The Feminization of Man

[James R]

Satyr:

Here is my response, ignoring the insults.

Your first error is in not understanding anything I've said.

It is untrue that your thinking is so deep that nobody is intelligent enough to understand you. You presume too much.

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.

I made no reference to the past being inferior to the present.

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.

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.

You do not know what I've considered.

Right back at you.

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.

I have observed that you tend to start the name calling.

Is there anybody you consider is not a moron, by the way?

how easy it is to pretend knowledge when someone points to your ignorance.

I think I can be excused for my ignorance of your personal observations and deep-thinking insight. I don't have access to your private thoughts. I can only go on what you write.

So far, I haven't learned anything new from you. If you claim I'm ignorant, then tell me something I don't know.

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 doubt you've even worked out where I live, let alone my views on the state of democracy.

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.

This is a straw man. I have not demanded graphs and statistics.

I mean why moderate a forum supposedly about personal opinions?

Why post in one? Why not publish your thesis in book form, for example? Or subject it to peer review by non-retards? Or is nobody qualified enough to evaluate your great work?

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.

Again, you say this like you imagine it is news to me.

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.

The interpretations and conclusions are watered down.

This would be a good place for specific examples, but I know you consider such things unnecessary.

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.

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.

I'm having trouble parsing your first sentence.

As to the rest, I disagree with your claim that all activities are motivated by need.

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.

Nice rhetoric, but empty.

Collectivism necessitates the suppression of any traits that prevents assimilation and unification.

Obviously, but that doesn't in any way go to showing that collectivism is inferior to individualism.

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.

I'm not sure you understand the biological concept of "fitness". It doesn't necessarily mean "strongest" or "most dominant" or "most aggressive", as you appear to think.

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?

Did you get anything about mediocrity and what I said before, or should I repeat myself over and over again?

What I get is that you don't like democracy. You'd prefer government by the intelligent elite, which would, of course, include yourself while excluding all the "morons".

Tell me, how would you guarantee that the elite would remain the unbiased intelligensia, and that your preferred system would not become dominated by the self-interest of the self-appointed "elite"? This is what democracy is supposed to guard against, after all.

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.

and who decides what "quality" is and what standard is used?
Are you the standard?
No wonder.

Who decides? You decide, among all the other members. I do not write all the posts here. The content of any forum such as this is determined by the combined efforts of the community, not by any one individual.

Perhaps, with your preference for individuality above community, you'd be more comfortable with a blog than a "democratic" forum like this, where people can question your wisdom. (Do you have a blog already? I'd be surprised if you didn't.)

And the problem with civilization is that it demands a faked respect and a self-censoring.

You see self-censorship as a problem. I do not, or at least not in the extreme way you do.

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?

In what way do you consider me "weak"? Too much care about others? Not enough individuality for you? Too much respect for morons? Dare I say, too many friends?

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.

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?

I'm not sure how you interpreted my statement. Perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly enough. I was thinking about the biological fact of sexual differentiation. The "robustness" I mentioned is a genetic robustness, which includes such things as resistance of a population to disease and adaptiveness to environmental change. If you're reading gender politics of human beings into my statement then you've taken it the wrong way.

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?

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.

I don't know why you couldn't have written the last three sentences without the first two.

 

[redarmy11]

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.

This struck a chord with me. It occurs to me that it's only in the past 30 years or so that the female half of humanity has begun to shake off its shackles and fulfil its true potential. Barely a hundred years have passed since they've been able to exercise their democratic rights at the ballot box (and considerably less than a hundred years in many countries; indeed, in some, they still don't have that right today). And then, even where the law has placed them on an equal footing, social and cultural prejudices have for a long time rendered the apparent equality practically useless.

It seems to me that it's only very recently - since the 1980s, maybe - that the ground has shifted enough for us to say that, yes, here in the West we're at last paying more than lip service to the question of sexual equality.

So the question is, Satyr: don't you think our social institutions have restricted women's potential for far too long for you to yet make an accurate assessment of what women are and what they're capable of? That women can't compete with man's physical prowess is beyond doubt - it's how man came to dominate in the first place. But it should be interesting to see how they compete intellectually, all other things being equal - don't you think?

 

[Grantywanty]

This struck a chord with me. It occurs to me that it's only in the past 30 years or so that the female half of humanity has begun to shake off its shackles and fulfil its true potential.

Unfortunately a lot of people think that those shackles are natural. They think it they are the logical extension of Darwinian theory and cannot see how much culture was involved in the ways women have been oppressed and kept in boxes. That there have been cultures that were vastly more equal both far back in time but also outside (or inside) Western cultures is poo pooed.

Rather than facing their fears about what it is like to negotiate with, create with, be partners with WOMEN many men need to see femininity as unnatural, as counterproductive. They can't see how so many of the problems in society are caused by 'masculinity' divorced from balance.

They also tend to project their emotional needs onto nature and see it in survival of the fittest terms. Recent work in evolultionary theory, some not surprisingly done by women, has shown that partnership, symbiosis and coevolution are vastly more common than previously thought.

He does not warrent the respect implied in your questions.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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

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

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

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

:shrug:

The Wandering Mind

You are wrong on one small point. You assume we are being pressed in a role that does not fit our nature because society has changed and our nature has not.

It's rather more simple. Our social environment has changed and so has our nature under the influence of natural selection.

 

[Satyr]

You are wrong on one small point. You assume we are being pressed in a role that does not fit our nature because society has changed and our nature has not.

It's rather more simple. Our social environment has changed and so has our nature under the influence of natural selection.

I did not intend to imply such a thing.
The environment pressures the organsim to adapt.
If the environment persists over a long enough period it results in the organism being naturally selected for that particular environment.

Our anture is changind, that`s the whole point.


James R

It is untrue that your thinking is so deep that nobody is intelligent enough to understand you. You presume too much.

Not anybody....you and your band of imbeciles.

I made no reference to the past being inferior to the present.

You implied it, imbercile, with your reference to the 19th century.
If jut by mentining the past, you imply to the needy mind that the present and the future is better or more clear than the past then that`s your problem.

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.

I`ve mentioned your prejudices.
The past being inferior to the present.
The sanctity of life.
How a benefit does not entail a cost.
Your dependance on authority figures to evaluate existence and the world around you.

What`evidence did you imply with your original post?

The biggest problem I have with your thesis is that it makes many entirely unsupported claims.

Unsupported by whom?

Since you have largely not bothered with statistics or hard "fact", I see little reason to waste my time responding with such data.

Statistics produced by what?
Hard facts?!!! That was funny.

Is there anybody you consider is not a moron, by the way?

Yes.

I doubt you've even worked out where I live, let alone my views on the state of democracy.

Why would I care?

This is a straw man. I have not demanded graphs and statistics.

Huh?
See above.

Why post in one? Why not publish your thesis in book form, for example? Or subject it to peer review by non-retards? Or is nobody qualified enough to evaluate your great work?

Where do I go?

Again, you say this like you imagine it is news to me.

Why is making news to you relevant to this topic?

This would be a good place for specific examples, but I know you consider such things unnecessary.

Learning dissabilities, dysfunctions and a variety of syndroms that explain away deficiency.

Must go.

 

[Xev]

Unfortunately a lot of people think that those shackles are natural. They think it they are the logical extension of Darwinian theory and cannot see how much culture was involved in the ways women have been oppressed and kept in boxes. That there have been cultures that were vastly more equal both far back in time but also outside (or inside) Western cultures is poo pooed.

That's not even a small minority of academics.
It's a large number of posters on message boards, but those don't count as "people" to be strict. Half of them are bitter because no woman will ever live up to their mom (whose house they probably still live in) and the other half were trying for hipster irony and failed.

Rather than facing their fears about what it is like to negotiate with, create with, be partners with WOMEN many men need to see femininity as unnatural, as counterproductive.

It is, depending on how you use the term "natural." Much of what we would see as feminine is the mentality of an oppressed class.

They also tend to project their emotional needs onto nature and see it in survival of the fittest terms. Recent work in evolultionary theory, some not surprisingly done by women, has shown that partnership, symbiosis and coevolution are vastly more common than previously thought.

Read anything by Axelrod? He was my dad's professor and I've sat in on a few of his lectures. Basically he uses a bit of game theory and computer simulations to show how cooperative strategies evolve. Great stuff!

He does not warrent the respect implied in your questions.

Welcome to Sciforums, where anyone else as consistently abusive as Satyr would be banned. I get penalized for saying "fuck," he's coddled because being a bastard is just that edgy. So the rest of us have to abide by rules while he doesn't because some mod or another has taken him as a pet.

 

[Xev]

You are wrong on one small point. You assume we are being pressed in a role that does not fit our nature because society has changed and our nature has not.

It's rather more simple. Our social environment has changed and so has our nature under the influence of natural selection.

Oh please. We're an adaptable species, monkey. Look at all the people who get in car accidents, damage the left hemisphere of their brain and have to train the right to do some of the functions that were once the domain of the left.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Oh please. We're an adaptable species, monkey. Look at all the people who get in car accidents, damage the left hemisphere of their brain and have to train the right to do some of the functions that were once the domain of the left.

No, there is actually quite a lot of evidence showing our brains have been evolving fast in recent times.

I know that there is a myth that we are the 'super' adaptable species. Not influenced by the environment because we make the environment. It's all very boastful, but in reality we are merely another animal which is under the same pressures as any other animal. And the possibility that we have been shaped by the recent changes in our environment is rather plausible.

http://www.spuriousmonkey.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=908

recent brain evolution:

The story for ASPM is similar, but even more extreme. Here, the selected allele came under selection only 5800 years ago (!)

The agricultural revolution started about 10,000 years ago.
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/brain/lahn_2005_aspm_microcephalin_science.html

 

[Satyr]

James R

Nice rhetoric, but empty.

Nice comeback: A statement with no accompanying argument.

You suck....there I did it also.

Obviously, but that doesn't in any way go to showing that collectivism is inferior to individualism.

Who said that, idiot?!!!
This emntire essay is about how the collective of weakness subdues the superior individual.
Wake the fuck up!!!!

I'm not sure you understand the biological concept of "fitness". It doesn't necessarily mean "strongest" or "most dominant" or "most aggressive", as you appear to think.

Is that so?
Thanks for the newsflash.

Did you think that`s what I meant by it?

What I get is that you don't like democracy. You'd prefer government by the intelligent elite, which would, of course, include yourself while excluding all the "morons".

Tell me, how would you guarantee that the elite would remain the unbiased intelligensia, and that your preferred system would not become dominated by the self-interest of the self-appointed "elite"? This is what democracy is supposed to guard against, after all.

What part of Timocracy didn`t you get?

You see self-censorship as a problem. I do not, or at least not in the extreme way you do.

And that`s what makes you an idiot.

In what way do you consider me "weak"? Too much care about others? Not enough individuality for you? Too much respect for morons? Dare I say, too many friends?

Trying to percieve a world as you would like it to be rather than the way it is. That`s a sign of weakness.

I'm not sure how you interpreted my statement. Perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly enough. I was thinking about the biological fact of sexual differentiation. The "robustness" I mentioned is a genetic robustness, which includes such things as resistance of a population to disease and adaptiveness to environmental change. If you're reading gender politics of human beings into my statement then you've taken it the wrong way.

Yes, and this robustness does not necesitate two sexes with different roles?
No, I guess not.

Fasinating that you repeat this:

Again, you say this like you imagine it is news to me.

And you then ask for supporting evidence.
Do you want me to chew your food for you also?

 

[Chatha]

I can't seem to figure out Satyr's position on this topic, he seems to be wavering from philosophy, sociology, to pseudo science. I tried reading his opening link but I got bored and stopped after about 10 lines ,which by the way is why I am a science student. Satyr, in a clear concise manner, what exactly is your opinion? Thanks, and absolutely no offence.

 

[draqon]

I can't seem to figure out Satyr's position on this topic, he seems to be wavering from philosophy, sociology, to pseudo science. I tried reading his opening link but I got bored and stopped after about 10 lines ,which by the way is why I am a science student. Satyr, in a clear concise manner, what exactly is your opinion? Thanks, and absolutely no offence.

she.

 

[redarmy11]

Welcome to Sciforums, where anyone else as consistently abusive as Satyr would be banned. I get penalized for saying "fuck," he's coddled because being a bastard is just that edgy. So the rest of us have to abide by rules while he doesn't because some mod or another has taken him as a pet.

Oh. I'm surprised by this. I would've thought that, as two of the Old Guard, you'd be quite comfortable in each other's presence.

I like Satyr. I like him a lot, and I'd hate to see him go the way of poor Dr. Lou (also sadly missed). I like his insults and his wanton aggression. I like his arrogant, automatic assumption of superiority. It's not possible to take him seriously - many manage to, but I don't know how. To me he's an highly amusing caricature of a psychotic, brain-damaged little monkey that I can't help feeling sorry for.

P.S. Satyr: what is the rationale for the constant stream of invective? I know there is one - it's surely not born of something as mundane, as pedestrian, as mere rage! - but I can't work out what it is. Help me out here.

 

[Xev]

Oh. I'm surprised by this. I would've thought that, as two of the Old Guard, you'd be quite comfortable in each other's presence.

Oh I don't have beef with Satyr. I just dislike the hypocrisy.

I know that there is a myth that we are the 'super' adaptable species. Not influenced by the environment because we make the environment. It's all very boastful, but in reality we are merely another animal which is under the same pressures as any other animal. And the possibility that we have been shaped by the recent changes in our environment is rather plausible.

Not "the." Just "a." Humans are as prone to stagnation as any animal.
And, of course the latter. Better nutrition is the first thing that comes to mind, I can think of another couple off the top of my head.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Not "the." Just "a." Humans are as prone to stagnation as any animal.
And, of course the latter. Better nutrition is the first thing that comes to mind, I can think of another couple off the top of my head.

No species is prone to stagnation. Better nutrition will indeed influence natural selection of a species. As in it can result in adding selective pressure as opposed to removing selective pressure.

That's why in the last 10.000 year a substantial part of the human population acquired the ability to digest lactose after the age of 6. Moreover, this population coincides with the historical development of herding animals as a means of survival and eventually domestication.

Better nutrition, in this case an abundance of milk, led to a rapid evolution of a local population acquiring the ability to digest milk at a later age.

So I am afraid you just prove my point. There is no reason why the brain wouldn't be under the influence of the same cultural developments that occured during the agricultural revolution.

Similarly we have gained a tolerance for wheat products. You can ask a person who doesn't have this how shitty that is in our modern society. We haven't always been adapted to eat wheats efficiently. It evolved also recently.

 

[Xev]

No species is prone to stagnation. Better nutrition will indeed influence natural selection of a species.

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.

So I am afraid you just prove my point. There is no reason why the brain wouldn't be under the influence of the same cultural developments that occured during the agricultural revolution.

But, I'm not disagreeing. I mentioned nutrition affecting selection in my last post. In fact, I've thought that a lot of the leaps in technology and culture - the periods of growth then stagnation - must be in part related to nutrition. Turns out that people are really dumb if they don't get enough protein and b-vitamins when they are infants.

 

[mikenostic]

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.

Crocs and Sharks are two others that fit that bill.
Sharks have been more or less unchanged for the better part of 450 million years.

They also tend to project their emotional needs onto nature and see it in survival of the fittest terms. Recent work in evolultionary theory, some not surprisingly done by women, has shown that partnership, symbiosis and coevolution are vastly more common than previously thought.

Partnerships, symbiosis and coevolution for what species is more common?
I'm not quite following you on this. Can you elaborate? How does it tie in with feminism?

It's a large number of posters on message boards, but those don't count as "people" to be strict. Half of them are bitter because no woman will ever live up to their mom (whose house they probably still live in) and the other half were trying for hipster irony and failed.

Haha...the last type of girl I would want to date would be one that's like my mom.

It is, depending on how you use the term "natural." Much of what we would see as feminine is the mentality of an oppressed class.

How would femininity be seen as a mentality of an oppressed class?

 

[Xev]

Crocs and Sharks are two others that fit that bill.
Sharks have been more or less unchanged for the better part of 450 million years.

Aye, my boyfriend and I went to a "feed the caimans" event at the zoo the other weekend. Those mothers are primitive, and it's really fracking cool to watch them leap for food.
And there are cealocanths (sp?), and of course the loch ness monster.

Partnerships, symbiosis and coevolution for what species is more common?
I'm not quite following you on this. Can you elaborate? How does it tie in with feminism?

More common than the idea of "nature red in tooth and claw" would lead one to believe.

How would femininity be seen as a mentality of an oppressed class?

Submissiveness, docility, fatalism, passivity. You can interpret the historical conditions as you like.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

 

[Tnerb]

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.

Ok you weirdo.
I posted in this thread for a reason. I think I have some valid opinions of this matter. Your bs is not going to "dis-interest" this... understand?

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?

LOL

I don't think we've gotton off the philosophy. You're the only one left on the philosophy- moron who can only speak one language

I have a hard time napping, these days Satyr.
I don't feel like discussing your bo-bain points, weirdo..

Had what "answer", moron?

Damn- weird shit!- I forgot what you said LOL

Is that what you call this mind-stew of feces and retardation you are slowly cooking?
Bon apetit.

You are a weird shit, that's for certain.

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.

More bullshit.

Let's see.
What the fuck don't I get- moron.
Not meant for me. Your long lecture about bullshit that I have clarified a bit is not meant for me. I guess you're stupid.

Are you giving me homework?

Absolutely.
Make sure you take it seriously, though ... hmm

Watching you think, I believe it's a bit too late for the future tense.

Who the fuck cares, you dimple.

And what a perfect example, you make.
After peta9, you are a precious specimen.

Hmm. I didn't think I'd get any compliments from you. But you're taking back your retardness.. lol.
I forgot what I said. Too many pages and I'm too lazy.

Indeed.

I remember this one. The main point in all liklyness.
"The feminization of man is a necessity of society" or some bullshit like that. That's all mostly what it all is. Go ahead, criticize it you idiot. I don't give a shit. Your criticisms smell like farts.
LOL

Oh yeah. It is needed for our society. It is more of an interpretation. But you forget to classify your long winded bullshit thinking. YOu are more of a moron than you even believe you are. You are infact in more trouble than you know you are. You are a pathetic thinker, satyr.

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.

Anyway.
Why don't you share it for us, give us the answer all straight up and plain, so we can bring the debate to the forefront. I want to see this idiocy done with. So do it. You can't though. It's impossible for you.

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.

You're just talking garbage.
I don't care how stupid I am. Infact, I would be proud if what you say is true. Is that a sign of in-decency, or ..

I don't know what this means but I'm sure than in your little mind it's a 'good point'.

Sure. If you don't understand it, it's a good point. lol

God I love this forum.

Only because you have a small penis

 

[Tnerb]

Sorry, I've recieved a warning. I've decided to go back and do another response. Leaving the ****s*** post I just made just for satyr to interpret however he feels like it.

This is what I said:

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?


Now.
I'm going to clarify what I had meant.
Satyr obviously doesn't understand. I am the only one capable of understanding what I write apparently.

Satyr:


Get off the feminism.
It is in all liklyness going to do you no good whatsoever.
Why do you think about it, I wonder.. :shrug:
I don't know why you think about it.
Probably some inferiority complex.. lol
Why would you think about feminism?
It's already done, there's an answer somewhere out there. If you knew the answer you wouldn't be talking about nonsense. Am I not right?

The answer in feminism lies in the things which have not been uncovered.
Everything that has been covered- great. It's done and over with. I don't know what new response satyr has made in his thread. I don't know what new points have been explored. I don't really care. It's not something that can affect me. Moreover it isn't something that can affect him. It's that simple.


Does it make you superior to think about feminism?
It probably does. You love to stuff your face full of feminsim. And guak at how it amazes you.


Get off the philosophy.
Er... care to take this one away?


Quit thinking about feminism and how feminization fo man is going to affect man kind.
Seriously. lol


If you had the answer you would not be spreading it.
Now. You said here something like are you giving me homework?
You need the homework. You can come up with nothing better.
But this is true. Don't spread something that you already know. Right. Something like that.


Anyway. After some more "mindless dribble" I then said this:
Feminization of man is something necessary to society.
Sure. It's necessary.
I am not sure how.
I am not sure you know how.
I am not sure why we should care :shrug:

But if it's so necessary to society, then this is apparently exactly what this thread is about.
Care to elaborate?
Yeah, it's absolutely necessary.
But we need the points clarified.
More than likley, I would critizie it until I see a good point.
Spread the good points.
What are the good points.
Christ, I don't want to know what the good points are.

I'll take it. Nah. Never mind. It's probably already been taken a little bit.
I'll be glad when you put a rest to this crap, anyway.


Care to explain?
Okay. Probably a lot of bs. But Satyr. You need to share with us how this works. I'm not going to read a ton of BS just to come to some understanding of .. some other bs got it?

 

[Satyr]

I can't seem to figure out Satyr's position on this topic, he seems to be wavering from philosophy, sociology, to pseudo science. I tried reading his opening link but I got bored and stopped after about 10 lines ,which by the way is why I am a science student.

A science student...well woopdy-doo.
Was that supposed to provide us with evidence that you are some kind of 'expert' or that you know what the hell you are talking about?

Satyr, in a clear concise manner, what exactly is your opinion?

Aaaaah....okay....clear.....and concise....
Y-o-u a-r-e a p-u-s-s-y!

Thanks, and absolutely no offence.

You are welcome...none taken.


redarmy11

I like Satyr. I like him a lot, and I'd hate to see him go the way of poor Dr. Lou (also sadly missed). I like his insults and his wanton aggression. I like his arrogant, automatic assumption of superiority. It's not possible to take him seriously - many manage to, but I don't know how. To me he's an highly amusing caricature of a psychotic, brain-damaged little monkey that I can't help feeling sorry for.

How nice.
This way you can continue going through life as the same old lovable idiot that you already are.
No effort required. Stay as you are.


Xev

Oh I don't have beef with Satyr. I just dislike the hypocrisy.

Talk about hypocrisy....What hypocrisy?

It is, depending on how you use the term "natural." Much of what we would see as feminine is the mentality of an oppressed class.

Oh palease...spare me the liberal gospel.
"Oppressed class"?!!!
You've been worshiped and placed on a pedestal for some time.
Wars have been fought over you...well not you specifically.
Oppressed class!!!
We'll have to wait for the revolutionary thinknig that comes out of those brains of yours now that you are not "oppressed".

Submissiveness, docility, fatalism, passivity. You can interpret the historical conditions as you like.

Are female chimpanzees also an oppressed class?
What about female gorillas?
What about female orangutans or lions or wolves...all of them could not escape paternalism?

Figures.
Why do you think you are an "oppressed class"?
Has your mind also been oppressed?
Does adversity produce overcoming or not?
Why has it not in the females case? Even feminism is a male invention, a byproduct of democracy and egalitarianism; a product of a culture of incorporation and assimilation.
I love that you had to resort to Marxism to support your downtrodden excuses.
Communism always attracted, just like Christianity, the weakest and most vulnerable groups and inspired retribution in them, promising social justice, whatever that means, and a paradise on earth based on sharing and loving and subduing every human instinct of self.

Give me a break. You're good at breaking things.
you must be aching to mention the fact, or the illusion, that you now have a boyfriend...oops there it is...

Aye, my boyfriend and I went to a "feed the caimans" event at the zoo the other weekend. Those mothers are primitive, and it's really fracking cool to watch them leap for food.
And there are cealocanths (sp?), and of course the loch ness monster.

Is this supposed to make you happy or is it supposed to make you normal?


existabrent
Yadda, yadda, yadda...and you say nothing at all...

Here are a few highlights...

Feminization of man is something necessary to society.
Sure. It's necessary.

Ummm...isn't that what I said?

I am not sure how.
I am not sure you know how.
I am not sure why we should care

That much is clear.

*Back on-topic*

The issue also seems to be a metaphysical one.

The idea of appearances not meaning anything important or not determining anything, rests upon the assumption that there is a mind/body dichotomy or that there is a thing-in-itself underlying the superficial apparent.

In the first case the implication is that what differences appear or are made apparent - interpreted by the mind into abstractions - do not reflect essence.
That is that what we observe is divided into the physical and the spiritual.
The physical can display multiplicity whereas the spiritual remains singular and so an unchanging absolute.

In the second case the world becomes a facade, a Buddhist illusion hiding the emptiness or hiding a deeper identity. The Kantian bullshit meant to preserve the idea of morality and 'goodness' and the idea of God and soul.

The most an honest mind can say is that what appears is the only thing perceived and so no further assumptions are necessitated.
To assume that soemthing is hidden is to resort to an unjustified belief for something you can neither prove or ever become aware of and it is to beleive that the universe is playing games with man or that man, being a product of this universe this process, was somehow not produced in a way which would help him survive or understand and interpret his environment.

The honest mind can only say that what appears is complete, because there is no need for a facade and because the senses were produced to interpret the very thing that is perceived in a manner which would be accurate enough for the organism which is served by these senses to continue perceiving.

Therefore our very survival proves that our abstractions of what is apparent are good enough for us to become successful using them.

Now we proceed.
The apparent is not superfluous nor is it accidental. It is the end result of a process, a temporal flow.
The apparent displays essence fully, no mater if we understand it accurately using our abstractions of it or if our senses perceive all that is to be perceived.
Therefore multiplicity is not accidental or a superfluous process producing phenomena at a whim.
What appears is all and the way it appears, its characteristics, display its essence fully.
The manner in which our mind abstracts this essence is but a simplification which corresponds to soemthing actual.

So, a phenomenon's shape, size, texture, smell, look, color, taste etc. are all interpretations of the essence of what appears.
All differences are not superficial but display something actual about that which differs.
This is why the different is used by the mind to comprehend and to establish abstracted unities or identities or categories.

That which makes something appear different, no matter how minute the difference may be, is not irrelevant.

Therefore that which appears different must be different both aesthetically and in its essence.

Conclusion.
The external, the external differences between males and females are not merely aesthetic. They display a difference in essence: Essence being the sum of a phenomenon's past Becoming, culminating in the apparent which ceases to be the moment it is perceived due to temporal flux.

I find it as a sign of selective reasoning and the absence of integrity the practice of using empiricism to make judgments on most phenomenon, determining using sensual information the quality of the apparent, and to then pretend that these same standards now do not apply in determining the quality of other phenomena which might have personal or socio-economic connotations.

It would appear that for some the phenomenon's historical background, its heritage and its essence is displayed in its appearance and the characteristics that make it up, an appearance that determines it, whereas when it suits them then this heritage is irrelevant. They pretend they have overcome their own pasts and our now independent free-willing entities, beyond all labels and determining factors; they have overcome their own nature.

In the case of gender they pretend they have overcome their sexual role all the while clinging onto the sexual identity that attaches them to this historical past.
They do this by flipping the rational and claiming that it was culture that created gender roles and not that it was nature and the, biological necessity of reproduction.
In fact all culture does is it restricts or determines the symbols this sexual role is to live under.

In recent times in western cultures it is culture itself that creates the idea that there is no such thing as gender differences and gender roles.
This because western systems have reached such a stage of sophistication that sex has been made almost obsolete and technology have leveled all differences into a matter of purchasing power - money.

A weakling can become powerful by buying a gun.
An ugly woman can become pretty by getting operations or by using makeup.
A dumbass can pretend he is smart by buying wisdom at the bookstore.

If we are to say that appearances are superficial or irrelevant then we must do away with any notions of species or categories or with empiricism altogether.

Picking and choosing which categories matter and when sensual data is relevant and when it is not is, to say the least, hypocritical.