Why Feminism is Wrong about the Patriarchy | GendErratic

[–]Demonspawn 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You gave me a transcript! I... I think I love you.

A male-bodied individual is easily separated from his identity as male. This leaves him vulnerable to being gang-pressed into a hierarchy by his own desire to earn back a socially positive identity.

BINGO! This is why a "male version of feminism" won't work. Men don't identify as a man. Men don't bond with all men (subgroups likely, but not men as a whole).

Perhaps women’s absence from hierarchies results from the fact that women don’t feel the need to be in a hierarchy—and all the demands of sacrificing that entails—in order to have a positive identity.

I think it was because women were too valuable to be sacrificed in that way. We needed women to bear the next generation of the society, which was a role that only women could fill. Also, and beyond that, society needed women to motivate men to enter the hierarchy! Women were the prize to get men to sacrifice themselves!

Earn your way up the ladder, and then you are "worthy" of a woman and then you get to carry on your family line. And how did men respond? By earning their way up the ladder to get a woman, to have sex and children, and to raise their children. (of course, we've destroyed that today, and men have reacted accordingly).

[–]wockyman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (111 children) | Copy Link

Identities are not genetically predetermined, they are learned and develop through experiences(both conscious and subconscious). A "male-bodied man"(or a male human being) is not born with a "female-mind" or a "female Identity"; both men and women are born with the same psychological capabilities(this is a basic biological concept and the very principle on which gender equality is based on). Identity has no gender, it is a culmination of life experiences; it is a combine state of internal/psychological data(which develops through a life time of external influences. i.e. experiences, learning, adaptation, mimicry, senses, etc). Gender itself is a mere biological, or physical, fact of life. The very idea that an identity has to be gendered is in of itself contradictory to gender equality and stems from a level of sexism that is in of itself a detriment to gender equality. A man or a boy learning, or being taught, to "identify" as a woman is living a delusion and suffering psychologically(something which, considering the disparity on the issue, also seems highly related to female privileges and the way men are treated/perceived in a social environment). Encouraging people to ravel themselves in those delusions, or the very principles those delusions rely on, is not only a detriment to those individuals themselves but it is a detriment to the cause of gender equality as well.

[–]typhonblue 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

physical differences in procreation/re-population

I question that simple theory.

Families and individual men care about passing on their genes, not increasing societies numbers. Men are equally good at doing that. So the families and individuals should not, in any inherent way, think of men as more disposable. The only ones who care about increasing societies numbers, are those in power who would use those numbers. Basically the powerful might consider men disposable on the basis of numbers, but the average should not think of men as disposable since the care about self and family first.

I also question the idea that women are the limiting factor in population growth. The only reason we have 7 billion people on thus planet is because of the inventions of men. The loss of a woman might mean a few less kids but the loss of a man could be the loss of an invention that greatly increases our carrying capacity. Also because time involved fatherhood is very important so are men. In short men greatly increase our carrying capacity and our civility so we do really need each one. Of course a powerful leader might not care of he/she just want to remain at the too of the chain...

[–]vintermann 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I'm not entirely convinced about this identity thing of yours. It's true, men don't have a strong identity as men - and I am no exception - but we don't suffer from an identity crisis from lack of an identity. No more than women do.

IME, men and women who grew up without a father tend to have an unstable sense of self - a bit more prone to radical conversions, life-style turn arounds, doing stupid things to seek acceptance, admiration, attention. But normal, healthy men don't seem to have this need - perhaps even less than normal, healthy women.

Consider "men going their own way". Of course, not every man who is in that life situation is happy about it. But many are surprisingly OK with it. My impression that such a lonely lifestyle, without social verification of who you are, is much more terrifying to women than to men, currently.

I do agree with you that it does seem men are more willing to play in hierarchies, and expend each other and themselves on behalf of it. I am not convinced of your explanation that it is to win an identity. Social status, sure, but we do not have this urgent need for it to tell us who we are.

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I have read your transcript.

That we do not have a strong in-group affection to other men doesn't mean we don't have an identity. You could even argue the opposite, that because men are so confident about who we are, we don't need the comfort of a protective gender guild.

Even the word 'man' amounts to a list of chores that society demands that you do before you have an identity.

No, not an identity. Social value, sure, but my point is that we keep our identity, our knowledge of who and what we are, even if low social status leaves us miserable. Society places plenty of demands on us, and scorns us and punishes us if we don't live up to them. It can make us deeply unhappy, but it typically doesn't make us hate ourselves.

I have an impression that this infuriates less stable people (in particular less stable women). Those men going their own way sitting at home with their playstations, how can they live with themselves?

[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Society places plenty of demands on us, and scorns us and punishes us if we don't live up to them. It can make us deeply unhappy, but it typically doesn't make us hate ourselves.

It all comes down to this. If men are secure in their identities, in and of themselves, why do they respond to language that indicates if they do not do X then they will not be men?

To someone who is secure in their own identity, who feels nothing can remove that identity, such a framing would be incoherent.

It would be like you telling me that if I don't help you with some physically arduous task that I cease to be a woman. 'If you, typhonblue, don't help me fix my roof, you can no longer call yourself a woman.'

That doesn't make sense because, in our society, woman is synonymous with adult female.

But if I say, 'vintermann if you don't sacrifice your life to save a woman's, you can't call yourself a man.' That makes perfect sense.

This is because 'man' is used less to say 'adult male' then it is to say 'an individual who must do something to benefit others and society before they have an identity.'

Now I'm not saying all male-bodied are apexuals; I'm saying apexuals don't have a positive male identity and don't identify with other males. They identify with the statement that 'the male bodied must do something to benefit others and society before they have an identity.'

Some male-bodied have a male identity because they derive their identity not from their service to society but their relationship to other male-bodied, including their own self.

A man who sits at home with his playstation is cultivating a positive relationship with himself. He's deciding that his own needs and interests are more important then buying into a social construct that he must sacrifice for others in order to be a man.

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For the majority of social pressures on men, assaults on identity are not involved. If I become a bum, I'm scorned - but society does not stop seeing me as a male. It's just that my maleness would become a liability rather than an asset. They may say "you're not a real man", but what they really mean is "you're one of the low quality men, not one of the good men".

Now I'm not saying all male-bodied are apexuals; I'm saying apexuals don't have a positive male identity and don't identify with other males. They identify with the statement that 'the male bodied must do something to benefit others and society before they have an identity.'

Before their identity as males becomes something positive, maybe. But those men who are scorned, are not more inclined to doubt their identity. We still have a penis, we still are attracted to women (or at least, we aren't made more gay by scorn. I'm sure many in r/foreveralone would have liked it if sexual identity worked that way.)

I've known people with identity issues. It's one of those things I really shouldn't be talking in public about since this is just a light pseudonym. Suffice to say that the behavior of these people is nothing like the behavior of low-status men.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Say I ignore gender expectations as a man, and someone says "you're not a real man. You're not a man at all!". In which ways do I stop being a man, according to your theory?

Certainly, I am still a man in the sense that I keep my role and gender obligations. Next time I trangress, are they're going to judge me as if I was a child, or a woman? Of course not. And although that may suck for me, it does have the consolation prize that I know what I am. I have an identity, a role, even if I don't live up to it.

Edit: by the majority of social pressures, I mean all I can think of, except one: suggestions that you are gay. This genuinely attacks your gender identity, and if it happens in severe contexts, it can probably make a man doubt his identity. It can also actually change society's expectations of you significantly.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Say I ignore gender expectations as a man, and someone says "you're not a real man. You're not a man at all!". In which ways do I stop being a man, according to your theory?

Yep. You just stop being a man. Because man isn't defined as 'adult male' it's defined as a specific set of actions you must accomplish.

Think of the word 'runner'. Someone who has two legs isn't a runner until he runs. The identity is based on an action you have to take. Likewise with 'man', unless you are 'manning up', you're not a man, you're just a male.

Certainly, I am still a man in the sense that I keep my role and gender obligations.

You're still part of a class of people obligated to earn their identity through service to society, yes. (This is not an identity, it's a classification.)

But as soon as you stop earning your identity, you stop having it according to society. You cease to exist as a 'man' and exist only as a 'male', a non-man.

Other ways of emphasizing your 'non-man' status is to refer to you as like a woman or a child.

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Explain the value as you see it. How is 'male' a valued identity by society?

Identity isn't about society's value of you. Take Indian castes; some are certainly valued more than others, some are virtually not valued at all. Yet they give everyone an answer to the question "Who am I? What's my purpose in life?". Not a good answer, necessarily. But an answer many people are probably going to accept by default, because they can't convince themselves of any better ones. Going without an answer has a high cost of a different kind than the low status associated with your role.

So to step away from the Indians, and try to answer as directly to your question as I can: The "mere male" identity does not carry with it very high status - society does not put a high value on it. But it can still have considerable value for the individual in question, by keeping existential uncertainty about who you are at bay.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Identity isn't about society's value of you.

Okay.

Take Indian castes; some are certainly valued more than others, some are virtually not valued at all. Yet they give everyone an answer to the question "Who am I? What's my purpose in life?".

How does being told by society that you're X give you a sense of who you are and your purpose? (If, as you say, an identity is about someone's relationship with themselves then society's beliefs should be irrelevant to that.)

Incidentally it sounds like you're saying they take their identity from how society values them.

Going without an answer has a high cost of a different kind than the low status associated with your role.

What is the high cost of going without an identity?

But it can still have considerable value for the individual in question, by keeping existential uncertainty about who you are at bay.

Using your own example. The Untouchables support the system because at least it gives them an identity but no value. However you say that having no identity is an even worse cost then having an identity but no value.

Wouldn't, then, being given an identity be a minimal way of valuing a group of people by society? 'If you do what I want, I'll give you a name at least.'

How does society tell the male-bodied that they have an identity just for being male?

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How does being told by society that you're X give you a sense of who you are and your purpose?

They don't, as such. It does so by you letting it define you. It's just much easier to do that than coming up with a sense of purpose and identity from a tabula rasa.

But don't think majority society is the only thing you can to go to find a suggestion for who you are. To take an extreme example, a tiny secret society might convince you that you are elect, and a lot of other specific things, giving you a very rich sense of identity.

The ultimate identity providers, though, are parents - in fact, without them, people seem to have real trouble holding to a single sense of identity for long.

By the way, I think it is more accurate to say the untouchables participate in the system, not that they support it. Society only very indirectly and unwillingly gives outcasts such as the untouchables an identity - by keeping them in the same "prison", and giving them a sense of shared suffering. To the degree society does provide them with an identity, it's not in a way they can choose to hold back.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Obviously being 'defined' by society is of value to people if they're willing to participate in a society that condemns, neglects and abuses them. They value their participation in society--thus whatever identity society gives them--more then they value their own wellbeing!

However I think your untouchable example is apt for another reason. It shows that society separates people into groups who have value for existing and groups who have to do something to earn their value to society.

I would argue that this constitutes each group's classification. Society's innate value of one group creates a privileged, immutable identity while saying to the other group that it must earn its value creates a uncertain, unreliable identity. When it earns society's value, it has an identity within society, when it fails to earn society's value, it has no identity.

In terms of your serf/lady example, once your value to society is secure(your social identity) you have the privilege of engaging in wondering about your self-identity.

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Obviously being 'defined' by society is of value to people if they're willing to participate in a society that condemns, neglects and abuses them. They value their participation in society--thus whatever identity society gives them--more then they value their own wellbeing!

They do not have an option of not participating in the system without starving. They participate in the system because they value their own wellbeing. I dare say the sense of purpose through shared suffering would not be enough to hold them back if they had any options.

It shows that society separates people into groups who have value for existing and groups who have to do something to earn their value to society.

I agree society does that. I am fully in line with e.g. Warren Farrell that women are predominantly valued for what they are and men for what they do.

But I don't see how the caste system is a very good example of it, because everyone there are valued or devalued what they are. The casteless do not dive into sewers to be appreciated for it, because they aren't. They do it to survive.

I would argue that this constitutes each group's identity. Society's innate value of one group creates a privileged, immutable identity while saying to the other group that it must earn its value creates a uncertain, unreliable identity.

Then you're talking about a quite different concept of identity the one used in the common expression "identity crisis".

In terms of your serf/lady example, once your value to society is secure(your social identity) you have the privilege of engaging in wondering about your self-identity.

I do not think being valued by society has much to do with it. Teenagers are valued far less by society than children are - you're not cute anymore, suddenly every bus driver and shop owner meets you with scarcely concealed hostility - yet it's in teenage years people typically start having identity crises. It's not because they lacked the capabilities for thinking about identity before (you might not believe some of the talks I've had with my six-year old).

What I think you could argue, is that you don't have the option to explore who you want to be, until your basic needs are met. And basic needs include emotional needs. But that you don't have many alternatives in identity, doesn't mean you lack an identity - on the contrary, it's the "qual der wahl" between many conflicting identities that can potentially leave you rootless and confused.

Edit: I got to sum up here, it's 23:27. But I think I can summarise my objection more clearly after all this discussion:

When you speak about men earning an identity, you suggest that what's used to control men, to get them to sacrifice themselves, is something very high up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Whereas I think it's more commonly pretty low in the hierarchy - simple emotional and social needs, barely above immediate physical needs. Society can control those, it can't really control the higher ones.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But I don't see how the caste system is a very good example of it

I think it is because now that the untouchables in India are questioning the identity given to them by the hierarchy and reclaiming their identity by valuing each other in some places they are starting to improve their material position by working together cooperatively. They were kept abjectly poor by the system preventing them from helping each-other.

That's the difference between a group identity and a social categorization. Before the Untouchables started to take an identity from each other, they took their identity from society and valued each other and themselves as much as society did. Which is to say, not at all.

When a group of people feels ostracized from a positive social identity (people with innate value generally don't feel obligated to a society to generate that value) that group of people feels they can't look to each other to create mutual value. This is the essence of marginalization.

The male bodied can create a positive social identity by generating value for society, but they don't, as a group, have a positive social identity from being male. A positive social identity would require either innate worth to society or the ability to build mutual value within their group.

As for your teenager example. You could say that they are looking to find their identity (what they can offer that's of value to society) because they've lost their value as a child.

Further I'd argue that our identity within a society is a very low need on Maslow's hierarchy. I'd place it at safety and security. We're a social species, our social identity is a short hand for our beliefs about our future survival.

Finally the relationship to value and identity is this: Our social identities reflect what society values. When society values you innately you have a strong, persistent social identity. When society only gives you whatever value that you create for it, then you have a weak and inconsistent social identity.

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just have to address this separately (I'm on a computer now, so copying and pasting is less of a hassle):

In which ways do I stop being a man, according to your theory?

Yep. You just stop being a man.

This is not an answer to my question. In which ways? The only thing I can see is that I suffer loss of social status. But that is orthogonal to identity.

Identity is, by definition (well, the obvious, reasonable definition) about who I am, what I want from life, how I see myself.

There's the old expression "knowing your role and station in life". A serf would have very low status (station), but a clear and uncomplicated role (identity). Shaming attacks status, not role. It may suck to be a serf, but at least you don't need to go on an "eat pray love"-style tour to discover yourself as the bored mistress of the keep may.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're just stubbornly refusing to look at the concept of identity as I use the word. I'm just going to repeat myself if this goes on. I use the word identity in a very common way! When we speak of a person with an identity crisis, for instance, we usually speak of such things:

someone suddenly deciding to abandon his family for a secret love affair
someone having a dramatic religious conversion
someone dropping out of a prestigious school program to use drugs - or be a stay-at-home wife for that matter.

I told you, I've run into a few such people. It's very important to me that the problems these people have are not conflated with the problems a bullying victim has, or a homeless person 1, or a fat person has.

1. Maybe a poor example, as at least here in Norway, homelessness is often a consequence of life decisions made in identity crisis desperation, rather than mere misfortune.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vintermann1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men have low inherent status for existing, but a higher multiplier.

You mean 'males' have a low inherent status for existing. If males prove themselves as men, they increase their value.

It's not a matter of multiplication, it's a matter of needing something extra--other then male--to have value.

We are both admired more for our successes and scorned more for our failures.

That's interesting because... I've noticed women who succeed tend to get far more attention then men who succeed at exactly the same thing.

Success seems to add upon the value women already have.

But this is quite independent from identity.

As someone pointed out in another post, your value to society is your identity.

Males have no value to society until they are seen as men. Again, 'man up', 'take it like a man', and all the variations of 'real man' only make sense if it's possible for a physically adult male to fail to preform his social identity correctly. (Or fail to create value to society.) Not so with women.

A male does not take his social identity from his maleness, he takes it from his manhood--which is defined by society as benefit to society.

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If our society doesn't pull something from this frankensteinian mess, the muslims will take over and we'll be back to patriarchy.

Leftism, which spawns Feminism and Multiculturalism, is a self-correcting social problem: it destroys the society it infests.

And you're right, while we were floundering around pretending that "equality as a goal for society" was a good idea, the Muslims were focusing on what worked and what advanced them and what increased their power as a society. And they are going to eat our lunch because of it.

So we return to a model of society that works: by choice or by force. This society decided to become individualistic and leftist and wanted what it wanted and damned the consequences. Well those consequences are coming home to roost. All because "feelings" were more important than results.

But as said above, most people live through sentiment. This is easier because it starts and ends inside the brain. Their sentiment tells them that what they need is liberation from consequences, and that with the ensuing tolerance, a state called “peace” will reign, even though such a state would mean a cessation of all change and striving for excellence. Their sentiment is based in fear of change, and not a desire to surpass what they know.

Consequentialism will never be popular, for this reason. With one exception: it will always be popular among those who feel the weight of leadership. If your job is to make sure people make it through the night, you no longer care about their feelings, only results.

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Civilization is not a natural thing. It does not spring up from animalistic tendencies. The thing which really created civilization is fatherhood, and the resulting changes which result from recognizing fatherhood.

Our sexual dynamics are not subject to social manipulation. Men will still act like men, women will still act like women, with regards to the sexual market. The only thing we can do is recognize those differences and then set up the costs and benefits such that CostBenefits + SexualDynamic = DesiredBehavior. We run this calculation once per gender, because each gender has an individual sexual dynamic.

The problem we are having in society today is because we decided "equal" was more important than "functional" and as such we declared that there shalt be only one set of CostBenefits and it will apply to both genders (we're not quite there yet, but it's the eventual goal). Well that still leaves each gender applying their own SexualDynamic to the CostBenefits equation and we are ending up with very undesired behavior (behavior that tears down rather than builds up society) as the result.

The sexual dynamic is an inherent function of gender. It cannot be changed. Behavior is manipulable by social values, rules, regulations, etc. but, in the case of mating patterns, said social manipulation must recognize the sexual dynamics and work WITH them rather than ignore them.

You need to learn to what degree things are mutable if you're going to play the "let's build a civilization from scratch" game and have any chance for success. The truth is, just about everything is mutable, it's just a matter of time. If you want to change what happens in the human mind (thoughts), you change the costs and benefits and that happens pretty quickly... as long as feelings don't outweigh reason. If you want to change what happens in the animal mind (feelings), that takes a deeper level of retraining that likely takes multiple successive generations of effort to change... as long as the feeling isn't instinctual. If you want to change the reptilian mind (instinct), do the same thing as animal, but take a few hundred thousand generations.

The trick? Be sustainable during the period you are making the changes. And also recognize that hypergamy (a big component of sexual dynamic) is down in the instinctual level.

[–]typhonblue2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carchamp11 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carchamp11 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carchamp12 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Indog 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Why not this one?

Well, let's look at what it would take to make men and women interchangeable (which is the type of equality most people desire).

We'd have to remove women's biologically granted advantage via artificial wombs.

We'd have to offset men's biologically granted disadvantage by creating sex robots.

Then we'd have to engineer changes in the brain to remove female hypergamy.

We'd also have to remove the female tendency towards equality and/or the male tendency towards equity.

And finally, we'd have to do something about men having larger standard deviations... to make it such that men don't outnumber women at the top and bottom of expression.

Also, pretty much already accomplished, we'd have to remove men's advantage in average strength.

Ok, can we do any of those things today? No? So why are we trying to shoot for a goal we can't accomplish?

And what happens even once we have these technologies and we can accomplish this "wonderful" goal of complete interchangeable-equality between men and women? What kind of a society would that be? What would society look like when men no longer strive for greatness to achieve in order to earn a wife and family?

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

You're not listening to what I'm saying.

In many cases these men faced zero, that is zero, chance of surviving. Yet they still did it. (In fact the men back home were the ones getting action while the soldiers died.)

In history slaves would sacrifice their lives for their masters for no measurable benefit to themselves.

This is not the behaviour of men motivated solely by sex and reproduction. Sex and reproduction is no benefit to you if you're dead.

If you're motivated by sex and reproduction, it does not follow that you treat yourself as expendable. Women are motivated by reproduction(at least) and their reproduction throughout history(until recently) was impossible to achieve without men's material resources. In other words a woman's womb was useless unless there was a man to pay for the fruits thereof.

Women didn't end up treating themselves as expendable in service of finding a financial 'womb'.

These male-bodied individuals are motivated by something else.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're approaching the problem from a blank-slate behavioral theory, that's why it's not working.

Actually I'm not. It's actually you who is saying that men are 'blank slates' written on by society.

In hunter-gatherer societies, men don't provide the majority of the material resources, women do through manufacturing processes overseen by women.

Throughout most of our evolution there were no 'successful' men, this is something written into the socialization of men by our current society. Assuming that they are a 'blank slate' if you will, that society can write anything on. Like so, 'Do X activities(that conveniently support the people in charge) and you earn back your identity which we stripped from you in the first place.'

In pre-history males likely secured the future of their children and their tribes through extended socialization of their offspring. Outside of societies wealthy enough to afford welfare--or even have personal wealth--and specialized enough that the emotionally stunted can find niche employment, children improperly socialized by their fathers die. They could not cooperate enough to feed each other, form protective bands, create technology, etc. etc.

Therefore throughout our evolution a father's 'social womb' was just as valuable as a mother's 'physical womb' in producing functional children.

In fact, today, we see this played out in the vastly diminished social realities of fatherless-children. And the fact that fatherlessness is more of an impact on a child's well then being poor. In other words a poor child with a father is even better off then a rich child without one.

Women may be choosing apexuals preferentially in our era but that's because she's been socialized too. If she's choosing her partner based on resources, she's not doing it for the benefit of her children, who would be statistically better off if she chose based on him demonstrating an interest in taking care of children.

[–]DevinV2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevinV1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DevinV2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How do you know these social hierarchies are a product of civilization and not something inherent to the species. Ghengis Khan is just proof in the extreme that there are big losers and big winners.

In our closest animal cousins you can observe the same thing. Big winner and big loser males. With many species of animals the male kills the young from another male when he mates with a new female.

Look, the biological imperative to pass on your genes is very real. They just manifest differently in men and women. With men it is in impregnating as many receptive women as possible and "mate guarding," and with females attempting to be impregnated by the most attractive male they can find as well as getting resources from a male as well who need not be the same one that impregnated her. You might ask, what makes a male the best male? This is relative to the men available in the woman's life but the standards not at all subjective. As F. Roger Devlin put it... (see my response to my own post -- character limit exceeded)

...

To continue, the natural model is a dead end as far as civilization goes because mate competition and violence become out of hand and will never result in anything but primitive small group dynamics.

Civilization is largely in defiance of nature. It has only been made possible to have such large-scale cooperation by largely sublimating these natural impulses and trying to make things fairer by enforcing a coupling or marriage model with at least the illusion of monogamy by force of harsh penalties on violators caught out (at least until recently where women have become free to follow the animal model with a legal system that turns a blind eye, in other words a system that legitimizes the female animal mating paradigm but not the male). Otherwise you would have the loser males--and there are a lot of them--fully aware of their loses status, wreaking havoc and not cooperating. A much less civil MGTOW if you will. You cannot have nice things by relegating the vast majority of males to the genetic garbage can, especially when it is the men that women find unattractive who create and maintain these things.

Of course, none of this will make sense to you if you buy into the just-so of the blank slate. The blank slate which is increasingly contradicted by modern science such as neuroscience which is showing differences in males and females and how those differences inform certain innate behaviors.

[–]DevinV1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But let us consider Shalit’s own account, culled from anecdotes and women’s magazines, of the sexual situation women face today. The humble corporate drone who has to fear harassment charges and loss of livelihood if he winks at the girl in the next cubicle will feel like he stepped through Alice’s looking glass when he reads this material. Here is a realm in which men have reduced women to struggling to see who can offer them the most and the best sex, frantically searching the Kama Sutra for some new position or technique that will manage to gratify their cloyed appetites. The men who inhabit this world are concerned not that women remain faithful, but that they do not become “clingy.” Cosmo supports them, advising women to scurry out the door immediately after sex for fear of intruding on the Big Important things their man has to do that day which do not involve them—and which may well include a tryst with another girlfriend. “It’s sad to see that this is what it’s come to” says one woman: “that guys will raise the bar and girls will scramble to meet it. Women just want to know what they have to do to get these guys to fall in love with them” (GGM, p. 176). One young woman explains: “If I don’t do whatever [my boyfriend] wants and he broke up with me for some reason, two days from now he’d have somebody else. That’s just how it works” (GGM, p. 177). “The men who share these women’s beds,” says Shalit, “are treated like kings or princes whose authority comes from God himself, whereas the women’s own feelings and even their health concerns are restricted in the extreme” (GGM, p. 81). Shalit advises one such woman to “run, not walk, to the nearest exit, trying not to trip over all the naked women on her way out” (GGM, p. 79).

All these stories certainly make it appear that, in the brave new world of the sexual revolution, the man’s position is stronger than under monogamy while the woman’s is weaker. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me pose a simple question which Shalit never considers. It used to be that there was roughly one girl for every boy; if men now have harems, where are the extra women coming from?

The answer is equally simple and obvious. Most men do not have harems, of course, and there are no more women than formerly. Some men have harems because women “liberated” from monogamy mate only with unusually attractive men. This situation demonstrates not the weakness of the woman’s position but its strength. If the male sex instinct were the primary determinant of mating, the overall pattern would be the most attractive women getting gang-banged.

In order to understand what is really going on, it will be necessary to shine a harsh light on a matter women instinctively prefer to keep under wraps: the female sex drive. Shalit almost never refers to it, and there is even a certain appropriateness about this, since such reticence is part of the feminine modesty she is trying to reestablish. But it means a veil is drawn over some important circumstances which must be honestly confronted if marriage and the natural family are to be restored as social norms.

When a young girl becomes erotically aware of boys, she is endowed by nature with a set of blinders which exclude the majority of them—including many who can make good husbands—from her sight. What gets a male within her narrow range of vision is called “sexual attractiveness.” What is it?

It is not possible to find out by asking women themselves. They will insist until they are blue in the face that they want only a sensitive, respectful fellow who treats them right. “Intelligence, kindness, personality [and] a certain sense of humor” make up Wendy Shalit’s list of supposedly sought-after male qualities (RM, p. 116). In a passage on the decline of male courtesy she delivers the following ludicrous assertion deadpan: “When . . . a man does dare to open a door for a woman, he is snapped up right away” (RM, p. 156).

When women claim to be seeking kindness, respect, a sense of humor, etc., they mean at most that they would like to find these qualities in the men who are already within their erotic field of view. When a man asks what women are looking for, he is trying to find out how he can get into that field of view. Women do not normally say, either because they do not know themselves or because it embarrasses them to speak about it. The advice they do give harms a lot of lonely men who mistakenly concentrate their mating effort on showing kindness and courtesy to ungrateful brats rather than working to gain the things females actually respond to.

Fortunately, we do not have to depend upon female testimony. It is with women as with politicians: if you wish to understand them you must ignore what they say and watch what they do. Plentiful evidence gathered over a vast range of history and culture leaves no room for doubt: women are attracted to men who possess some combination of physical appearance, social status, and resources.

In the environment in which we evolved, the careful choice of a mate was critical to a female’s success in passing on her genes. If her man was not strong enough to be a successful hunter, or not of sufficiently high rank within the tribe to commandeer food from others, her children might be in trouble. The women who were reproductively successful were those with a sexual preference for effective providers. A kind of erotic “tunnel vision” was selected for, which causes women to focus their mating effort on the men at the top of the pack—the “alpha males” with good physical endowments, social rank, and economic resources (or an ability to acquire them). Today the female preference for tall men, to give just one example, no longer makes much sense, but they, and we, are stuck with it.

What women instinctively want is for 99% of the men they run into to leave them alone, buzz off, drop dead—while the one to whom they feel attracted makes all their dreams come true. One of the keys to deciphering female speech is that the term “men” signifies for them only the very restricted number of men they find sexually attractive. All the dirty articles in Cosmo about “giving him the sex he craves” and “driving him wild in bed” concerns this man of her dreams, who by some amazing coincidence usually turns out to be the man of some other girl’s dreams as well.

During their nubile years, many women are at least as concerned with turning male desire off (i.e., telling the 99% to drop dead) as with turning it on (getting Mr. Alpha to commit): they get more offers of attention than they have time to process. Cunning feminists, many of them lesbians, have exploited this circumstance to the hilt, convincing naive young women they are being “harassed.” Quietly observing the furor over so-called harassment during the past two decades, I wondered how these women could fail to realize that the men of whom they were complaining constituted their pool of potential husbands and that they could not afford to alienate all of them. Clearly, I overestimated their intelligence. And Wendy Shalit does not distinguish herself in this respect either; she uses the term “harassment” as freely and uncritically as any man-hating feminist could wish.

But surely North America’s leading spokesman for feminine modesty would never encourage young women to date simply on the basis of their sexual urges?

Well, let’s see. At one point in her first book she is discussing a woman’s use of the controversial drug Prozac to help her “date calmly.” She then blurts out: “Maybe a woman shouldn’t be dating calmly—maybe it should be dizzying and tailspinning and all the rest. Maybe the floor should drop” (RM, p. 165). What she is describing here is female sexual arousal; it takes an emotional form. Her statement is the precise female equivalent of a man saying: “men shouldn’t date calmly—they should only date young hotties with fantastic legs, hourglass figures, etc.” What would Wendy Shalit think of that advice?

Now, let me be clear: I do not have any objection per se to every woman being able to marry a stunningly handsome, successful man who makes her swoon in blissful passion eternally, yada, yada; I am merely pointing out that the world does not work this way, and men are not to blame that it doesn’t.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In our closest animal cousins you can observe the same thing.

It doesn't matter what our 'closet animal cousins' do because we don't structure our societies in the same way and we evolved down a different path. Our society couldn't exist if this hadn't happened.

With many species of animals the male kills the young from another male when he mates with a new female.

You can't randomly point at animals in nature and say 'see the praying mantis bites the head off her mate therefore <insert human behavior>.'

There is an actual science behind this.

What you're doing makes as much sense as pointing at the sun and saying that's how lightbulbs work. Not only are you incorrect, your statements are incomprehensible.

Look, the biological imperative to pass on your genes is very real.

It doesn't explain why some male-bodied individuals will sacrifice their lives--their lives, end of biological imperative--knowingly sacrifice their lives, for the hierarchy.

Civilization is largely in defiance of nature.

And here we get to the problem. If Civilization is in defiance of nature, you pointing to aspects of nature to prove your point about people's behaviour in a civilization... doesn't work. In fact you're essentially saying 'Civilization can write anything it wants on the products of nature'. That means our current sexual roles can be completely re-written and in opposition to natural sexual roles.

How is that different from me saying that civilization has devised a 'male' identity to benefit itself that has nothing to do with natural masculinity? It has caused the male-bodied to identify with a hierarchy--with civilization itself--rather then each other, themselves, their children.

And the male-bodied will do so even when it means sacrificing their ultimate biological imperative and themselves.

[–]DevinV1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In fact you're essentially saying 'Civilization can write anything it wants on the products of nature'. That means our current sexual roles can be completely re-written and in opposition to natural sexual roles.

No I'm really not. Civilization is a byproduct of again, as I said, sublimating those base desires which when followed lead to nothing but primitive tribalism. You can't get rid of those desires altogether. You can only provide a system of incentive and punishment for violators who don't follow the rules that make civilization possible and then have the people follow it.

How is that different from me saying that civilization has devised a 'male' identity to benefit itself that has nothing to do with natural masculinity? It has caused the male-bodied to identify with a hierarchy--with civilization itself--rather then each other, themselves, their children.

Civilization isn't an entity. Civilization is a result of doing things in a way that is contrary to the violent animal nature where passing on your genes in an efficient way at all costs is your primary concern. It is impossible to completely eliminate these base desires without ending up with a nihilist way of life which cannot create a lasting civilization.

Civilization works on a compromise: A setup so that the vast majority of individual males would at least have a good chance of passing theirs on, largely eliminating the mate competition which keeps things in the stone age. This is the cost of civilization and all of these nice things.

And the male-bodied will do so even when it means sacrificing their ultimate biological imperative and themselves.

Very few sacrifice their biological imperative. It is more accurate to say that they sacrifice themselves in a different way in an attempt to fulfill the biological imperative. That is, instead of war-like tribalism you instead have the kinds of competition that exist in civilization in order to be successful in the mating game. The major difference being a markedly lower quality of life, life expectancy, etc for everyone in nature.

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]NiceIce 14 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

we (women)

You're a woman? Wow, you just blew my mind.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

We'd have to remove women's biologically granted advantage via artificial wombs.

Over-population, cultural perspective on child-birth(or prioritizing birth control over mass procreation), medical advancements(prolonging the life of men or making dangerous tasks undertaken by a male majority less life-threatening) and the global increase in disparity between male/female birth kind of make this point moot. Artificial wombs would certainly help, as would eliminating sperm donor clinics, but it is by no means a necessity.

We'd have to offset men's biologically granted disadvantage by creating sex robots.

Biologically granted disadvantage? and what disadvantage is that? Are you talking about a disparity in sex drive between men and women? First of all, you really don't know that this sex drive isn't culturally driven; there are certainly plenty of social factors that can be attributed to men being sexually aggressive and women passive(even it's been demonstrated that women can, and often do, have just as much of a drive to fornicate as men do). Men being taught that they have to prove themselves sexually to be "real men", women being taught that making it easy for men would result in a loss of personal/sexual value and existing social conditions(why would women learn to try when they can get by without having to make any efforts; why would make learn to not be as aggressive when it's a lose/lose for them every time) can all be attributed to such a disparity.

We'd also have to remove the female tendency towards equality and/or the male tendency towards equity.

Not sure what you mean by that. A tendency towards gender equality from both men and women would eradicate such issues to begin with; not make them worse.

And finally, we'd have to do something about men having larger standard deviations... to make it such that men don't outnumber women at the top and bottom of expression.

Not sure again what you mean here, unless you speak about employment and social status. In which case, yes, plenty needs to be done there and plenty has been done already. This is a social issue, not an innate biological/natural imperative.

Also, pretty much already accomplished, we'd have to remove men's advantage in average strength.

This is already pretty much done thanks to advancement in technology(machines perform most forms of manual labor and dangerous work better than any man or woman could) but, even then, there's a lot of other factors at play here. For one, men being socially indoctrinated into thinking that they have to be strong and women being indoctrinated into thinking that they don't have to be or cannot be, has a major influence on this strength disparity(go to any gym and check to see how many women are actually doing strength training and effective martial arts/sparring, rather than pedaling to burn half the calories they consumed in their last meal or just doing pointless stretches, compared to men. That is a socially driven influence). Men don't have to be so strong, nor do they have to be so big to look attractive; women don't have to be so weak, nor do they need to be starved and underdeveloped to be attractive.

What would society look like when men no longer strive for greatness to achieve in order to earn a wife and family?

Why should men compete to achieve greatness because they are men? Why wouldn't people be able to compete for greatness as individuals? Men shouldn't be expected to compete just because they are men and women shouldn't be able to get by without effort just because they are women. Why couldn't a woman earn for herself? Why couldn't women be expected to compete and earn for their families, the same way men are expected to compete and earn for their families? You are drawing a false notion based on completely archaic notions of gender and gender roles.

And what happens even once we have these technologies and we can accomplish this "wonderful" goal of complete interchangeable-equality between men and women? What kind of a society would that be?

It would be a pretty damn wonderful reality, if it ever comes to that. The fact that you would even argue against it is as absurd to me as saying "what happens once we have interchangeable equality between blacks and whites?! What kind of society would that be!?" that you might have heard in some pretty dark remnants of human history. Men and women living together in gender egalitarian society would be preferable and commendable for many, many different reasons(well, besides the countless other freedoms that come with the absolution of gender roles and gender-based expectations, stereotypes, assumptions and general bigotry). If you really can't imagine a world where men and women are completely equal and interchangeable(despite obvious physical differences), you are either not trying or not caring.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

but it is by no means a necessity.

It is a necessity. As long as women are our only source of reproductive potential, we are going to treat them as more valuable than men, even in an "overpopulated" environment. Might makes right, numbers make might, women make numbers. Ask the Palestinians about what "weapon" they are using to obtain victory. That weapon is the wombs of their women.

First of all, you really don't know that this sex drive isn't culturally driven;

Yes, because women have a seminal bladder which fills up, drives behavior, and can get so full that it even overflows as a wet dream.... oh, wait, that's only men.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Women desire a system of equality over a system of equity, men desire a system of equity over a system of equality. These are behavioral differences which can be viewed even from very young ages.

This is a social issue, not an innate biological/natural imperative.

No, it's biological. Men express larger standard deviations in every measurable human trait. Height, weight, IQ, spatial ability, math skills... if you can measure it, men will vary more. It is a innate biological imperative; it exists in every culture.

For one, men being socially indoctrinated into thinking that they have to be strong and women being indoctrinated into thinking that they don't have to be or cannot be, has a major influence on this strength disparity(go to any gym and check to see how many women are actually doing strength training and effective martial arts/sparring, rather than pedaling to burn half the calories they consumed in their last meal or just doing pointless stretches, compared to men. That is a socially driven influence).

How little you understand humans. You think women being attracted to strength and men being attracted to signs of fertility is a socially driven?

Why should men compete to achieve greatness because they are men? Why wouldn't people be able to compete for greatness as individuals?

Hypergamy. We can motivate men to do this by controlling access to women. We can't do this to women by controlling access to men.

Why couldn't a woman earn for herself?

She can, but she doesn't want to. 50% of women with college degrees drop out of the full time workforce after 10 years. Is this some social construct or women reacting to the very real biological drive to be a mother?

It would be a pretty damn wonderful reality, if it ever comes to that.

It would be grass huts. Without competition, you don't get advancement. Without advancement... you fail compared to those who do advance.

If you really can't imagine a world where men and women are completely equal and interchangeable(despite obvious physical differences), you are either not trying or not caring.

The problem is I can, and I don't idealize it as so many people are fond to do so.

Civilization has a cost; we can't stop paying it and expect to still have civilization.

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As long as women are our only source of reproductive potential, we are going to treat them as more valuable than men, even in an "overpopulated" environment.

The way you use that argument makes no sense. Women cannot procreate without men, nor can they do it asexually. You could just as easily say "men are women's only source of reproductive potential; therefore women should treat them as more valuable". Either way, there are more than enough women in this overpopulated world to insure the future survival of mankind without having to resort to desperate means or artificial wombs. If half of humanities' female population died today, the world could still repopulate; if half of humanities' male population died today, the world would still suffer just as much from it's lack of genetic diversity. Despite physiological differences, men are still valuable as human beings(I hope that goes without saying but a person's value to humanity also goes far beyond a simple ability to produce offspring); the idea that men have no value because they can spread their seed easily is also something that is entirely culturally/socially driven; you could just as easily have cultures that worship a man's seed and think very little of a woman's ability to receive a man's seed.

Yes, because women have a seminal bladder which fills up, drives behavior, and can get so full that it even overflows as a wet dream.... oh, wait, that's only men.

Firstly, seminal bladders and wet dreams have very little to do one's gender's sexual drive over another. Wet dreams are a physiological phenomenon; not a psychological one. You could just as easily say "women have breasts; therefor they want to have sex more". It's ridiculous. Even then... even if the male and female bodies weren't mirrored in the way they invoke a sexual drive; that still doesn't mean that it can't be dealt with, that is has to affect culture(or incite gender roles) or that it can't be accepted as a simple, or inconsequential, physiological difference.

No, it's biological. Men express larger standard deviations in every measurable human trait. Height, weight, IQ, spatial ability, math skills... if you can measure it, men will vary more. It is a innate biological imperative; it exists in every culture.

Height and weight are physiological differences and the argument that men are more physically varied than women is completely debatable. Psychological disparity, on the other hand, could also be completely accounted for by social/cultural influences as well; hell, male expandability(something which is socially driven) would in itself demand that men find ways to differentiate themselves and excel as men(in whatever field or manner) to get noticed.

You think women being attracted to strength and men being attracted to signs of fertility is a socially driven?

Do you realize that what is considered "attractive" does significantly vary from one social setting to another? What exactly screams out fertility in tits filled with silicon and a face full of botox? Every single individual on this planet has completely different ideas on that they find attractive and unattractive(just like a person's "identity", a person sexuality also develops through conscious and subconscious experiences/influences). Even if, hypothetically, these imperatives were hard-coded into human beings(which, by the way, would also contradict homosexuality and an infinite amount of sexual fetishes/fantasies), that still wouldn't mean that people, men or women, couldn't overcome such imperatives(what's the point of strength in a world where strength hardly matters and where fertility isn't really much of an issue) or dismiss them as a minor physiological difference?

Hypergamy. We can motivate men to do this by controlling access to women. We can't do this to women by controlling access to men.

Sure you can. Do you really think so little of man as to believe that women would be happy to live in a world without them? That they themselves could resort to reproducing asexually without the slightest bit of remorse? Do you really think women wouldn't be just as hurt from socially driven sexual limitations? Of-course they would. If you told the world that the sexist prince charming on the planet could only ever love them if they behaved a certain way, they would respond to that just as strongly as men would if you told them the same. Women compete for men too; they may not compete as often or as intensily but that is generally because they don't have to(due to obvious social reasons that I have already gone over). Hypergamy is also a social construct(it's not hard to imagine a world where women could compete for men the way men compete for women either) but, again, even if this was the case; it could just as easily be dismissed and changed.

She can, but she doesn't want to. 50% of women with college degrees drop out of the full time workforce after 10 years. Is this some social construct or women reacting to the very real biological drive to be a mother?

Yes! it is a social construct. There are many men out there that would love nothing more than to give up on working and become full time fathers but that is simply not an option for them, either because they are socially devalued for doing so, labelled as deadbeats or simply do not allow it(even though we have the social structure and stability to make that happen). Women drop out of full time work because they can, because at the end of the day the cultural climate we are in allows them to; that is a social privileges that society grants women(if this was purely biological phenomenon, women who stop working to become mothers would simply starve themselves, and their child, to death; seeing as they would no longer have the means to support themselves). Not to mention, not every woman wants to be a mother either!

It would be grass huts. Without competition, you don't get advancement. Without advancement... you fail compared to those who do advance.

Why would society revert to grass-huts now? Why would progress itself just stop? That is a completely ridiculous misnomer and logical fallacy. Women have attributed to human progress as well(maybe not as much, since they never really had a social reason to do so, but their are still many example of female contribution to betterment of mankind). Just because people stop seeing each other as gender stereotypes or start valuing each other(in all ways, including sexually) as equals, does not mean that everybody will just stop learning, stop experimenting and stop striving. Human curiosity and capability to learn, or even human greed(or desire for wealth, comfort and distinction), is not solely governed by a mere sexual imperative.

Civilization has a cost; we can't stop paying it and expect to still have civilization.

Who says anything about stopping to pay for the cost of civilization. This is another completely false and ridiculous dichotomy. If anything, abolishing the limitations of gender disparity and gender inequality while take humanity farther than it has ever dreamed itself capable of.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The way you use that argument makes no sense. Women cannot procreate without men, nor can they do it asexually.

If you do not understand that the limiting factor on reproduction is the number of wombs available, you are far too detached from reality for me to have a reasonable debate.

there are more than enough women in this overpopulated world to insure the future survival of mankind

Society doesn't give a shit about the survival of mankind. This is not some "one world nation" leftist utopia. We are competing societies and competing cultures.

Wet dreams are a physiological phenomenon; not a psychological one.

Yes, yes it is. Now why don't you hold your urine bladder from releasing and see how long until the only thing on your mind is taking a piss.

Height and weight are physiological differences and the argument that men are more physically varied than women is completely debatable.

No, the debate is over, long dead over. Again, you are trying to be willfully ignorant of reality in order to hold on to your ideology.

Do you realize that what is considered "attractive" does significantly vary from one social setting to another?

Yeah, just like the hip to waist ratio has been the same for eons....

(which, by the way, would also contradict homosexuality and an infinite amount of sexual fetishes/fantasies)

OMFG you are a fucking idiot. Or are you going to claim that homosexuality is a choice? Because that's the only way you can say that my claim contradicts homosexuality.

Why would society revert to grass-huts now? Why would progress itself just stop?

Are you an all or nothing idiot? I guess you are.

Would it just stop? No. Would it slow considerable compared to a culture/society where we still have competition and gender roles advancing their desires? Yes. Then give it a few generations and who's on top? Not the idiots who decided that "equality" was more important than advancement, success, and survival.

I was right with my first reply: you are way to far detached from reality.

[–]fondueguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

All variations(at extensive as that is) of sexuality are developed subconsciously through experiences(this includes both homosexuality and heterosexuality). Sexuality, or the the link between a psychological stimuli and a physical reaction(in both men and women), is something that is far to complex, specific and varied to be something that people are born with and completely deterministic(as are all forms of biological psychological development).

"Trans-sexuality", on the other hand, is an entirely different matter, it is has nothing to do with sexuality or the way sexuality develops. It is, rather, a form of psychological damage, Psychosis or severe delusion(generally stemming from a very intense idolization of one gender over another, traumatic experiences manifested against gender or a hatred/disdain for one's own gender). Variations in sexuality shouldn't be confused with or even compared to gender identity disorders(doing so misrepresents the nature of both sexuality and gender dysphoria/dysmorphia, and undermines the issues associated to both; not to mention the negative social, medical, and personal/psychological effects of catering this particular type of psychosis).

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I've seen those video's and every bit of evidence you take as fact but the reality of it is that, as I said earlier, that evidence is far from conclusive(circumstantial at best). There are just as many studies and data that prove to the contrary(and then some). That is reality.

And, no, sexuality isn't "part of gender". One's gender may affect some physiological drives in different, yet mirrored, ways and it will affect the social experiences that someone will experience in their lifetime(boys will grow up being treated differently from women, will grow up emulating different role-models and will see themselves fitting into a different sexual roles from their social/cultural environment as well) but sexuality itself has no gender. The differences between men and women are nowhere near as profound as you mistakenly believe them to be. We are of one species, made in the same way, from the same genetics and with the same materials. The minor physiological differences between men and women(minor when compared to everything else we have in common) are even themselves reflections of one another. Attributing psychological/social differences between men and women to biology, especially when that clearly isn't the case, isn't just bad science, it is a very cheap way to avoid dealing with, and resolving, these sorts of gender issues. Using this false pretense of biology as an easy scapegoat to justify the slightest differences between men and women does not solve or help anything; it simply makes things worse. That is being disingenuous.

[–]Mi5anthr0pe 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0CKPUNCHER 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matt_512 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]matt_512 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why Feminism is Wrong about the Patriarchy \| GendErratic
Author	GendErratic
Upvotes	44
Comments	119
Date	March 6, 2012 5:01 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qkc7k/why_feminism_is_wrong_about_the_patriarchy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-feminism-is-wrong-about-the-patriarchy.1026515 https://theredarchive.com/post/1026515

Comments