Hello and welcome!
Hello and welcome!
- Yes, self preservation and species continuance are quite different; I was suggesting that we try to amend our relationship in order to achieve the latter since I believe it would work in our advantage as a species.
- I never said that men were wronging women, and that's not what I meant by "wrong." What I did mean was that women wronged both men and themselves by adhering to a feminist lifestyle. Having men leave them is what I considered the second wrongful action. True, it's only a reaction rather than a cause, yet it's always better to build rather than destroy. Therefore, two wrongs don't make a right.
- As for "losses & burdens" , I did actually mean that women were indeed losses and burdens. Other members seemed to understand what I meant, hence the need for a translator
- When I mentioned courage/bravery earlier, you jokingly said "be careful what you wish for." In return, and I'll rephrase it here, I said that if there were anything in the world that you could wish for, it might as well be courage, for yourself and all those around you.
- You bring up a valid alternative view. Yet, I don't think that the shift from rural to urban due to industrialization was the cause of women resentment. That's because working on the field didn't exactly empower nor give them value since finances were still under the man's control through selling & buying crops. Sure, maybe she helped a little with the crops, but it was up to the men to make a living and make financial decisions, which included hiring other men to help work his field. So for women, working the field might have been more like having a whole lotta laundry to do on top of childcare.
- I also don't think that the pill was the reason for women's decision to leave the home, or their marriage for that matter. If anything, and by mere logic, the pill only allowed more intimate relations between couples without the fear of unwanted pregnancies. And I say "the fear" because it really was only that since couples knew many forms of birth control that are still used today, especially those that don't hold the dangers that contraceptives have on women's health.
- The biggest factor behind divorce in my opinion was the economic independence of women, which by the way was noted all over the world, even in countries where feminism does not exist. Interesting topic for future discussion :-)
- Most importantly, I think that the industrial revolution was the core reason behind it all. And the effects of it, along with its manifestations, can be seen through the behavior of states, policy, and individuals.
- The hunger for "power" skyrocketed upon industrialization. This can be seen in Western state policy & actions through colonization, slavery, and other means that were built on attaining and expanding resources & power. It can also be seen by the same pursuit of power by all individuals, including men joining the new work force, women striving for similar pursuits and status under the invasive power-regime, and children as well .. who were actually sent out under extreme conditions to get their share of the now indoctrinated new goal of more. The normal, balanced discipline of moderation was replaced by an abnormal, unbalanced one of greed, and hence .. the shift in human behavior, stance on goals in life, and gender identity & relationships were consequently altered.
- I didn't like the term "relegated them to the status of housewife" in reference to women's work at home. It denotes so much with respect to our stance on gender roles, particularly that of a woman's. It's disappointing to see the belittling of domestic work, which illustrates a general mindset in Western societies in that regard, to which I pointed out previously.
- I will hopefully write something about women's role within the home because it really deserves awareness as well as contributes to the wellbeing of men, women, and family.
- Your viewpoint on working class women has more to do with the working, middle class itself rather than with feminism, which you yourself implied within your comment. I agree and tend to think of the middle class as the truly advantaged due to its moderation. The poor are really burdened, and the rich are also burdened. Perhaps that's why the woman in the factory was more keen on continuing her work rather than interested in feminist rhetoric.
- As for your second notion about male/female roles & accountability .. well there's a whole lot to say in that regard, but I'll try to summarize. First, no man should be blamed for how much money he earns, or how little in this case, especially by his wife, who should stand by him not despite this fact but because of it. Second, both parents should be responsible for their children both financially and through childcare depending on their individual financial and personal capacity. Parents are not mere paychecks and are both essential in raising well-balanced children. The worse thing any parent can do is trash another parent in front of his/her kids. And if parents knew how damaging this behavior is to the child, they wouldn't do it as much. I tend to deliberate divorce through the benefit of the children first and foremost because they are the most innocent and in need of protection. Therefore, if anyone chooses to divorce, the least they could do is part well.
- I gotta admit, the reason why I delayed replying sooner was because of what you said.
- Your comment, especially that last part about hate, overwhelmed me initially .. and then left me heavy hearted to tell you the truth. I will not pretend to know exactly how you feel because I haven't been so unfortunate as to go through your own experience. But I do acknowledge the sincerity of your testimony and agitation. All I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way and wish there were something better that I could offer.
- Before anything else, I must say this:
- Any attitude or ideology that labels you as inherently "bad" is an attempt to dehumanize you as a person. This applies to all human beings. And in this specific situation, a discourse that labels men as inherently violent, oppressive, unfit or undeserving is in itself violent and oppressive. It robs you of your own identity, strips away your virtues, and paints you as subhuman .. allowing or even legitimizing your abuse.
- That being said, try not to associate feminism with emotions such as hate because hate is immeasurable and can easily be refuted. But when someone states or implies that men are born violent rapists, that men are naturally wired to oppress, or that they are too trivial to be considered or awarded any value, then they're basically saying that men are not human beings .. because no human being fits any of these horrible categories that have been used to vilify an entire gender.
- As for men, or rather males as a gender, I think that they are much more vulnerable than we think, more so than women in many different ways. There are so many expectations of men that aren't required for women. I'm not saying that life for women is easy, but the expectations of men are larger in scope and dictated by numerous factors, including social, familial, economic, and in national defense. Most of these obligations are mandatory and create a stressful, hectic life that seems to demand more than a person care bear sometimes. I think that if I had to deal with that kind of stress, I would have to have a strong support system through which I can rest, restore calmness, and recompose myself in preparation for the following day .. otherwise, what's the use really?
- We all have our own expectations .. of everything. This is why we naturally expect our parents to be loving and our friends to be loyal .. so why on earth would we expect men to be bad? By doing so, we are indoctrinating ourselves into a system that casts men as beasts and by that deprive them of self-actualization and ourselves of their invaluable roles as fathers, brothers, husband, friends, and protectors.
My two cents for now .. my original points formerly intended to be written are off the table until further notice.
Thank you Grumpy Old Man and Yusagi Yojimbo
Sorry, but it seems that history is perhaps not your forte, then ...?That's because working on the field didn't exactly empower nor give them value since finances were still under the man's control through selling & buying crops.
Again, before industrialization and urbanization, only limited sectors of society were monetized; most units were mainly self-sufficient; there was a certan amount of barter; and money came in at top level, e.g. taxes.
So there weren't that many "finances" to deal with. Also, women had access to what there was of finances - "egg money" was actually one source of coin, and taken in by the wife.
And the vital function of internal distribution - who got what - for instance, to eat - and when and how -was the women's domain, their "key power", with the ring of keys to the chests of meal and grain visible on their belts.
A little ...?Sure, maybe she helped a little with the crops
Take something as simple, yet important as hay making. Hay was mown and dried just past mid-summer, and the process had to be done fast, as long as there was a spell of sunny weather.
Everyone, young and old, man or woman, had to help rake, bundle, stack and turn hay as the weather commanded. Exempt the womenfolk from that, and half your livestock would starve to death in winter.
Even more primitive: picking berries, typically something for the younger girls. But without them: scurvy in march.
No. Do or die together.but it was up to the men to make a living
Yes, over such money as there was and which pertained public, i.e. legal duties, like tax and rent.and make financial decisions
Women organized major tasks like baking, butchering, curing, cooking for the big feasts like xmas, etc, etc, etc. Same, same (but different, of course).which included hiring other men to help work his field
?So for women, working the field might have been more like having a whole lotta laundry to do on top of childcare.
Depends on what you understand by "reason". Divorces in established marriages was probably more a matter of money than sex.I also don't think that the pill was the reason for women's decision to leave the home, or their marriage for that matter.
But whole new generatons arose who did not have to wait having sex until they were married.
Was it a motive? Yes, women want sex.
Was it a cause? Perhaps not.
If it was, it was probably of the "necessary, but not sufficient" type - it gave women freedom to choose, which is the first thing you need on order to choose, although perhaps other factors determine the particular choices made.
Ah, you young'uns ... ever heard of the sexual revolution?If anything, and by mere logic, the pill only allowed more intimate relations between couples without the fear of unwanted pregnancies.
By mere logic plus a lot of lust and horniness it allowed intimate relations between two blindly drunk people who met for the first time at a party. AKA WGTOW.
?And I say "the fear" because it really was only that since couples knew many forms of birth control that are still used today,
especially those that don't hold the dangers that contraceptives have on women's health.
Yes.The biggest factor behind divorce in my opinion was the economic independence of women, which by the way was noted all over the world, even in countries where feminism does not exist.
Interesting topic for future discussion :-)
Yes.Most importantly, I think that the industrial revolution was the core reason behind it all. And the effects of it, along with its manifestations, can be seen through the behavior of states, policy, and individuals.
There is a lot to be said for the power theme, but I distrust monocausal explanations on principle, especially the slightly Foucault'ian stream-of-discourse tapestry of equating the minimal and individual with the maximal and social (e.g. wrt. power).The hunger for "power" skyrocketed upon industrialization. This can be seen in Western state policy & actions through colonization, slavery, and other means that were built on attaining and expanding resources & power. It can also be seen by the same pursuit of power by all individuals, including men joining the new work force, women striving for similar pursuits and status under the invasive power-regime, and children as well .. who were actually sent out under extreme conditions to get their share of the now indoctrinated new goal of more. The normal, balanced discipline of moderation was replaced by an abnormal, unbalanced one of greed, and hence .. the shift in human behavior, stance on goals in life, and gender identity & relationships were consequently altered.
Sad not only for all the women relegated to the status of housewife, then, but for you, too.I didn't like the term "relegated them to the status of housewife" in reference to women's work at home.
For relegated was what they were.
Not if you have done any amount of housework ...It denotes so much with respect to our stance on gender roles, particularly that of a woman's.
Housework is a set of mindless and repetitive drudgery, pure maintenance work that must ever be repeated beacuse someone will always drop a sweater on the floor and leave a glass on the table.It's disappointing to see the belittling of domestic work
The work is never done and leads to nothing.
Yay the West, then.which illustrates a general mindset in Western societies in that regard, to which I pointed out previously.
Last edited by Manalysis; 03-18-2017 at 05:33 AM.
But Feminism *IS* about hate. They bolt other things onto the side of it just to dress it up a little and make it harder to see it for what it really is. But when you peel away all their lip service and quaint dictionary definitions-- what is left, what is *REAL* and documented and repeated over and over and over ad nauseum-- is the HATE. ----------> *I* am no longer willing to ignore it. *I* am no longer willing to look away or pretend that it is anything else. *I* am no longer willing to go along with calling it something less obvious. *I* am no longer willing to stand idly by while myself and my gender is constantly and consistently slandered, maligned, and cast aside for hateful purposes. *I* am no longer willing to pretend that it's about something it's not. When Feminism is about one thing and one thing only-- HATE. Along with whatever spoils and bounty can be derived through its practical application of shaming, intimidation, redefinition (moving the goal posts), and straight up out-and-out blatant in-your-face HATRED. *I* will no longer appease hateful Feminists. *I* am calling them out. Calling for them to account for their actions and their tactics. *I* am saying if it's WAR they want then WAR they should have-- from the SEX who pretty much INVENTED THE CONCEPT.
It's *long past time* that Men woke up, realized the situation for what it is, and ENGAGED hateful Feminists in the WAR that they have declared. Men understand WAR. They know what to do when WAR comes. That is why Feminism is so insidious-- Feminists have declared WAR on Men, but also look like the WOMEN that we know and love and so it has been extremely difficult for Men to see past their own doting affection for their women / women in general, to SEE / HEAR / UNDERSTAND that WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED. Feminists have been prosecuting that WAR for DECADES NOW and Men have done extremely little to recognize / understand / accept / or ENGAGE in that WAR in return. Men don't really *WANT* to be at WAR with women. Men would much rather NOT be at WAR with women. Men would MUCH RATHER simply accede / concede / give them whatever they want in hopes that their women will be satisfied. BUT THAT HASN'T WORKED. It has not been effective. Women are NOT appeased. Women have NOT been satisfied. Women are still at WAR with MEN. And it's time for Men to stop pussy-footing around the topic, to accept that it is what it is, and despite their heavy-hearted reluctance to engage in WAR with their women-- to WAKE THE FUCK UP and get involved-- do what MEN know how to do so well. See, Understand, Formulate a Strategy, and Take the War to the Enemy. Feminists have declared WAR on MEN. If it is WAR they want-- then it is long past time for Men to do what needs to be done.
I know this is hard to hear. It's hard to say and to admit for Men too. Men don't want war, and most especially not with women. But women / aka "Feminists" have been busy engaging in war on Men and Men and boys are suffering its effects. Women don't fight the same way that Men do. Men are generally straight up and very direct. They say "this is our problem", "you're somehow in opposition", and "we are going to fight you now until one of us wins". And then they engage and sooner or later it's over. The conflict is decided, and they work at rebuilding and moving forward. That is the way of Men. Women, on the other hand, fight in the shadows. They use their wiles and influence to gain what they want. Sometimes they are able to rally Males to their cause, and thus have "Hard Power" on loan to wield to their agenda. This is what Feminists are busy doing. Dressing up their hateful agenda as a "drive for equality" and thus recruiting sympathetic Men to their aid. Those men are viewed as "Useful Idiots" and are used for as long as they can be to achieve whatever hateful ends they are put to. When a man is no longer able to be used, Feminists cast him aside and find another one.
*I'M* not sugar-coating it any more. Feminism is a HATE GROUP. If you disagree, PROVE to me it is not.
The only way to put things to right, at this point, is to call it out. Say it out loud. Crystal clear so that nobody has any more allusions or Illusions about what Feminism is really about. Call them out on their hatred and bigotry. Make them account for themselves and their hateful actions. Strip away their bluff and bullshit to make sure everybody sees them clearly for the hateful, narrow-minded, sexist bigoted little people that they really are. **THAT** is Feminism. And I will be *HAPPY* to back up what I say with evidence and proof. And I will not have to work hard, or go far to fetch it. It's been out there in plain sight all along for anybody who but merely looks to see it. It's *literally* in their writings (I gave you some examples earlier), it's in their speeches. It's in their hateful rhetoric. It's in everything they do. Feminism is built on the politics of HATE, every bit the same as the KU KLUX KLAN or the NAZIS. Their methods might be different, but their HATRED is the same and so is their objective.
The above is simply a statement of the situation. Once you wrap your head around that-- at least for me, everything else becomes clear. But now let's talk about everything else....
Feminists are people. Albeit people with a hateful agenda-- but people nonetheless. In does nobody any good to try and strip them of their humanity. That is what they try to do to us. We are NOT Feminists. To do the same to them in return is not what we are all about. Certainly there are people who either don't understand that, or forget that, or cross the line, or have a slightly different view of where the line of demarcation lies-- but apart from that-- our goal, of the MHRM, is simply to return society to normalcy. To help put things to right. To restore order and balance-- and EQUITY to the scene. Men, as a group, don't want to fight Women, as a group. This I can assure you wholeheartedly is the truth. Men are simply sick and tired of being vilified and dragged through the mud by people with hateful agendas. Men would much rather work *WITH* women to improve society, to improve the situation for *anybody* who has an issue-- whether they are FEMALE *OR* MALE-- something the FEMINISTS are unwilling to do. To say "Feminism is about gender equality" is a supremely funny joke. Or rather it would be, if we Men weren't the ones who were busy being ground up by it. Feminism is only ever interested in what it can get and achieve-- FOR WOMEN, irrespective of the Men, including at the EXPENSE of Men, even when and where it isn't necessary to do so.
And that is the REAL crux of the problem. Feminism was NEVER necessary. It is NOT necessary now, and it won't be necessary tomorrow. It was never necessary to declare WAR on MEN and lay the blame for all the ills which befall women at their feet. Men are NOT "The Patriarchy"-- men are simply Fathers, Husbands, Brothers, Sons and Friends of women. Just the same as they are Mothers, Wives, Daughters and Friends to men. It was not and IS NOT necessary to BLAME MEN in order to improve the conditions and circumstances for WOMEN.
It is not possible to define Feminism without casting MEN into the role of Antagonists to women. Indeed, Feminism *requires* Men to be its foils for its very existence.
I do not believe that Women hate men. In fact, I absolutely REFUSE to consider it. And I know damned well that Men don't hate women-- outliers and aberrations aside of course, on both sides. And this is the problem with Feminism. Because the core of Feminism is made up of women-- hateful women-- and because they have done a very good job of getting their message out and conflating it with "women's rights" / aka what needs to be done / has needed to be done to improve the situation and conditions for women-- it has been fairly easy for Feminists to insinuate themselves into the middle of things by "adopting" (perverting) and wrapping themselves in the mantle of "gender equality". And most women (and a lot of men too) have bought into this lie hook, line and sinker-- in all probability without realizing / thinking / or even being aware of the underlying hateful nature and agenda of the true Feminist politic. Thus when one points out that Feminism is a hate group, people are taken aback by it and think "I'm for women's rights and *I* don't hate Men"-- so it's hard to see or realize that there is an inner sanctum which is busy pushing forward their hateful agenda and using / wrapping itself in the cloak of respectability by *appearing* to agitate for Women's rights. And they do a little bit. When they have to and when (and ONLY when) and where it is coincident with their interests to do so. And they are also cognizant that they also have to concede / accede to the demands and expectations of the "lesser Feminists" to some degree in order to maintain the appearance / illusion / fiction. And thus many otherwise reasonable, rational, ordinary people-- who do NOT HATE anybody-- are sucked into their realm and suckered into supporting their underlying hateful agenda, which is to usurp Men-- to "other" Men-- to demonize them and declare them impure by virtue of their masculinity-- and ultimately to cast Men out of the society-- which they pretty much built-- and relegate them to a pure service status. Feminists do not want Men as partners. They want men as servants.
I do not believe this is what MOST women want. But this is what women are unwittingly working to help achieve as they naively call themselves "Feminists". And the MEN who call themselves "Feminists" are just PLAIN FUCKING STUPID. But it is those men who ultimately make Feminism so dangerous by giving it teeth, which it can use to enforce its doctrine, edicts and policies, and work to achieve its hateful goals. Those men, "White Knights" and "Manginas" (in the parlance of the MHRM) who think they are simply aiding their women (for whatever reason) are inadvertently giving Feminists the "Hard Power" they need to bind Men with their OWN MALE POWER (Male Hard Power) and provide Feminists the ability to effect the changes they wish and force their agenda upon the unsuspecting populace.
Feminists are busy cooking the frog. And the poor unsuspecting Man doesn't even realize that he's the one being had for dinner.
And then, rather than rehash it all, there were several posts worth of other comments, more germain to your own comments / questions which we haven't really delved into, having been side-tracked by the "Hate" / "War on men" part-- which I think is important to understand. But is really only one relatively small portion of life, when you look at it in the bigger picture. It is an irritant and it must be dealt with. But there is SO MUCH MORE-- better, greater and GOOD THINGS that Men and Women have and can do for each other and can BE TOGETHER-- which we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of.
So I urge you to go back and re-read this thread and the various posts, and put your own points back onto the table-- there are so many things to talk about and discuss and toss about and debate.
So... you know... let's get to it!
FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
It's time to call it out for what it is.
NO men were WRONGED and men took steps to remove themselves from THAT wrong. do you understand the saying "two wrongs dont make a right"? ???
and matrix is a very opinionated person. it was a joke i said.Opinion outshines bravery
also.. i needed a "translator" because some of your sentences made no sense. gramatically or structurally.
what the fuck does that mean? did you mean narrative? and whos "all the narratives"? i dont want the narratives preserved at all. none of them again..who's "WE" you keep saying "WE" who the hell is we. dont talk for me please.
dont think i like the way you communicate much, you never address anything i ask and you just deflect it and then make some random point thats not a direct answer to my question.
- Yes, we can only speculate about some things but can arrive at an answer together. I'm now leaning towards your viewpoint on how valuable women's roles were in generating an income on farms. Still, the puzzle remains incomplete ..
- I don't know why you equated your phrase "two blindly drunk people who met for the first time at a party" with WGTOW. I think both genders were involved in that movement and that both thought it was "liberating." Anyway, that era was bursting with all sorts of activism and not all of it was good.
- I myself can't relate to that dark, pointless existence that drives so many people in the prime of their youth to waste time & effort getting drunk and sleeping around. Parents should realize that it is during these years that we feel powerful, hopeful and can change the world. And it is their job to offer us opportunities that are best tailored to our age group rather than stand back and watch us be driven by mere instinct, peer pressure, and the media. Raising kids is much more significant than what's attributed to it by society, and I was fortunate enough to have a mother who went above and beyond to secure that kind of meaningful life for all of us despite being relegated to the mere status of a housewife :-P
- However, your comment made me think about one missing factor that seems to have caused women disgruntlement back then: lack of choice. For there is a great difference between having a choice in matters and between being forced into things .. and this applies to everything. Lack of choice confuses people about their actual goals and tends to end up badly, don't you think?
- You said you partly agreed with me on the role the industrial revolution had on feminism, particularly in terms of greed. But you also said that you didn't like associating individuals with the governing power. But the thing is, we are pretty much mainstreamed into our systems and are engineered to behave according to what's socially, economically, and politically mandated by the system. I'm very interested in your opinion in that regard and would like to hear more, if only to arrive at a complete, clear picture. Help me.
- Sigh. Where do I begin with you? :-)
- For now, I want to address one specific point you mentioned, which is that men invented the concept of war. This is just like saying that women invented the concept of peace. I completely disagree with either statement and think that each concept already exists within nature and that it's up to us to make the right choices depending on the circumstance.
- Contrary to feminist ideology - men are not initiators of war, ever. War is initiated by the state, and it often does so due to greed and the desire to attain power & resources for very few people.
- If anything, men are the victims of war, victims of the state and all that greed for power, of which they get nothing in return for their sacrifice. Men are generally protective, and the most noble acts of violence initiated by men were those that sought freedom & justice. It was the men of colonized Ireland, the men of colonized India & Africa, the men fighting for suffrage, and the men fighting to end slavery who represented selflessness, courage, and true manhood. Such "wars" were fought by men as individuals of the community and were normally directed against the state in return for security for their own families, or in an attempt to restore justice.
- And no, fighting women would not be the same kind of noble war because in its essence, it would be a declaration that you yourselves are women, and by your own admission at that. That's is why it's hard to "fight" women; it's not within your true nature as men nor was it ever intended for you to be so.
- Feminism has mislead many women into alienating themselves from their true nature, which is very damaging to themselves, others, and society. So when you as men rage war against women - and against your own instincts too - you are alienating yourselves from your true nature as men, as well as risking losing your own moral compass, which I think is crucial for you to have as men.
- I've decided to tackle your particular point about the hate within feminism in another thread due to its alarming nature and possible repercussions. Besides, it would be great to to get input from more people. Need a little time tho :-)
I didn't mean to deflect anything and thought I had answered your questions. I'm sorry, I can't help how I express myself but you can always ask me to clarify and I will.
No, we can speculate together and establish agreement. That is still not an answer, in the sense of actual having factual knowledge.Yes, we can only speculate about some things but can arrive at an answer together.
Many people make that mistake
Wrt. to why women feel resentment ... IME it is because they are women.
Men manipulate the world to get the stuff that the world has. Women manipulate men to get the stuff that men have.
In that game, you can use the whip or the carrot. I guess there are many reasons women prefer the whip.
If you decide to permanently hold someone in contempt until he gets his act together, most of the work is already done, and for good.
Now you just need to nag and nag to remind them.
And as old men get weepy, old women get angry.
A very primitive analysis of this is that when people get old and irrelevant, they can release some of the reservoir of pent-up "forbidden" emotions they have stored from age 5 - 50.
Men benefit if they are respected, admired, feared. They repress sensitivity and vulnerability and whatever the opposite of ambition is. So "after the game" this comes out.
Women benefit if they are liked, admired, adored. They repress assertiveness and pugnacity and ambition. So "after the game" this comes out.
The Pill liberated women from the Gatekeeper role in the mating game. Before contraception, sex was pretty much equal to "starting a family", and society had a lot of demands you had to meet in order to be allowed to do that.I don't know why you equated your phrase "two blindly drunk people who met for the first time at a party" with WGTOW. I think both genders were involved in that movement and that both thought it was "liberating." Anyway, that era was bursting with all sorts of activism and not all of it was good.
Have you seen the studies they made comparing courtship in the US and the UK during WWII? I think they found that the route from "Hello" to going to bed involved something like 100 - 150 "steps". Now there is Tinder.
A blind drunk man and a blind drunk woman can have their first meeting at a party and leave it to go home to one of them and have sex. Or at least they are free to do so. Women going their own way ...
Of course, it took women only 10 years to realize that they were giving away for free the only resource they could use to barter for other, more tangible goods, and voilà - the birth of Lipstick Feminism.
I canI myself can't relate to that dark, pointless existence that drives so many people in the prime of their youth to waste time & effort getting drunk and sleeping around.
My time fell in the Golden Window between the Pill and AIDS. Ah, those were the days ...
Repressive desublimation.Parents should realize that it is during these years that we feel powerful, hopeful and can change the world.
And it is their job to offer us opportunities that are best tailored to our age group rather than stand back and watch us be driven by mere instinct, peer pressure, and the media.
Yes and no. On your side is all that freedom and stuff which most people agree on, at least verbally.- However, your comment made me think about one missing factor that seems to have caused women disgruntlement back then: lack of choice.
For there is a great difference between having a choice in matters and between being forced into things .. and this applies to everything.
On the other side: Information processing, including making choices, is a cost. By eliminating some choices, you can allocate your resources more effectively.
Of course that presupposes that there still are some choices left for you to make in order to create a meaningful life.
Also, the tighter the framework, the higher the level of performance can be. Example: verse meters. To write an Alexandrine poem is tremendously difficult, but that is how you get great poetry.
And finally, this point presupposes that there is a choice in the first place. And that is, AFAICS, what the whole Women's Lib debacle is about. "Everything you can do, I can do better" - really?
Only if "goal" = "self-actualization". And now tell me how many men, historically, were given opportunity to "self-actualize" ...Lack of choice confuses people about their actual goals and tends to end up badly, don't you think?
I did? I'm not really following you here.You said you partly agreed with me on the role the industrial revolution had on feminism, particularly in terms of greed. But you also said that you didn't like associating individuals with the governing power.
Yes and no. This is as false as it is true, or our societies would be much more static and anthill-like. What we see, however, is continual change, almost from week to week now.But the thing is, we are pretty much mainstreamed into our systems and are engineered to behave according to what's socially, economically, and politically mandated by the system.
Specifics is always good. Start with facts as data, and synthesize. Starting with vague but pleasant-sounding commonplaces you'll just end up writing a self-help brochure.I'm very interested in your opinion in that regard and would like to hear more, if only to arrive at a complete, clear picture.
Well, once we get to know each other better ...Help me.
In the mean time, I'm happy to converse on specific topics.
Though I advise you to draw on the accumulated resources of knowledge, experience, perspectives and wisdom of the whole forum. There are a lot of thinkers here.
And sorry to butt into your talk with mr E:
Not really. The concept of peace comes to existence as the complement to its opposite, so by inventing war you invent peace at the same time. In that sense, men invented both.- For now, I want to address one specific point you mentioned, which is that men invented the concept of war. This is just like saying that women invented the concept of peace.
Well, historically, there was inter-group conflict long before there were states. Go check Papua New Guinea and other pre-state peoples' history for that. That was usually guy territory.Contrary to feminist ideology - men are not initiators of war, ever. War is initiated by the state, and it often does so due to greed and the desire to attain power & resources for very few people.
Also, when the state arose, it was in most places firmly in the hand of the menfolk, and you even had societies whose culture and functions were structured around war, like Sparta.
Of course that doesn't mean that "men make war", but only that it is on the record that the majority of humans that have waged war were men.
But equally obviously this only moves the question of who were the greedy ones. That's where you bump into the rich guys.
Now, if you ask why people were greeed and wanted more, and you answer "to impress women", that's when you cross from the public to the private sphere - which is where female power resides.
Frankly, that sounds a little bonkers.And no, fighting women would not be the same kind of noble war because in its essence, it would be a declaration that you yourselves are women, and by your own admission at that. That's is why it's hard to "fight" women; it's not within your true nature as men nor was it ever intended for you to be so.
- Feminism has mislead many women into alienating themselves from their true nature, which is very damaging to themselves, others, and society. So when you as men rage war against women - and against your own instincts too - you are alienating yourselves from your true nature as men, as well as risking losing your own moral compass, which I think is crucial for you to have as men.
By "we" I meant me .. along with everyone who prefers amending situations and relationships rather than remaining in conflict as two naturally inseparable genders.
- I don't know how you interpreted "help", but what I meant was getting your input regarding the specific link between industrialization, the pursuit of power, and feminism. That's all. I know there are a lot of intelligent thinkers here, but I foresaw great ingenuity in you and a deeper sense of how the world operates.
- I stand my ground on war & men, to which your reply was contradictory. You first state that "Men invented both war and peace." Then you say "Of course that doesn't mean that men make war, but only that it is on the record that the majority of humans that have waged war were men." This statement basically says that men invented war, wage war, but do not make war. All sorts of contradictions there.
- My stance on war remains that men struggle and fight the good fight, whereas states exploit men and rage war due to greed. And yes, government structures might have been primitive long ago, but since we're social creatures, we've always had some form of social hierarchy even in tribes in which people were primitive. The rise and advancement of nations later on lead to an imbalanced transfer of power from majority to the exploiting, greedy minority and thus, more orchestrated wars by the state.
- Plus, one first needs to understand the nature of war and peace in order to categorize them correctly, as two naturally-created phenomenons through which we can survive as creatures. The human world is comprised of phenomena that are unique, opposite to one another, and that can guarantee our sustenance as beings. We cannot live without war, neither can we live without peace, and the same goes for an infinite number of antagonisms that are complimentary to one another, such as illness & health, conflict & resolution, work & rest, night & day. These things were created by God, if you're a believer, or nature if you're not. We did not create these phenomena as human beings, they simply exist as we do; and we only interact with them according to our perception & circumstance.
- As for the stance on "what men and women want from one another", I think it was more your personal opinion than one that can be generalized, especially since "fear" was dragged into the equation whereas love wasn't mentioned. First off, although we might want different things individually, we both generally seek love within a relationship. This is due to being born with the ability to give and receive love throughout life, unless of course one suffers from a medical disorder or condition in which emotions are absent/affected.
- We all need love as men and women, and you don't have to go far to find that out; just look around at what many men have posted here about their need for love from a woman within a relationship. It's only human. The degree of love we need, however, solely depends on individual personality, where some would need a lot while others require less regardless of gender. Usually, spiritual/emotional people require more love (and express more love & emotions, including anger) than carnal/physical people, who express less love, anger, and/or other emotions.
- Don't know about fear, though .. the only thing fear does is allow you to control people with the least amount of work needed. We have a lot of fears when we're kids, and parents - good parents - always try to reassure & offer security in order for kids to feel safe within their environment and capable rather than helpless or a prey. As we grow older, however, fear of others should be replaced with fear of oneself rather than from others .. fear of wrongdoing, fear of hurting others, fear of one's own conscience.
- Anyway, the only place where fear does belong in a relationship is when one partner experiences it .. and the other instinctively transforms it into a feeling of safety, comfort, and a sense of being protected.
- Don't repress normal urges, it's too much pressure and something's gotta give.