*Feminism IS Population Control*

Post Reply New Topic

^Yeah.. they're OK.

They're a little on the tough side but they make for good sausages!

So treating a woman as an equal is adulation?

And expecting women to graciously accept treatment as second class citizens and to take it up the @$$ willingly is not adultaing men? Oh please, the double standards.

This really has nothing to do with bedroom activities so goto the Adult Forum if thats what you're wanting to talk about.
Most of the fellas here have learned the hard way that the "nice guy" egalitarian front is NOT the way to get in a womans pants.
Us guys Did Not create women in the first place, nor do we choose for them how they're going to behave. Men are the same way too, a lot of us will put up with manipulative, entitled women so long as she is willint to f_ck on a regular basis.

If you think that means something more significant than is demonstrated by societies where both these things happen as integral parts of the social structure, then you are suffering a fit of cultural-centrism. There are human societies where both sexual intercourse with children and bi-sexuality are integral to their social structure.


Right, like the PNG villages where the women killed every male born over a period of about a decade...if that's your notion of harmony you can keep it.
I agree it is not sensible to take one detail out of context. For instance the silly details you've offered in an attempt to demonstrate that in sexuality humans are closer to common chimps than to bonobos. Equally, some details are of such import they take precedence over lesser details. In terms of sexual behavior, whether or not a species engages in sex for non-reproductive purposes is of much greater importance than the lesser detail of what that purpose is. At the heart of what you are trying to construe is a greater similarity in the sexual behavior between humans and common chimps, is the crucial similarity between humans and bonobos. Of course common chimps are not going to use sex to 'calm down' in the same way bonobos and humans might, because common chimps sex is reproductive, not reproductive and social. If you honestly think no human has ever used sex to avert or lessen the aggression of another human, you are very naive indeed. On the contrary, in some cultures, it is routine to calm a crying male baby by masturbating them (yes more sexual intercourse with children among humans).

And this happens in human societies too. In some instances ritualistically.

You keep harping about 'chopped up' as though to fail to remove text not necessary from a quoted segment of text were not frowned on by forum moderators (which according to a recent thread in the 'about WP' forum about cross-posting, apparently it is), and as though your original posts are not sitting in the thread, or as though my quoting exerts could somehow prevent others from looking back to your full post in all its original unedited glory.



Any thread that discusses bonobos cannot be all bad.

And I am saying that feminism's role in population growth decreases is not independent of other factors, nor is it the subliminal purpose of some intelligent system's checks, although I doubt I can prove the latter. Mind you I also cannot disprove that teapot orbiting Pluto.

You are? Well this is quite different to what I had understood you were hypothesizing, I had understood you were hypothesizing that the (subliminal) purpose of feminism was a reduction in population growth, which is far less believable to me than what you are now claiming to have been hypothesizing.


That is absurd. No such society could exist for any length of time regardless of what is true or untrue about feminism. To suggest the only way to A is to find something that could never exist, is no different to my arguing that unless you can disprove the existence of teapot orbiting pluto, then elephants can all tap-dance.
If the only way to prove X is not true, where X cannot be proven, is to prove something not possible regardless whether or not X is true, then there is no way to ever arrive at any sensible conclusion, and I would wonder what the point of even discussion X would be.

Many human societies have dealt with the issue by simply killing unwanted infants. However, biology itself can play a role also. Humans (especially females) reach reproductive readiness later where their caloric intake is low, and even reproductively mature females will experience a drop in fertility if caloric intake is not sufficient. Social structures that are very non-feminist and that occur in male dominated societies can also restrain population growth. For instance in societies where a male's right to marry is restricted (only) by their ability to pay the bride-price in the form of subsistence resources (such as cattle), there is delayed reproduction for some men, with only men who have demonstrated their ability to support wives having access to them (of course some men end up with lots of wives while others are left without). If resources are particularly tight, less marriage (and reproduction) follows.

Okay pandd, if humans are more like bonobos than common chimps, why don't you put your money where your mouth is so to speak.
I dare you to act like a bonobo chick. I'm sure the men would love it. There wouldn't be all these sexually frustrated men, we probably could end war, and stop the competitive drive all together. We can end capitalism I bet!

The latter is what it felt like when I realised that feminism/the introduction of feminist ideas almost invariably produces/is followed by a reduction in fertility rates. Not just in situation of famine, which people in the UK and the USA were not suffering from, not from lack of cattle, not absence of food or shelter, nor nationalist concerns for the economy ( Family Planning to close the the gap between pop. growth and GDP ), but like a reaction on a global level. It was suddenly the comfortably-off, the middle class, people whose children had always had a lower mortality rate, people with material comforts, the ones who were used to consuming more than their fair share of world resources, who began to cut back on childbearing.

I have discovered that even the experts are not sure what the factor is that caused the demographic transition. They swoop between literacy, ( ... but "it had been increasing for 400 years" ), value of human capital, ( ... but "the number of women in work actually dropped in the last 50 years of the 19th century" ), industrialisation, the drop in the infant mortality rate, etc, and keep finding a hole in each argument. The closest one article came to closure was to say that something about women's status and increasing power in households seemed to be the critical element. As if women had not had power in the "household" for many thousands of years.

Perhaps if they had said "in the sack" they might have been a bit closer to the mark.


How is that absurd? Both Mayans and early aryans/S.W. Asians, aswell as the Roman empire, exhausted their resources and created deserts, ( literally in the case of the Sahara, and S.W India ) all around them from intensive agriculture to feed the rapidly growing population. I was interested to hear if there had been such a society based on egalitarian or matriachal principles.

.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 24 Dec 2008, 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, never argue with a feminist, it is like arguing with a religious person, or anyone who is strongly attached to an ideology or movement, especially if it is due to personal experiences and emotional driven, people would not often want to change their minds, even if evidence that contradicts their views is there.


I actually cringe a little at the word, and I tend to feel distrust towards feminist agendas and any woman who identifies as a feminist for that matter. I also agree that currently, women have the same rights and oportunities as men do, which I actually support, so I don't see much point to it.

Survey results don't work too well as established facts.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 24 Dec 2008, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why do I not? Perhaps for the same reason you do not live like a common chimp. But if you want to experiment, fine, no sex for you unless you are on-heat, at which time I expect you to immediately go find the resident alpha male and put on a sexually receptive display for him. You also better not leave your range, and had better physically attack any interloper who enters yours. Perhaps you might also hunt the odd colobus monkey, dash its brains in and eat the resulting carcass raw.

One thing neither common chimps nor bonobos do is resort to intellectually lame crap like 'if you will not go and have sex with lots of people you must incorrect' when they are unable to construct actual arguments to give substance to their 'conclusions'.

I find it hard to invest any credibility in any theory, or expert that attempts to reduce complex multi-factorial happenings down to one reductionist cause.
There is no confirmed matriarchal human society (the Moso of China are the most usual modern time example given for such a society, but arguably since males dominate and control trade and political actitivies, it's not really a matriarchal society).
The Romans did not have more children than there were resources available to support them. Firstly they had the provision to get rid of children who could not be fed, secondly they had resources available from many places other than their immediate surrounding country-side, and thirdly, if you do not feed children they die, so even if you produced more than you can feed, you do not have them all because the ones not fed enough have died.

Only twice? I read it about half a dozen times and I'm still not confident it makes sense, and I wrote the darn thing.

Which is silly really. I doubt the only feminists are the ones you describe though. Lots of feminists will deny being feminist. Hence the rather common "I believe males and females should have equal rights, but I am not a feminist" type mentality. Given feminist means someone who believes males and females should have equal rights (simply that, nothing more) such a premise can only ever be half true.

Yes, well I think I may have come up in the wrong way into saying it, I didn't meant to point out that in a personal level, I was speaking in general terms, I see that Pandd has some good points, I actually thought you meant to not argue with anyone here, which it would be a good advise, that I admit I do not follow, I agree with you with few members on this forum to be great posters, like AG, which I can say I respect him the most.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 24 Dec 2008, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For some people, and I can see why, feminism is related to misandry, given the different types of it, and different reactions towards men and possibly other women as well, which they disagree with each other, it doesn't look to be that simple, hence the issue on how it is viewed and why some women wouldn't want to identify with it.

The thing is that other ideologies hold that same belief that women and men should be equal, humanists, egalitarists, liberals/progressists, they all believe this, so I believe it would be ok to say that one believes that but does not identify with the feminism movement, rather one of the others.

Any type of feminism, from extreme feminism to moderate and most moderate, would argue the very same thing, however their approach would be different, so I don't think so, to be that simple. IMHO, egalitarism, would fall more into the definition more accurately, because of the level of fairness according to the ideology would provide to all, not just a particular one, that it is one of the criticism against feminism.


Really? wow, I tend to assume that I come up as someone annoying and someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, which I thought most could see me that way, and I wouldn't blame them. Thanks anyway

Last edited by greenblue on 18 Dec 2008, 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.