Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by Aeons
...I doubt even your personal experience would be all that illuminating.

Ergo...

Best on your path.

That was amazingly offensive on a number of levels. Good stuff.

Offense is something taken, not given.

There was no offensiveness intended or implied, simply my honesty in response to your own.

Originally posted by dontreally
You really are full of yourself, aren't you?

You think physical processes are 'so easy' to overcome?

Given the context in which I used the term 'self-awareness' your reply seems to be either based on a premise of confusion, and/or highly irrelevent. However, I will, for the sake of clarity, reiterate and expound upon my point. I stated that very few men have the self-awareness necessary to understand the physiological processes that influence their behaviour, which was in response to Aeon's post about the testosterone cycles in men of 45 days, and annually. Self-awareness of such bio-chemical process does in no way imply an ability to control those processes, although it does enable one to predict and anticipate said reactions, and to some extent learn to counteract them. However, more importantly, I never made any statement to the effect that they could be 'overcome', that was simply your irrational and emotional response to my questioning male self awareness it would seem, as is, I presume, your need to belittle my intelligence and comprehension.

Originally posted by dontreally
Go to the depressive or obsessive - someone afflicted by a psychosomatogenic malady - and go and tell them to 'use your self awareness to overcome it!'

Ignoramus. It is not easy. It is horrifically difficult. There is a physical chemical which you have to work against, and it is simply arduous,

The above is irrelevent to any point I have made, but I think worth noting, since you have raised the subject...Difficult, yes, but not impossible. I was thinking earlier about the occasions when I have had a breast examination, and indeed gynacological examinations performed by male doctors, in the impassive and detached manner that is expected from a professional. Proof of fact that men do have an ability to differentiate contextually when a sexual response is and isn't appropriate, perhaps you should consider visiting such a doctor and seek their advice on how to deal with your problem.

Originally posted by dontreally
exceedingly hard; one very respected psychiatrist I know described overcoming OCD without medication as requiring a "military-like regiment" and he isn't exaggerating. The mental discipline - and the continuous awareness required is taxing to the extreme.

Again, although irrelevent, hard, but not impossible. And though I fully understand how taxing overcoming mental illness is, through my own personal experience, though not OCD, I also know through that same experience how incredibly taxing the illness itself can be. It depends very much on which, to the individual, is the lesser of the two evils.

Originally posted by dontreally
Now, this is just neuroses; what about biological processes IMPRINTED into the human psyche over thousands of years of conditioning?

You are getting your terminology confused, conditioning is something that happens through nurture, or training. I think that you must have meant evolution. Biological processes however are not a matter of imprinting either, imprinting is a process that occurs at, or soon after birth, or during crucial developmental periods in mammals such as us, who's brains develop to maturity over a much longer period than most. So for example, in terms of sexual imprinting, while our gender and indeed sexual preference in most cases is determined in vitro, those things that will excite us sexually are determined through out the nurture period, due to exposure and the negative or positive reinforcement we recieve to that exposure in our brain's pleasure centres. An interest, in let's say, transexual or transvestite porn, may be the result of dressing up in Mummy's clothes, or through access to porn of that nature at a crucial stage in development, and can result in any number of outcomes to that person's sexuality dependent on a variety of factors in that person's overall sexual and social development.

reply to post by dontreally

By the way, I am still waiting for you to support the argument that the 'irrationality' of women during menstruation is well documented in ancient literature...when you're ready

reply to post by dontreally


okay....now let me put into fine detail my problems with your "conservative christian values"!!!

my second baby wasn't even three weeks old when I woke up one night to the feeling of my husband's you know what going into you know where!!!
I don't have self restraint, you say, I am emotional, you say??

news flash, I had enough self restraint, abiltity to hold my emotions, which at that point every fiber of my being want to kick the one that was causing me so much pain in the crotch and nuetralize the offending part of his body that was causing me so much pain permanantly!!! guess what...the bible says to obey this fruitcake, not kick him in the nuts!! so he got his jollys off of me, although it hurt like heck!! it wasn't long after that I began to look at the bible, the religion in a new light!!
no, God did not give men dominion over women. period!! and no, I will not visit a church, or hold to the doctrine again, ever, unless of course they want to rewrite that portion of their precious book and give women the right to decide for themselves what is best in their views.

as far as your morality concern!!! I am the most conservative dresser the is...long pants, decent shirt... no shorts, no halter tops, ect... never have been big on them...but well...if it was up to my hubby, hey, I'd be wearing clothing that would make me want to crawl into a hole and bury myself!!!

if God wants women to be subverient to their men, well,
1....salvation is only open to women if their man decides they should have it....
2. the women could be the most pure person in the world, and well, end up being a satan worshipper ready to sacritfice an innocent child at the command of her hubby...

in plain simple words...
God wants the women to be whatever the man decides he should be...not her, or anyone else....

please, just get your arse out from between me and God!!! you don't belong there!

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
Generalization:
- Men must learn to understand and control the application of their Physical Power, especially when interacting with women.
- Women must learn to understand and control the application of their Sexual Power, especially when interacting with men.

Both are equally volatile, powerful, and capable of being misused if not taken seriously.

They are already being misused. And I personally do not think that that is a discussion that is before it's time, as much as it is one that is long overdue. The very nature of the polarisation of the sexes, by divide and conquer, prevents any mature discourse on the matter.

Girls are taught, from a very early age, to use their femininity/sexuality to get what they want, and are shown proven models of how success comes to those who objectify themselves for that purpose. Those who do not conform to that model are viewed and portrayed as freaks. The media assails us with airbrushed and computer enhanced images of women, and those women are shown to get what they want, and the guys drool over them to boot. Girls want to attract boys, of course they do, and what does any child do but emulate the behaviour of the example that is set for them. We live in a world of superficial imagery, why be surprised that girls grow up being influenced by that.

Same with the boys, the mean, lean fighting machine gets the girls. The man with a smart arse remark for every occasion and a bulging little black book is what young men want to be, because they want to be seen as successful and admired by their peers, and success, in young men, is deemed by success with the opposite sex. Not only that peer pressure seems to create some sense of fear that they will be percieved as 'pussy whipped' or some such nonsense if they actually show respect and consideration for girls. Part of that homo-erotic male bonding, hazing thing that guys seem to go for.

Which brings us to the case in point, we need to set a better example, and we need to realise that women are not simply sex objects. That means all of us have to realise that, men and women. Drawing upon stale old arguments about women being more emotional hardly helps matters and has no place in an intelligent discussion on the subject, especially considering that all scientific study has proven to the contrary, men and women are not noticeably different when it comes to experiencing emotions, though they do differ in expression of those emotions. None of that detracts from the difference, but women do have as much right to be seen as multi-dimensional human beings in the same way as men do, and attempting to catagorise by stereotypes that went out of date in the middle ages helps no one. Women are not responsible for sin, it take two to tango, and it is about time that ALL adults, male and female, learnt to take responsibility for their reactions as well as their actions.

Originally posted by dontreally
You cannot compare the effects of the menstrual cycle on reasoning to the disturbance caused by testosterone. .. [sic] ... To argue [this] is to engage in reductio ad absurdum.

90% of murders in the U.S approximately are commited by men. If you're talking from an argument of biological determinism then there is your elephant in the room. A bit of a menopause doesn't seem bad factoring in men's biological capability for aggression. I'm pointing out that your desire to specifically legislate one gender's decency over anothers is blatantly sexist/stupid and paddling Aristotle's tired brand of sexist nonsense.

Reduction ad absurdum isn't actually a logical fallacy. So classifying my argument does not negate it. I assume you're trying to declare a fallacy?

You may not have read any of these things ...

The constant source name dropping really doesn't help your case. Aquinas, Aristotle, Hegel ... accusing people of not reading. I have read and studied. I don't feel the need to pull a dusty 1500 year old source out to act superior. I make an argument and I reference it if I need to. It's the same with the constant John Adam's quoting.

Arguments:
- You believe feminists want to present themselves anyway they want and deny that men are effected by nudity ... (feminist lit covers this all the time)
- You believe this is an agenda to 'enslave' men through covert means ... (utter nonsense without a single source to back it up other than the collection of Christian writers and 'adopted' philosophers.)
- You don't want to abolish feminism but ...

feminism is motivated at root against biology, against God; at it's root, it's a rebellion against nature

- You don't believe women are inferior but ...

God provided the basic creation - the feminine, or primal ground (prima materia). Man, in his part, is to bring order to this prima materia by enacting laws which preserve his inner freedom from external factors.

So, man ADDS to nature. He adds, both in his technological and scientific understanding, as well as in his moral and ethical understanding. Man is a surplus to the natural order.

This sentence implies that women provide none of these things and that's utter [expletive].

for example the 'masculine' becomes associated with the ideas of causation, abstraction, intellect, activity, positivity etc, while the feminine becomes the opposite, or derivation of the former qualities: effect, manifestation, emotion, passivity, negativity etc.

Your above quote is basically this:

Woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory

Source History of Animals Aristotle

Which is from the same philosopher that believed women were inferior, should eat half the food of a male, endorsed slavery, and believed it was natural for women to stay at home, do the house work, rarely go outside, and look after her husbands belongings.

- When asked if you're basing your approach on God and Judeo-Christian morals you hand wave and say it's a mixture and bring up your political leanings ... you claim to morally lean to conservative Aristotlian Judeo-Christian etc ... but ...

Thomas Aquinas reworked Aristotle to fit with Christianity, and Wiker adopted Aristotle as a conservative. Wiker is a major league intelligent design advocate/apologist. Which means when someone asks you if you're basing your entire argument off God based morality the answer is a flat yes when you just list your sources.

- You claim a male dominated industry (comedy) is promoting a lib fem agenda ... The sentence cancels itself ...

This is like when Plato tried to ban poetry. Rape and protection of women would be a much better argument for morality here than feminist agenda oppressing your tender eyes. The male run media and objectification of women by men is a major part of that morality and excess problem. Yes, 'ordinary' men suffer from that constant influx of media and data but that's not feminists doing. Blaming women for men's sexual excess is the wrong slope to sit on.

I can see where you are caught. You state men bring morals and ethics, are more rational but one of the first things men did with video cameras was make pornography. It isn't women's affinity for nature or 'irrationality' that made that happen and I promise you, your children have a lot more to worry about in this day and age than a pair of breasts.

Ironically there is so many things we would agree on if, apologies for this, you weren't constantly tap dancing to avoid the truth about your logic.

Nice chatting. Think we're done! Have a nice day.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by Aeons
...I doubt even your personal experience would be all that illuminating.

Ergo...

Best on your path.

That was amazingly offensive on a number of levels. Good stuff.

Offense is something taken, not given.

There was no offensiveness intended or implied, simply my honesty in response to your own.

edit on 13-9-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

Interesting view coming from someone defending that men can't help but do the opposite if it involves getting some.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by dontreally

 

okay....now let me put into fine detail my problems with your "conservative christian values"!!!

my second baby wasn't even three weeks old when I woke up one night to the feeling of my husband's you know what going into you know where!!!
I don't have self restraint, you say, I am emotional, you say??

news flash, I had enough self restraint, abiltity to hold my emotions, which at that point every fiber of my being want to kick the one that was causing me so much pain in the crotch and nuetralize the offending part of his body that was causing me so much pain permanantly!!! guess what...the bible says to obey this fruitcake, not kick him in the nuts!! so he got his jollys off of me, although it hurt like heck!! it wasn't long after that I began to look at the bible, the religion in a new light!!
no, God did not give men dominion over women. period!! and no, I will not visit a church, or hold to the doctrine again, ever, unless of course they want to rewrite that portion of their precious book and give women the right to decide for themselves what is best in their views.

as far as your morality concern!!! I am the most conservative dresser the is...long pants, decent shirt... no shorts, no halter tops, ect... never have been big on them...but well...if it was up to my hubby, hey, I'd be wearing clothing that would make me want to crawl into a hole and bury myself!!!

if God wants women to be subverient to their men, well,
1....salvation is only open to women if their man decides they should have it....
2. the women could be the most pure person in the world, and well, end up being a satan worshipper ready to sacritfice an innocent child at the command of her hubby...

in plain simple words...
God wants the women to be whatever the man decides he should be...not her, or anyone else....

please, just get your arse out from between me and God!!! you don't belong there!

I am so so sorry. I've been there a few times too often and feel your pain quite keenly. It is a lonely place to share something like that for a good reason, and wanted you to know that I think you are very brave for doing so.

The Mount Kratow that these guys want women to throw themselves into with a smile on their faces has no bottom.

reply to post by Aeons


these kinds of threads pop up all too frequently.....
it's like oh, look, the roosters are out strutting their feathers again!!!

the blacks were different from the whites...their skin was a different color, and they were living in societies that well, seemed a bit savage to us whites.....surely, although the white male slave owner would mind wearing chains, these blacks were different!!! believe me, they were, they didn't mind one bit, matter of fact, they were happy.....hear how they are singing in the fields!!! of course, if you look into the songs they were singing, there were hidden messages. mocking the owner, announcing their intention of escaping, ect...within the songs!!!

and oh, yes, we women are different also, aren't we....
although those white males out there wouldn't take kindly to have the beings reshaped, structured, and dominated by another, well..the women are different, they like it, believe me...see how they treat us!!! although, well, when he isn't looking, who knows, maybe a little bit of arsenic is being added to his food or something!!!

our society is now so screwed up, not so much because of feminism, but rather because man and wife seem to fail to comprehend the idea that marriage is a partnership that is based on mutual respect...and love. neither is set above the other.

and well....if those guys who want to return to being the king of their castle ever get their way, it will be very soon after that they will find themselves with a king above them willing to treat them in about the same way as they are treating women!!! you usually end up losing freedom when you work to take freedom away from another!!!

You are right op, in one extent that the natural laws of the universe. Make it seem that a patriarchal society is certainly more beneficial, but clearly as you have written do not understand the Feminine. The physiological effect of woman is natural to humans and all beings of life. Before you begin to decide to choose whether a masculine way of thought is more beneficial than a feminine a way of thought.

Embrace and experience it just for a moment, throw away all your over-thought and whatever you have ranted in the opening post. You cannot simply decide for your self through observation, that one is better than others. Once you experience the nature of femininity in your self, you will not be able to look at the way you wrote this again. As again I am apologize for putting my feminine-ish more thought approach on this side. As I usually post on the philosophy/metaphysical side.

The feeling of masculine rational debates is so painstakingly annoying if you have felt it instead of analyzing . It is just a "no feeling debate" Like two walls clashing into each other, Until one wall gives in.

If you understand the Nature of the Universe.

There will always be A Void ( F) before the big bang of Light (M) comes again.

The fact that feminism now holds such negative connotations , proves that feminism is still necersary.

reply to post by eyesdown


From another thread...but as relevent here...

Originally posted by Eidolon23

reply to post by dawnstar


I totally agree with you. That is exactly how it works.

Guy A wants to control an area or domain. He needs the men to be on his side. He appeals to the guys who want dominion too, and promises them dominion over their own lives. The parts that their lives they feel out of control with being sex and families (usually). So to give them this, they have to get those men to get on their side to help take away those things from the women in their lives and then tell them that is the way things are supposed to be. Even if it is screwed up. Are you really in dominion over your own life more because of removing someone else's humanity?

When someone beats you over the head with the idea that men are all Mind and women all Emotion, does that mean in their perfect world that men's emotion centers and adrenal glands are removed, and women all have their prefrontal cortex hacked out? Its a PERFECT WORLD.

Thankfully, regardless of how many times you see these ideas there are still guys who are smart enough to realize that the daily and the end result matters.

Are these guys living their Word and their World? Because if they were, this wouldn't even be an issue.

reply to post by Biliverdin


True.

Now what are these poor dudes who hate this really labouring under?

Shame about their sexuality. And THAT is the place where more men can be brought over to getting what this means.

There is that fine fine line between "they don't like me because I'm sexually aggressive" (or at least think I am) and "sexual aggressivity is EVIL."

It is a surgical fine line.

reply to post by SparkOfSparks6


Patriarchy is better only because the guys who believe that are willing to burn their families and the World to the ground to make it so. So yeah, it might be better than scorched earth. Maybe.

The whole world will be better off when we stop viewing ourselves as what the world labels us as, in our specific bodies at the time: gender, race, class, culture, etc. We should all view ourselves as human beings, each with advantages and disadvantages tied to that individual. Whatever type of human being we may be, it is not what we look like that matters, or what those who have looked like us in the past have done. We are all individuals, and labels never work.

I will be so glad when organizations that cater to one group of people are long gone from this Earth, as they only serve to fracture society, and spread discontent among all people.