I Figured Women Out!
AspergianMutantt
Veteran

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA
Like, your wanting to argue about gay, when it was totally acceptable in ancient times.
Thank you for proving my point! I know it was totally acceptable - indeed, the norm. And yet, there was a long stretch of history after that where it was an abhorrance to many. As far as I can see, you are trying to argue for some sort of 'rightness' of a particular state of affairs - men dominating women - as you see it as more 'natural'. My point is, simply, that it is not more natural.
I am not arguing a historical point - I do not need to. I am talking about 'human nature' as a concept.
and woman has used this fear to their own advantages. they are not helpless against mans whims.
man hungers for womans love and acceptance, which gives woman power over man.
I am not sure if unleashing them is a vary good idea. man will suffer. while woman gains their own needs.
there would be no balance. man becomes slave to woman if they want to reproduce or have family.
'
Man has also dominated man. I trust you'd be happy and agreeable to living under a dictatorship?
You're taking your own troubles, and writing them large across time and space. T'was ever thus. We call this 'myth'.
One of the stories in mass circulation today is a very old one, but it’s taken on new vigour: women in general are out of control, and feminism in particular is to blame. It is odd to think that misogynist jokes used to attack women for wanting to trap men into marriage. Now the attacks run the opposite way. The tabloids bitterly quote young mothers who say: “So who needs men?” Feminism today has become a bogy, a whipping boy, routinely produced to explain all social ills. Women struggle for equality of choice in matters of sex, their grasp of sovereignty over their bodies; are blamed in particular for the rise in family breakdown, the increase in divorce, and the apparently spiralling delinquency and violence of children. In these lectures I will be looking at the mythic accretions clustering stickily to these themes: men are no longer in control, mothers are not what they used to be, and it’s the fault of Germaine Greer, Cosmopolitan and headline stars who choose to be single mothers like Michelle Pfeiffer. By holding up to the light modern mythical nodes of this kind I hope to loosen in some cases their binding grip on our imaginations. Replying to one story with another which unravels the former has become central to contemporary thought and art, text as well as image. The idea of a kind of cultural kontakion, the Greek antiphonal chorus across the nave of response and reply, invocation and challenge opens a new angle of view.
The she-monster is hardly a new phenomenon. The idea of a female untamed nature which must be leashed or else will wreak havoc closely reflects mythological heroes’ struggles against monsters. Greek myth alone offers a host - of Ceres, Harpies, Sirens, Moirae. Associated with fate and death in various ways, they move swiftly, sometimes on wings; birds of prey are their closest kin - the Greeks didn't know about dinosaurs - and they seize as in the word raptor. But seizure also describes the effect of the passions on the body; inner forces, madness, art, folly, personified in Homer and the tragedies as feminine, snatch and grab the interior of the human creature and take possession. Ungoverned energy in the female always raises the issue of motherhood; fear that the natural bond excludes men and eludes their control courses through ancient myth, which applies various remedies. In Aeschylus’s Oresteia, when Orestes has murdered his mother Clytemnestra, the matriarchal Furies want justice against the matricide - but they find themselves confronting a new order, led by the god Apollo. Orestes is declared innocent, and in a famous resolution which still has power to shock audiences today, the god decrees:
The mother of what’s called her offspring’s no parent
but only the nurse to the seed that’s implanted.
The mounter, the male’s the only true parent.
She harbours the bloodshoot, unless some god blasts it.
The womb of the woman’s a convenient transit.
In this brutal act of legislation, the god of harmony declares that henceforward, in civilised society, only the father counts. The mother is nothing more than an incubator.
The spectre of gynocracy, of rule by women, stalks through the founding myths of our culture: both Theseus and Hercules fight with the Amazons - and vanquish their queens. The Amazon’s separatist queendom made them tantalising but also monstrous in the eyes of the Greeks; the terrible massacres of their army depicted on stone reliefs and vases redounded to the fame of the Greek heroes as surely as cutting off Medusa’s head.
In the folklore of the past, classical and medieval, the female beast was sometimes cunning and purposely concealed her true nature: the Sirens lured men with their deceitful songs, and later tempted fierce anchorites in the desert, approaching St Anthony for instance, with honeyed words, hiding their diabolical nether parts under sumptuous dresses. Male beasts, as in Beauty and the Beast, or male devils, as in the temptations of St Anthony, don't possess the same degree of duplicity; you can tell you’re dealing with the devil on the whole, but when evil comes in female guise, you have to beware: the fairy queen may turn to dust in your arms, and poisonous dust at that.
I repeat, you do not know enough of history of man.
Again, though history is helpful to draw on, this is a conceptual matter. Not all swans are black.
And I repeat, you have a nonsensical idea of human nature.
nonsensical? time will dictate that.
Of those who truly know history, your ignorance betrays you.
I am nearly 52 years old. born in a time when video history became fact.
and i have watched most every documentary on human evolution since then.
_________________
Master Thread Killer
Last edited by AspergianMutantt on 02 May 2014, 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
I repeat, you do not know enough of history of man.
Again, though history is helpful to draw on, this is a conceptual matter. Not all swans are black.
And I repeat, you have a nonsensical idea of human nature.
nonsensical? time will dictate that.
Of those who truly know history, your ignorance betrays you.
Time already has, as have experience and sense and the notion of consistency. Any theory that cares to call itself 'human nature' must account for every single thing every human has ever done. No action ever commited by any human ever can be against or outside this 'human nature'. What's more, no human action can be 'more' natural than any other action, outside of a whole lot of question begging.
You know a lot about history, yes? Then you know the many ways people and cultures and societies have lived, the variations within and between, the disatisfactions and rebellions? All natural, and all as natural as any other. I do not deny men dominating women is natural. Of course it is - it happens! You, however, seem to think feminism, and the gains made thereby, is somehow against nature. It isn't. If it was, like that human able to breathe unaided underwater, it would not exist. You seek to privilege a certain state of affairs as more 'natural' - meaning perhaps right or inevitable. There is much that has happened a lot throughout history that you would find disagreeable - again, would you care to live under a dictatorship? It's quite natural. As is being a slave - quite natural. Perhaps you'd like to be a human sacrifice - again, it is quite natural, so really, what's your problem with it?
(Bonus points for retorting "I already do and am!" there)
As happens so often in this area, people think they are talking scientific truth, when in fact it's a particular interperetation of science flung over the framework of old myths.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
AspergianMutantt
Veteran

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,452
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,452
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
Talking about which is "more natural", I suggest you to read more about the evolution of Bonobos versus the common Chimps, and why they evolved into two different social systems despite the big genetic similarities and genetic common ancestry.
Patriarchy/Matriarchy both happen in nature due to circumstances, none is more natural than the other.
Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 02 May 2014, 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Repeat it all you like*, it won't make it meaningful. Am I missing something in human history where it was discovered that a thing can act outside and against its nature? Because that's pretty much the only actually relevant historical fact to my point here. The issue is first conceptual, then historical. If you don't have a clear, sensible concept, no amount of asserting historical particularities will help make it so.
I'm sure I don't know as much as you, but I can throw some historical states of affairs around and assert that they are how things should and/or will be for all humans in all circumstances. That's pretty much what you're doing.
*Oh, you already are. Cool.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
If anything can be called an inherent part of human nature, "controlling our environment" would be it. We create technology and that technology shapes society. If you look carefully at history, you will see the effects of various technology on social set ups. It's the urge to create technology that is inherent, not the specific social set ups a particular technology leads to. Jared Diamond's
Guns, Germs and Steel really explores that.
Few people really like being dominated but many have had to accept it. Various technologies make domination by various more or less likely. What you are calling natural is actually just what is likely given what technologies exist in a time and place and who has access to them.
What you are objecting to, even if you don't explicitly say it, is that women in many societies no longer have to accept being dominated by men. It was technology that brought about this change, mostly reproductive technology. But the groundwork was laid long before cheap reliable birth control. The groundwork came with the Industrial Revolution and how it marginalised small farming (over time) and encouraged individuality and discouraged the extended family all being in one place. They used to say that feminism caused the break up of the family. But it turns out that the break up of the family caused feminism.
If you were a slave to some guy with a sword, wouldn't you grab a gun and get away from him as soon as that technology made it possible for you? That's pretty much what happened here.
AspergianMutantt
Veteran

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA
If anything can be called an inherent part of human nature, "controlling our environment" would be it. We create technology and that technology shapes society. If you look carefully at history, you will see the effects of various technology on social set ups. It's the urge to create technology that is inherent, not the specific social set ups a particular technology leads to. Jared Diamond's
Guns, Germs and Steel really explores that.
Few people really like being dominated but many have had to accept it. Various technologies make domination by various more or less likely. What you are calling natural is actually just what is likely given what technologies exist in a time and place and who has access to them.
What you are objecting to, even if you don't explicitly say it, is that women in many societies no longer have to accept being dominated by men. It was technology that brought about this change, mostly reproductive technology. But the groundwork was laid long before cheap reliable birth control. The groundwork came with the Industrial Revolution and how it marginalised small farming (over time) and encouraged individuality and discouraged the extended family all being in one place. They used to say that feminism caused the break up of the family. But it turns out that the break up of the family caused feminism.
If you were a slave to some guy with a sword, wouldn't you grab a gun and get away from him as soon as that technology made it possible for you? That's pretty much what happened here.
You may be right, but you still have to look at the question, of why man is so afraid of woman.
in the end, governments and ideals will fall, because man will be left eating dust because of what woman wants for her self.
there would be no balance. man can not reproduce without woman. and if woman can control this, man is no more then their slaves. man then can not reproduce unless we become what woman wants us to be. good for them, bad for us.
FOR MAN TO BECOME WHAT WOMAN WANTS, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEPARATE AND BECOME TWO RACES.
Man can NOT become what woman wants, unless we become their slaves.
Man can not have child without woman.
And man will NOT be dictated too.
As a man i refuse to be dictated too, I got my child, thats all that matters to me.
I gave woman what she wanted enough to have that child, after that, I have no use for her.
yes i wanted her too, but i was not good enough for her. I don't care any longer, just give me that child.'
_________________
Master Thread Killer
Not every man is afraid of women. If they were, the species would die off pretty darned rapidly. Sometimes fear can create one of those aforementioned self-fulfilling prophecies.
Also? There is thing called "partnership" where a man and a woman work together in a relationship as equal partners. This is not to say that they are like a team of horses, a matched set, identical in every way. They likely each have strengths that complement their partner's weaknesses. In practice, a dominant-submissive relationship rarely works in the long run. Human nature is inclined toward rebellion against oppressors.
You may be right, but you still have to look at the question, of why man is so afraid of woman.
in the end, governments and ideals will fall, because man will be left eating dust because of what woman wants for her self.
there would be no balance. man can not reproduce without woman. and if woman can control this, man is no more then their slaves. man then can not reproduce unless we become what woman wants us to be. good for them, bad for us.
FOR MAN TO BECOME WHAT WOMAN WANTS, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEPARATE AND BECOME TWO RACES.
Man can NOT become what woman wants, unless we become their slaves.
Man can not have child without woman.
And man will NOT be dictated too.
As a man i refuse to be dictated too, I got my child, thats all that matters to me.
I gave woman what she wanted enough to have that child, after that, I have no use for her.
yes i wanted her too, but i was not good enough for her. I don't care any longer, just give me that child.'
Are the majority of men afraid of women? I have not seen any evidence that this is so.
Do the majority of women want men to be their slaves? Again, I have seen no evidence that this is so.
It sounds like you have an ex-wife (or girlfriend?) and are projecting what happened between you and her onto all men and women.
However, a full matriarchal prehistory (most probably it was just more egalitarian) is most probably a myth used as propaganda.
Correct. Archaeological evidence does indicate male/female hierarchy was quite egalitarian in hunter-gatherer societies. Even in early agricultural revolution times it remained the same.
The status of women changed rather dramatically when we start seeing evidence of pressure caused by overpopulation and the carrying capacity of the land (this means how many people the land they live in can support in terms of food and water) reaching its limit. The evidence comes in the form of architectural & village/town layout changes and a relatively sudden shift in work-roles of women as well as their 'value'.
The architectural/layout changes is the villages begin to have defensive walls and 'barracks'. The barracks house males (no evidence of female habitation in them) and are close together. Homes where females live show evidence of family life including older males and underage males. The changes to these villages have been mapped as a 'spreading out' effect.. when one village did it, all the others around it and so forth spreading outward ended up with the same design in a space of just a couple hundred years.
The work-role of females changed at the same time to not only include the 'traditional' woman work roles (weaving, home-keeping/child-rearing, clothe-washing, grain grinding, etc) but also extended to roles which supported the barrack&defensive wall paradigm. They begun to work communally rather than individually (aka wash the clothes of all the men in the barracks rather than only their own family's clothes).
Overpopulation strained the resources available and it started conflicts. The barracks system provided the ability to defend their village..but they took casualties doing so. This is where the value & status of women changed... they made babies...and male babies became vital to the survival of the village. This made the once egalitarian system turn 'against' women. They became commodities which provided a much needed resource: male babies. It's not hard to see how women back then were stripped of whatever rights they once had because the survival of the group required it. Since this was a gradual transition of several hundred years it is a cultural transition/adaptation to survive rather than an usurpation of rights.
As these villages kept growing in size and population and turned into cities you start seeing the rise of warlords, tribes and later on the early states as villages conquered and absorbed others into their polities. The rest as ye know, is history

_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Also? There is thing called "partnership" where a man and a woman work together in a relationship as equal partners. This is not to say that they are like a team of horses, a matched set, identical in every way. They likely each have strengths that complement their partner's weaknesses. In practice, a dominant-submissive relationship rarely works in the long run. Human nature is inclined toward rebellion against oppressors.

_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Here is the lay out and difference between man and woman thinking and their language! [img][800:613]http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/men-women-dictionary-1108358.jpeg[/img]
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
A handy recap on the importance of understanding perspective:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0[/youtube]
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Think I Figured It Out |
03 Jun 2025, 2:36 am |
Women’s Support Thread |
06 Jul 2025, 12:49 am |
I have problems attracting women (Need advice) |
13 May 2025, 6:20 am |
How Conservatives Are Winning Young Women |
29 Jun 2025, 8:20 pm |