Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?
29 Oct 2012, 10:21 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
I think it would be very liberating for a man to admit that it is all of his fault. The only thing preventing a man from doing this is a fear of punishment but under a matriarchal society punishment would not be used against men that were truly sorry. And what is wrong with acknowledging the superiority of women? A man should not be ashamed when he discovers the superior glory and genius of a women but rather that man should be filled with awe.
So blaming myself for something that's not my fault is liberating? Look, I'm a gender egalitarian, and I believe there are problems with masculinity, but I would never in a million years blame myself for what other men may do to women.
29 Oct 2012, 10:23 pm
DerStadtschutz wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
I think it would be very liberating for a man to admit that it is all of his fault. The only thing preventing a man from doing this is a fear of punishment but under a matriarchal society punishment would not be used against men that were truly sorry. And what is wrong with acknowledging the superiority of women? A man should not be ashamed when he discovers the superior glory and genius of a women but rather that man should be filled with awe.
So uh... who cut your balls off?
yeah, I'm not about to admit that something I had nothing to do with is my fault.
Imagine if you used this same logic with the Jews and Nazis. Should every jew just admit that he is at fault for all the things that were plaguing Germany in the 1930s and 40s, so that he can be "liberated?"
You are so wrong, it's atrociously not funny.
This is so incredibly offensive! Are you kidding? And if you're not, what's wrong with you?!
29 Oct 2012, 10:33 pm
cozysweater wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
I think it would be very liberating for a man to admit that it is all of his fault. The only thing preventing a man from doing this is a fear of punishment but under a matriarchal society punishment would not be used against men that were truly sorry. And what is wrong with acknowledging the superiority of women? A man should not be ashamed when he discovers the superior glory and genius of a women but rather that man should be filled with awe.
So uh... who cut your balls off?
yeah, I'm not about to admit that something I had nothing to do with is my fault.
Imagine if you used this same logic with the Jews and Nazis. Should every jew just admit that he is at fault for all the things that were plaguing Germany in the 1930s and 40s, so that he can be "liberated?"
You are so wrong, it's atrociously not funny.
This is so incredibly offensive! Are you kidding? And if you're not, what's wrong with you?!
And how the f**k is blaming a gender for all of humanity's problems NOT offensive?
I didn't say jews ARE at fault, I was asking if this person also thinks jews SHOULD ADMIT fault, based on his extremely flawed logic. If you're offended by simply mentioning jews and nazis, then you're the one who has something wrong with him/her, not me. I really wish you people would learn how the hell to read already.
29 Oct 2012, 10:35 pm
You are only 26 years old so your full head of hair does not count. Medicines exist that can cure balding for older men but these medicines permanently reduce the sex drive. Men have to start questioning their values. What price do we have to pay for the super macho sex drive? Should not a man desire to look beautiful in the sight of his wife with a full head of hair?
29 Oct 2012, 10:51 pm
DerStadtschutz wrote:
cozysweater wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
I think it would be very liberating for a man to admit that it is all of his fault. The only thing preventing a man from doing this is a fear of punishment but under a matriarchal society punishment would not be used against men that were truly sorry. And what is wrong with acknowledging the superiority of women? A man should not be ashamed when he discovers the superior glory and genius of a women but rather that man should be filled with awe.
So uh... who cut your balls off?
yeah, I'm not about to admit that something I had nothing to do with is my fault.
Imagine if you used this same logic with the Jews and Nazis. Should every jew just admit that he is at fault for all the things that were plaguing Germany in the 1930s and 40s, so that he can be "liberated?"
You are so wrong, it's atrociously not funny.
This is so incredibly offensive! Are you kidding? And if you're not, what's wrong with you?!
And how the f**k is blaming a gender for all of humanity's problems NOT offensive?
I didn't say jews ARE at fault, I was asking if this person also thinks jews SHOULD ADMIT fault, based on his extremely flawed logic. If you're offended by simply mentioning jews and nazis, then you're the one who has something wrong with him/her, not me. I really wish you people would learn how the hell to read already.
WHAT??! ! I'm offended by you conflating the killing of 12 million people (nevermind the soldiers who fought the Nazis and/or died of starvation in POW camps) with some discomfort in the dating game. Also that you so lightly bring up THE KILLING OF 12 MILLION+ PEOPLE as though it's nothing and just an anecdote. SHAME ON YOU!!
29 Oct 2012, 10:53 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
You are only 26 years old so your full head of hair does not count. Medicines exist that can cure balding for older men but these medicines permanently reduce the sex drive. Men have to start questioning their values. What price do we have to pay for the super macho sex drive? Should not a man desire to look beautiful in the sight of his wife with a full head of hair?
If she doesn't like me for who I am, she can gtfo
30 Oct 2012, 12:27 am
TM wrote:
It's an ill-defined, highly complex structure created to which everything can be attributed, yet can itself never be quantified or made concrete. The term "patriarchy" itself is poor, because it gives the immediate idea of an Illuminati-like group that sit around in dark halls, steepling their hands and planning on how to keep women suppressed, an idea that most of us find silly.
In embryo what feminists are seeking is not an alternation or a modification to our society, it is the complete deconstruction of our society, it's values and it's history in order to reconstruct it in their image. The trouble with this idea is obvious, namely that every attempt at this, from communist revolutions, to declarations of independence and beyond, end up being not only fueled but influenced by their prior incarnations.
Indeed, as society and its values is a construct of the values of those within it, it will always be a reflection of those values. Until we are all Vulcan and can make purely objective decisions, our values and goals will always be those that offer to us and those like us the most benefit.
Feminism, like all ideologies that tend to put emphasis on "should be" rather than "is" succumbs in part to the classic pitfalls, "the end justifies the means", "group-think", it's own "language", redefining words without making it clear (Ministry of truth anyone?). I suspect that this stems from the combination of feminist values with Marxist/socialist values.
The biggest problem though, for those of us outside of the ideology is that with 40 odd variations on the main ideology, a wide variety of stances on separate issues within the ideology and finally the creation of "femspeak" (the language of feminists) it becomes nearly impossible to debate with a feminist, because we do not speak the same language.
It becomes much like speaking to various religious sects, or small bands within the same ideology, where the lack of a joint belief in anything prevents one from challenging the opponent. Not due to facts or logic, but to language being perverted away from a tool of communication to a tool of propaganda.
In embryo what feminists are seeking is not an alternation or a modification to our society, it is the complete deconstruction of our society, it's values and it's history in order to reconstruct it in their image. The trouble with this idea is obvious, namely that every attempt at this, from communist revolutions, to declarations of independence and beyond, end up being not only fueled but influenced by their prior incarnations.
Indeed, as society and its values is a construct of the values of those within it, it will always be a reflection of those values. Until we are all Vulcan and can make purely objective decisions, our values and goals will always be those that offer to us and those like us the most benefit.
Feminism, like all ideologies that tend to put emphasis on "should be" rather than "is" succumbs in part to the classic pitfalls, "the end justifies the means", "group-think", it's own "language", redefining words without making it clear (Ministry of truth anyone?). I suspect that this stems from the combination of feminist values with Marxist/socialist values.
The biggest problem though, for those of us outside of the ideology is that with 40 odd variations on the main ideology, a wide variety of stances on separate issues within the ideology and finally the creation of "femspeak" (the language of feminists) it becomes nearly impossible to debate with a feminist, because we do not speak the same language.
It becomes much like speaking to various religious sects, or small bands within the same ideology, where the lack of a joint belief in anything prevents one from challenging the opponent. Not due to facts or logic, but to language being perverted away from a tool of communication to a tool of propaganda.
While I doubt you'll find many feminist purporting twice two is five, I think the language is indeed redefined, but only unclear insofar as you allow. To assume the syntax is fallacious and thus the very foundation on which an ideology rests must crumble along with its philosophy altogether rejects the philosophy without giving it any real expostulation (falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus). I completely agree that feminism is in line with socialist values. And they both share the characteristics of "group-think" (which applies to any construct in society) and the linguistic "consequences". It is only a consequence because the ideas are not discussed in full, so you may only infer what is meant from ignorance. It occurs to me, these ideas are not desirable (or maybe no longer relevant) so no one cares to try them while they're ripe. It's true that the execution of these ideas are are ill-repeated, but that in no way should disregard the alternative views they hold.
The focus on feminism nowadays is on the dichotomous patriarchal vs. matriarchal. But in execution the matriarchal seeks a union, not in the sense of equality- which just fans the flames of dichotomy, but in the sense of balance. This balance seeks to reign in the effects the carefree, limitless patriarchal mindset. Without this balance we will continue to live in an unhealthy civilization.
30 Oct 2012, 1:09 am
androbot2084 wrote:
All testosteron does is cause a man to lose his hair.
Clearly your lack of testosteron has stunted your brain development. Hence your obvious retardation and inability to cease repeating your tired-ass troll tactics to get attention.
Count your blessings that I'm not a moderator as if I were one I'd banhammer your rear end(long with the rest of you).
30 Oct 2012, 12:00 pm
cozysweater wrote:
WHAT??! ! I'm offended by you conflating the killing of 12 million people (nevermind the soldiers who fought the Nazis and/or died of starvation in POW camps) with some discomfort in the dating game. Also that you so lightly bring up THE KILLING OF 12 MILLION+ PEOPLE as though it's nothing and just an anecdote. SHAME ON YOU!!
You know, I'm sick and tired of people screaming offense and trying to shame other people. From now on, whenever someone tells me "What you said/did offends me" I make it a point to do that very thing again and again with increasing fervor, because I'm not at fault for saying or doing what I did, they are at fault for not having a thicker skin. Also, where did you get the number 12 million?
30 Oct 2012, 12:12 pm
spacebrain wrote:
TM wrote:
It's an ill-defined, highly complex structure created to which everything can be attributed, yet can itself never be quantified or made concrete. The term "patriarchy" itself is poor, because it gives the immediate idea of an Illuminati-like group that sit around in dark halls, steepling their hands and planning on how to keep women suppressed, an idea that most of us find silly.
In embryo what feminists are seeking is not an alternation or a modification to our society, it is the complete deconstruction of our society, it's values and it's history in order to reconstruct it in their image. The trouble with this idea is obvious, namely that every attempt at this, from communist revolutions, to declarations of independence and beyond, end up being not only fueled but influenced by their prior incarnations.
Indeed, as society and its values is a construct of the values of those within it, it will always be a reflection of those values. Until we are all Vulcan and can make purely objective decisions, our values and goals will always be those that offer to us and those like us the most benefit.
Feminism, like all ideologies that tend to put emphasis on "should be" rather than "is" succumbs in part to the classic pitfalls, "the end justifies the means", "group-think", it's own "language", redefining words without making it clear (Ministry of truth anyone?). I suspect that this stems from the combination of feminist values with Marxist/socialist values.
The biggest problem though, for those of us outside of the ideology is that with 40 odd variations on the main ideology, a wide variety of stances on separate issues within the ideology and finally the creation of "femspeak" (the language of feminists) it becomes nearly impossible to debate with a feminist, because we do not speak the same language.
It becomes much like speaking to various religious sects, or small bands within the same ideology, where the lack of a joint belief in anything prevents one from challenging the opponent. Not due to facts or logic, but to language being perverted away from a tool of communication to a tool of propaganda.
In embryo what feminists are seeking is not an alternation or a modification to our society, it is the complete deconstruction of our society, it's values and it's history in order to reconstruct it in their image. The trouble with this idea is obvious, namely that every attempt at this, from communist revolutions, to declarations of independence and beyond, end up being not only fueled but influenced by their prior incarnations.
Indeed, as society and its values is a construct of the values of those within it, it will always be a reflection of those values. Until we are all Vulcan and can make purely objective decisions, our values and goals will always be those that offer to us and those like us the most benefit.
Feminism, like all ideologies that tend to put emphasis on "should be" rather than "is" succumbs in part to the classic pitfalls, "the end justifies the means", "group-think", it's own "language", redefining words without making it clear (Ministry of truth anyone?). I suspect that this stems from the combination of feminist values with Marxist/socialist values.
The biggest problem though, for those of us outside of the ideology is that with 40 odd variations on the main ideology, a wide variety of stances on separate issues within the ideology and finally the creation of "femspeak" (the language of feminists) it becomes nearly impossible to debate with a feminist, because we do not speak the same language.
It becomes much like speaking to various religious sects, or small bands within the same ideology, where the lack of a joint belief in anything prevents one from challenging the opponent. Not due to facts or logic, but to language being perverted away from a tool of communication to a tool of propaganda.
While I doubt you'll find many feminist purporting twice two is five, I think the language is indeed redefined, but only unclear insofar as you allow. To assume the syntax is fallacious and thus the very foundation on which an ideology rests must crumble along with its philosophy altogether rejects the philosophy without giving it any real expostulation (falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus). I completely agree that feminism is in line with socialist values. And they both share the characteristics of "group-think" (which applies to any construct in society) and the linguistic "consequences". It is only a consequence because the ideas are not discussed in full, so you may only infer what is meant from ignorance. It occurs to me, these ideas are not desirable (or maybe no longer relevant) so no one cares to try them while they're ripe. It's true that the execution of these ideas are are ill-repeated, but that in no way should disregard the alternative views they hold.
The language becomes convoluted and unclear when new words are introduced, that have not been officially defined in any regard and which are used with varied definitions by the group that utilizes them. I didn't deal with feminist philosophy much, but more with the topic of why many of us find discussing with a feminist to be an impossible task, namely due to a lack of definitions when it comes to central tenets of it's ideology (primarily patriarchy), secondly due to feminists having created their own form of language, which creates large barriers in a debate and thirdly due to the ideology being perfectly suiting for a "moving the goalpost" approach for the feminist.
Until the ideology can live without the use of it's own special language and can be criticized using a normal form of language, it's the same as Scientology or any other religion in requiring one to be an adherent in order to take part in the discussion.
spacebrain wrote:
The focus on feminism nowadays is on the dichotomous patriarchal vs. matriarchal. But in execution the matriarchal seeks a union, not in the sense of equality- which just fans the flames of dichotomy, but in the sense of balance. This balance seeks to reign in the effects the carefree, limitless patriarchal mindset. Without this balance we will continue to live in an unhealthy civilization.
Much like the UN this is a lofty ideal and it sounds quite wonderful, however until you can actually come up with something concrete to discuss, we are discussing something which is a pure theoretical construct and thus it cannot be adequately examined.
When it comes to your talk about balance, I'm reminded of a statement made on an online gaming forum for an MMORPG "Balanced means that your class is the only one that's overpowered."
30 Oct 2012, 1:21 pm
androbot2084 wrote:
Does not every man search for the very best woman. The very best would be a woman that is better than himself.
Well if that's how you define the "best" woman, good luck kid. You will never find her because women are people and people are FLAWED. Either get used to it, or remain a virgin forever.
