here there are no cultural connotations or uncomfortable 'truth's to hide.

    It is the same method Christians use to defend their need for God.
    They use the cause/effect erroneous dichotomy to come to a creator god, but then they change the rules saying that here, for no apparent reason, the effect has no cause.

    The question for all you liberal, bleeding heart, enlightened, new-aged modern intellects is:
    Is nature superfluous?
    If not then does not all difference denote a difference not only of appearance but of essence?
    If not then why does man differentiate and judge reality using his senses and his perception of differences to evaluate the world?

    What similarities in behavior one perceives in modern social unities is one created artificially and using repression, indoctrination, technology, education and force, which limits certain choices, denies certain drives and produces a level of shared mediocrity.

    Your feminine weakness?
    There's little about you that fits this label, unless you force it or play that part to find solace in being accepted and in finding a boyfriend.

    Who the fuck are you talking to here?

    Having mentors or minds you share opinions with is, for you, something shameful?
    Did you come to this world ready made?
    Do not some people put words to your ideas or offer you the courage to express them?
    Being taught is not shameful. Remaining a student is.

    And by the way a creation ceases belonging to the creator once it is shared.


    How [insult deleted] are you?
    A small town doesn't exist on tis own. It is a small town in a large nation. It isn't independent from it.

    Diversity is tolerated in smaller independent groups because here the talents and efforts of each individual are a matter of survival.
    No member is expendable.

    Diversity within the confines of nature and what the species is.

    Uniqueness is the slow cutting away from this heritage.
    A temporal distancing, like a singularity.

    Each individual is a combination of the same instincts and needs and drives to different degrees and with different intensities.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2007
  14. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Was it this dull back in the Glory Days too?
  15. Satyr Banned Banned

    What "Glory Days" you [insult removed]?
    Is anyone speaking about any Utopian past, you [insult removed]?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2007
  16. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Why isn't he banned :/
  17. Satyr Banned Banned

    I will be you [insult deleted].
    Then you can return to your simplistic mediocrity and feel-good world views.

    Be patient, you [insult deleted].
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2007
  18. draqon Banned Banned

    he actually discusses the topic, keeping the evil charisma at the top most acceptable level possible.
  19. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    It's fine that you didn't get the reference - it wasn't addressed to you.

    You're completely wrong about small towns.
  20. Tnerb Banned Banned

    What kind of self displays him/herself like this?!
    I will be you retarded baboon.
    At least it is mildly funny..?
    "simplistic mediocrity" - bullshit.
    It is simply a phase, satyr.

    "feel-good world views"
    Why do you not adopt some of those I wonder..

    Paitence watching you and xev fight is great.
    But .. :shrug:
  21. Bells Staff Member

    We're men, we're men in tights
    We roam around the forest looking for fights
    We're men, We're men in tights
    We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right
    We may look like sissies
    But watch what you say, or else we'll put out your lights
    We're men, we're men in tights
    Always on guard defending the people's rights

    La la la la la la la la la, la la la la la la la la la...

    La la la la la la la la la, la la la la la la la la la...

    We're men, manly men, we're men in tights Yeah!
    We roam around the forest looking for fights
    We're men, we're men in tights
    We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right
    We may look like pansies
    But don't get us wrong, or else we'll put out your lights
    We're men, we're men in tights, tight tights
    Always on guard defending the people's rights
    When you're in a fix, call for the men in tights

    We're Butch!!
  22. Satyr Banned Banned

    Have you lived in one, [insult deleted]?
    I've lived ten years in one.
    I worked in farming, loading trucks with produce, in a lumber mill, digging ditches, picking oranges and tomatoes and lsitening to [insult deleted] like you.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2007
  23. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    How do you think I got to be such a degenerate halfwit, Satyr? It takes decades of suffocating insularity to produce people like me.

    Edit: And like you. Heh. This is why we get on so well. We have a lot in common.

    (You know that what you said about us is bullshit then.)
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2007

Share This Page