Feminism and Societal Suicide

[Tattooed Goddess]

Maxcock, given the fact my response to yours is way too long in characters because we are both wordy, i will PM it to you. As to not keep this entire thread off topic. I actually look forward to the responses to his questions. Not a bunch of garbage related to your comments about me.

 

[maxcok]

Thanks. I wasn’t aware that the Etc. forum is gay dominated, . . .

It's not. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." -- Jerry Seinfeld

. . . and that is sub-optimal since I’m mostly looking for a discussion with straight women and straight men, as it impacts them directly, while the effects on gay men are more indirect.

How so? Because gay men are less relevant in socio/political structures? Are their views on the same any less relevant? Are they "sub-optimal"?? Is it a requirement to be a pussy hound in order to have anything worth contributing to this topic? Like you do? Of course gender is at the heart of the discussion, maybe even procreation is peripherally touched on, but seriously, what the hell does it have to do with sex?

I didn’t put it in Women’s Issues because this isn’t a female issue as much as it is a societal issue.

First sensible thing I've heard you say.

Perhaps the Politics forum would have been the best location.

Please god, no.

..................................................


Your 'response' to my rebuttal:

Again, it is about relative civility. If the alternatives are more barbaric, then a society that is less barbaric is relatively civil.

Again, deflective! I listed three societies, Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, and North Korea, among the most patriarchal in modern history, and among the most militaristic and "uncivil". According to your thesis, they ought to provide relatively a higher degree of "civil living" than less patriarchal societies. Relative to these three, please justify your previous statement, which made no mention of "barbaric". No more deflections.

Here 'tis:

Interesting point. I would argue that patriarchal ‘civilizations’ provide relatively more ‘civil’ living than the alternative.

Next:

Unless you are talking about establishing a new world order under one government, any society will have to compete with others for its survival.

Does Sweden compete militarily for its survival? Does Denmark? the Netherlands? All very peaceful, progressive and civil societies, and relatively unpatriarchal I would say. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Or not.

For multiple societies to not engage in competition would require a change in human nature. And maybe you’re right, maybe we will evolve, but in the genetic sense, that would require those with more base natures to be outcompeted (via a reproductive disadvantage and/or a survival disadvantage) by those with more ‘humanist’ natures. At least as far as reproductive disadvantage is concerned, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Perhaps, as I said, we need a change in human thinking, transcending human nature. I think it will take something catastrophic to wake us up. The impending doom of global climate change could be a catalyst, once enough of us face up to it, or another major world military conflict. At any rate, we don't have time to wait for chains of Neanderthal procreators to die out through your false Darwinian construct (another of my rebuttals you failed to address). Is evolution in thought genetically based? I think not. As I said:

Hopefully we will evolve to the awareness that our survival on this planet we all share depends on a new way of thinking before we annihilate ourselves. Hopefully it can be achieved through intelligence and not bloodshed. In order for that to happen, folks like you will need to step aside, or if push comes to shove . . . . well it's survival of the species, isn't it?.

Lock and load, peaceniks! Our very survival depends on it.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

A summary for those who cannot be bothered to read all TroMag's posts:

He thinks women should be sexually and societally subservient to men so that more men get to fuck more often and the women don't get much of a say in who gets to fuck them. He thinks that this is an integral part of human civilisation.

My personal take on that incorporates the phrase 'institutionalised rape' and quite a bit of swearing.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

im more confused that a guy who doesn't like how feminism cranks out sluts manages to brag about how many women he has had sex with. Sounds like Feminism is working for him wouldn't you say?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Oh no, Red. They would have succumbed to him anyway - even at risk of a beating from their rightful owners (their fathers or husbands). He's clearly such a stud that Pudicita herself would have no choice but to submit.

 

[B_Hickboy]

I probably should have anticipated this type of response.

Yeah, but you're just not that smart.

The number of women I've slept with easily puts me in the top 20% of men in terms of sexual access to women, so this discussion isn't borne of personal sexual frustration.

Prove it.

However, I do know several guys who have a tough time with this and their numbers are increasing - this does not bode well for our current trajectory.

Your research may indicate that, but it's far too limited for you to be making sweeping generalizations.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Again, it is about relative civility. If the alternatives are more barbaric, then a society that is less barbaric is relatively civil.

Considering "barbaric" has absolutely no sociological or anthropological meaning and both "barbaric" and "civil" are totally relative terms based entirely on culture bias it's almost impossible to see what relavance you think they have to the discussion you've raised.

The point you're making about Patriarchal societies being in some way better adapted to the Social Darwinist system you erroneously imagine human societies competing in is absurd since even if societies competed with one another in the way organisms do (which all the best science suggests they do not) you would have no basis for comparison because so far as we know Patriarchal societies have never competed with analogous Gynocentric societies.

The hypothetical culture you describe in which women have total sexual freedom, free that is from the constraints of cultural biases created by Patriarchal cultural imperatives does not exist.

Instead what you are describing is a view of what female sexual freedom is from a perspective which is totally biased by Patriarchal sexual cultural imperatives.

Hence bullshit.

 

[helgaleena]

I love posts with lots of anthropology! Too bad Tromag doesn't know any, so his premise is going to fall to bits fast.

 

[sbat]

Organisms in nature are actually nowhere near as competitive as popular knowledge would have it. Symbiosis, interconnectivity, and integration are all more apt terms to describe nature's instinct than competitive in the modern understanding of Darwin.

We see the spectacular of a lion chasing down a gazelle, or silverback gorillas fighting each other, and we think "aha, this is how nature acts." But the vast majority of organisms (and bacteria and other microorganisms make of the vast majority of living things) are actually cooperative and symbiotic by default. Millions of different types of bacteria aid things like human cell respiration, digestion, disease fighting. We could not survive without them. Mitochondria are symbiotically integrated in the photosynthetic cycle of plants, which play a major part in maintaining an atmosphere livable for humans and other Oxygen dependent organisms.

Ants farm fungi, all sorts of small organisms chill out on much bigger ones and live off of them in a way that maintains the health of the bigger one.

Even viruses, so maligned, are essential for ensuring the mutations that occur on the DNA/RNA replication level of the cell division/reproduction process that allows for genetic diversity.

The worst part of the entire thing is that this whole competitive thing is attached to Darwin, as if he was the one who made the "competiting" commentary. The man just visited some islands and wrote down his admittedly limited observations - its his followers that worked out a philosophy

Considering "barbaric" has absolutely no sociological or anthropological meaning and both "barbaric" and "civil" are totally relative terms based entirely on culture bias it's almost impossible to see what relavance you think they have to the discussion you've raised.

The point you're making about Patriarchal societies being in some way better adapted to the Social Darwinist system you erroneously imagine human societies competing in is absurd since even if societies competed with one another in the way organisms do (which all the best science suggests they do not) you would have no basis for comparison because so far as we know Patriarchal societies have never competed with analogous Gynocentric societies.

The hypothetical culture you describe in which women have total sexual freedom, free that is from the constraints of cultural biases created by Patriarchal cultural imperatives does not exist.

Instead what you are describing is a view of what female sexual freedom is from a perspective which is totally biased by Patriarchal sexual cultural imperatives.

Hence bullshit.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Organisms in nature are actually nowhere near as competitive as popular knowledge would have it. Symbiosis, interconnectivity, and integration are all more apt terms to describe nature's instinct than competitive in the modern understanding of Darwin.

We see the spectacular of a lion chasing down a gazelle, or silverback gorillas fighting each other, and we think "aha, this is how nature acts." But the vast majority of organisms (and bacteria and other microorganisms make of the vast majority of living things) are actually cooperative and symbiotic by default. Millions of different types of bacteria aid things like human cell respiration, digestion, disease fighting. We could not survive without them. Mitochondria are symbiotically integrated in the photosynthetic cycle of plants, which play a major part in maintaining an atmosphere livable for humans and other Oxygen dependent organisms.

Ants farm fungi, all sorts of small organisms chill out on much bigger ones and live off of them in a way that maintains the health of the bigger one.

Even viruses, so maligned, are essential for ensuring the mutations that occur on the DNA/RNA replication level of the cell division/reproduction process that allows for genetic diversity.

The worst part of the entire thing is that this whole competitive thing is attached to Darwin, as if he was the one who made the "competiting" commentary. The man just visited some islands and wrote down his admittedly limited observations - its his followers that worked out a philosophy

I'm referring to Social Darwinism which erroneously makes all the presumptions your talking about in regards to evolution and then applies these incorrect presumptions to Sociology and political science.

I agree with you that this view of both Evolutionary theory and Social Sciences is completely skewed. :wink:

 

[sbat]

I'm referring to Social Darwinism which erroneously makes all the presumptions your talking about in regards to evolution and then applies these incorrect presumptions to Sociology and political science.

I agree with you that this view of both Evolutionary theory and Social Sciences is completely skewed. :wink:

Well, I made that point because Social Darwinism morphs the popular understanding of Darwin's observations (survival of the fittest, etc) into a political/social ideology. And frankly, TroMag - having contributed thoughtful posts in the past - deserves more than a simple "you're deflecting!" or "not worth my time"

I will agree that his viewpoint appears to be sexually very male-centric - that it is a "bad thing" for a man to not be able to find a sexual partner. The problem is, such systems when enforced rigorously, are actually responsible for the worst economies and societies with the worst standards of living in the world by any measure. Such systems have high birthrates, high rates of violence, uneducated women. They also have far higher rates of terrorist conversion, because everybody is so freaking poor. Countries where female education rates are highest are cleaner, healthier, safer to live in, and more productive. Sad fact is, that we are worse off when all men are entitled to sex and reproductive rights.

Like I said before, what feminism will reap is a society in which women take over administrative and bureaucratic control, while the A-list men take up positions at the top as chief decision-makers, while B-list and below (if they can get a woman) take on a secondary breadwinner role. That's already coming to fruition in the east coast. A city like Washington DC, the wife has a high liklihood of being more educated and higher-earning than the husband, and I know of a lot of stay-at-home dads. Frankly, we'll all be better off when men with no talent and no intelligence aren't able to reach positions of high power at a regularity they once were.

Some reading about how women's education and social mobility boosts economic development:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200903030692.html
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/1/2/9/p111290_index.html
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...heT6Ec&sig=AHIEtbT0ST_GTjc8kesNWkxjn5S5_w4WZg
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q..._c-ZOn&sig=AHIEtbRzq0_SwVCpLHawEUHp_diC8Ja0pQ

TroMag, there's all kinds of evidence out there suggesting that increased female choice (even in a sexual sense) is actually good for the world.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

And frankly, TroMag - having contributed thoughtful posts in the past - deserves more than a simple "you're deflecting!" or "not worth my time"

Really? I should feel obligated to address utterly misinformed opinions in detail because the person holding them might have shown an ability to think at some point? I mean my only other experience of Tromag is his anti-fat woman rants over in that thread about dating fat girls. I should give a fuck?

 

[SilverTrain]

I should give a fuck?

I believe the current applicable "rule" is:

Only if the poster has successfully avoided prefacing his diatribe with any sort of modifying, mitigating, nullifying or self-exculpatory preamble.


:wink: xxoo

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I believe the current applicable "rule" is:

Only if the poster has successfully avoided prefacing his diatribe with any sort of modifying, mitigating, nullifying or self-exculpatory preamble.


:wink: xxoo

Oh yeah, ManlyBarristers rules, I forgot them, oops. :tongue:

 

[sbat]

I should give a fuck?

It's up to you. He made me think analytically about my perception of an issue, and as such, I felt he deserved a response that reflected that. If you simply felt insulted by the fact that he thinks differently from you and expresses that difference in a way that offends you, act in your own way.

No biggie:smile:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

It's up to you. He made me think analytically about my perception of an issue, and as such, I felt he deserved a response that reflected that. If you simply felt insulted by the fact that he thinks differently from you and expresses that difference in a way that offends you, act in your own way.

No biggie:smile:

Well no, hold on, I'm not offended by his opinions, I'm annoyed by how little he seems to know about a topic he then goes on to make a huge range of vaguely offensive generalisations. There's a difference.

 

[sbat]

Well no, hold on, I'm not offended by his opinions, I'm annoyed by how little he seems to know about a topic he then goes on to make a huge range of vaguely offensive generalisations about. There's a difference.

Fair enough.

Can we talk about the hypothetical sexual scenarios now?:biggrin1:

 

[SilverTrain]

In some recent threads that discussed feminism, we saw the usual ranting against the 'oppressive' patriarchy that is inevitable in these types of discussions. If patriarchy is so bad, and matriarchy superior, why is it that there are no large scale matriarchal societies? Certainly they exist in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, and in America's inner city ghettos, and they of course existed at the dawn of mankind. But why has the world come to be conquered and dominated by patriarchies? Can anyone name a single large scale long lasting civilization in human history that was a matriarchy?

It is not random chance that patriarchies have outcompeted matriarchies in the survival of the fittest societies. The advantage inherent in patriarchies is not merely a historical curiosity - as feminism pushes western societies increasingly toward matriarchy, it weakens these societies and prepares them for conquest and/or internal revolution.

In short, feminism is an agent of societal suicide for those societies myopic enough to embrace it.

Discuss.

Historically, males have been larger and stronger than females. The intelligence factor being roughly equal as between males and females, males used their physical dominance to assume positions of power. In addition to the maxim of "power corrupts" is the reality that it is exceedingly rare for humans to relinquish power passively. Hence, males have continued to dominate the power structure of human societies.

Feminism has not a whit to do with it. I'm not sure "patriarchy" or "matriarchy" do either.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Fair enough.

Can we talk about the hypothetical sexual scenarios now?:biggrin1:

Less talk more action I say :wink:

 

[sbat]

Less talk more action I say :wink:

If that's your take, what are you doing on a big pee pee forum?