Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gender & Sexuality

322 replies to this topic
Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#31

Posted 24 December 2015 - 03:14 AM Edited by Gay Tony, 24 December 2015 - 03:17 AM.

It's part of the reason I am somewhat cautious of feminism at times. So many people are already predisposed to agree with it because "womenz". Ignoring that's it's men who are generally the majority of homeless, the majority of victims of violence, or if you're a man who accidentally gets a woman pregnant you're basically screwed.

 

You more often see movements for fat acceptance, slut acceptance, etc. as if men should have no standards for women and you don't see a loser, fat guy, etc. type movements. Generally we just tell men to man up, stop being so entitled, etc.

 

 

  • Eutyphro and Street Mix like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#32

Posted 24 December 2015 - 03:30 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 10 January 2016 - 01:39 AM.

Yep, so be cautious about what you say about topics like these. Sometimes I feel egotisical, and just really feel like "f*ck the human species. If they can't handle the truth on this issue then screw it. I'm not going to jump the cliff for a truth that nobody is willing to consider".

The  thing is, that if you are charismatic, funny, and good with women, you can say the most messed up things and get away with it. You can call women 'sluts', 'whores', whatever screwed up thing you can think of, and get away with it. If you know how to get away with it (if you are funny), the more screwed up the things you say, the better this works to cause attraction. What you can not do though, is appeal to people's rational side with such f*ckedupness, which would actually be self castration. But then again, if you are aware of how attraction between men and women works, you'll know that appealing to a womans rational side is really never a good idea if you have the purpose of making her attracted to you. A debate will not likely get you laid. Thus why men who are naturally good with women are rarely analytical. Analytical men can learn how to be good with women, but they are rarely naturally good at it. What you'll notice anyway, is that if you debate your female friends with rationality they'll treat you like an idiot, so it is actually women enforcing this.

Edit: Slut acceptance is legit though... Slut shaming is pathetic 'beta' (don't like that word, but has to be used here) sh*t. It's really pathetic to make your girlfriend ashamed of having slept with more guys than you. Only guys who can't get laid enough because they are uncharismatic do this. Slutshaming originates in jealousy and mediocrity in men. You think say Brad Pitt would shame someone he'd date for having sex with a lot of people? It's unlikely, considering he has had the ability of having had sex with as much if not more women himself. If a woman has no standards, that is a different thing, but in the situation hot girls are in most men would line them up and have sex with 5 different women a day, because it is men that have no standards, because it is men who can't get laid, because we ruined sex by being pathetic slutshaming bastards. See? I said something negative about men... Makes me feel good.

  • Gay Tony likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#33

Posted 24 December 2015 - 04:01 AM Edited by Irviding, 24 December 2015 - 04:02 AM.


I don't think gender is a social construct because that suggests it's something artificial that some people just came up with and then we just adhere to it because people/society say that's how it should be. I think it's actually very heavily rooted in biology and is a completely natural thing. It's a biological construct not a social one. By whom is it understood that it's a social construct? 

 

 

Something being a social construct doesn't really mean it's artificial, though. A lot of what exists in the world is socially constructed but has grounding in non-artificial things.

 

There are obviously a plethora of reasons why the current societal gender roles exist. I don't really know much about this topic but it's pretty hard to argue that sex is not a biological/genetic determination. A male or a female from a sex perspective is pretty clearly defined... It's when you get to how that individual feels in his/her own mind and being that defines his/her "gender". Personally like any of these social issues I really don't give a sh*t at the end of the day, and if a man as determined by biological sex feels that he is a woman in every fiber of being then I don't see what the issue is with allowing said individual to identify as "she", act as a woman, etc. 

 
  • Gay Tony likes this

Absurdity
  • Absurdity

    ϟ

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • None

#34

Posted 24 December 2015 - 04:14 AM Edited by Rusty Balls, 24 December 2015 - 04:19 AM.

Gender is just the naturally evolved sexual roles applied within a cultural context. 
 
As a result of male on male competition to gain access to the female the male has had to evolve to become more intelligent and physically stronger than his competitors. While the female requiring social stability to raise her young has had to better develop her communication skills and her understanding of body language and her interpreting of psychological states, this is what we refer to as being 'woman's intuition'. 
 
In a world when there is no new frontier to require male might to conquer, and new technology that makes individual traits, such as intelligence, physical strength or whatever obsolete then gender becomes irrelevant. 
 
The obsoletion of these traits has led to the emasculation of men and the masculinization of females. The apparent rise in homosexuality could be result of this also, as we often seek in a partner the traits which we ourselves lack. The emascualted male seeking a more masculine partner and the more masculine female seeking a more feminine one. 

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#35

Posted 24 December 2015 - 04:17 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 24 December 2015 - 04:21 AM.

I think gender, and sexuality, might be a social construct as much as language is a social construct. To explain this metaphor, I'm going to use another metaphor haha. Compare language to eye sight. People who don't develop vision during their critical period, the first stages of their life, never develop the ability to see like people who do develop vision by being exposed to light. The same is true of language, though language isn't as universal as vision is, because there are infinite possible languages that correspond to the same innate ability to learn language, whereas all people see the same set of colors. There is 'I-language' (internal language), as Chomsky calls it, as opposed to 'e-language' (external language) the actual language you learn.

I think gender is the same as language in this respect. Off course there is a strong biological basis for gender, and if you raise a human being isolated in a room without human contact, it won't develop this innate ability to have a gender. This inborn ability for a gender we call 'sex', and the external ability which is culturally relative like language we call 'gender'. Language is a uniform phenomenon, the more the way your language ability is like those of others around you the better it functions. Gender/sex is different in this respect. Humanity needs at least two sexes to function, and there can be many succesful genders, 'feminine men', 'masculine women', masculine men', 'feminine women', that can flourish in society, and reproduce successfully..

  • Irviding likes this

Absurdity
  • Absurdity

    ϟ

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • None

#36

Posted 24 December 2015 - 04:59 AM

We've reached a stage now in technological advancement where artificial insemination can be achieved even without the presence of a male. This is done by extracting DNA through hair follicles, I believe. 
 
And in the same way that resources have been abstracted in to codified monetary units or money in other words, masculinity has been abstracted in to an institution. Masculinity, the alpha-male which we all must adhere to, at least for the West, is now the State. 
 
This is what religions do, for the sake of social cohesion they turn the alpha male of the species in to an abstraction. For Christianity the alpha male becomes God, for Islam it is Muhammad, indeed so emasculated under their alpha male are the men of Islam that they must cover all female traits and deny they even exist. 
 
Men, at least biological men have become totally obselete.The future of the human race will be one entirely of females serving under their non-biological alpha male state. 
 
And it will probably be sh*t. 
  • Eutyphro and GTA36362355 like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#37

Posted 24 December 2015 - 05:03 AM

 

We've reached a stage now in technological advancement where artificial insemination can be achieved even without the presence of a male. This is done by extracting DNA through hair follicles, I believe. 
 
And in the same way that resources have been abstracted in to codified monetary units or money in other words, masculinity has been abstracted in to an institution. Masculinity, the alpha-male which we all must adhere to, at least for the West, is now the State. 
 
This is what religions do, for the sake of social cohesion they turn the alpha male of the species in to an abstraction. For Christianity the alpha male becomes God, for Islam it is Muhammad, indeed so emasculated under their alpha male are the men of Islam that they must cover all female traits and deny they even exist. 
 
Men, at least biological men have become totally obselete.The future of the human race will be one entirely of females serving under their non-biological alpha male state. 
 
And it will probably be sh*t. 

 

what the f*ck are you talking about? This is the most grossly incorrect thing I've ever seen you post, but admittedly I don't read a lot of your posts. 

  • Failure likes this

Absurdity
  • Absurdity

    ϟ

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • None

#38

Posted 24 December 2015 - 05:05 AM

What is it you think is incorrect?


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#39

Posted 24 December 2015 - 05:10 AM Edited by Irviding, 24 December 2015 - 05:10 AM.

To start the references to alpha males in Christianity and Islam. Mohammad being an alpha male? Like wot? Men deny their traits? Do you even know a single thing about Islam? As for Christianity, how does God himself personify any male traits whatsoever? God transcends gender in Christian doctrine.. referring to God as "He" does not = male. 

 

And how is the state an alpha male exactly? Your post literally makes my brian hurt.

 

So much that I spelled brain brian just now legitimately. 

  • Eutyphro, Failure and Gay Tony like this

MessedUpPro
  • MessedUpPro

    I've been drinking green tea all goddamn day!

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2009
  • None

#40

Posted 24 December 2015 - 07:06 AM

The idea that gender is a social construct is really in reference toward "blue is for boys, pink is for girls." All of that logic. It's true that certain things appeal to girls and certain things appeal to boys. That's why girl toys are generally of princesses and boys' toys are generally soldiers or whatever. However, the idea that boys shouldn't like Frozen, or girls shouldn't like GI Joe is a social construct. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

 

But that's not exactly what you are tackling. You are tackling the idea of transgender people, which I agree is a biological thing. However, just because you are born with a penis does not mean you are a male. If your brain has the make-up of that of a female, then as far as your mind goes, you are a female. There's no arguing there. Is there any harm in letting a transgender individual do whatever makes them happy, as long as it isn't hurting you or breaking the law? I say you should respect whatever they want. If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be Caitlyn, and wants to be a "she", then let her. Call her what she wants to be called. It's not "politically correct", it's respectful. If I change my name to Bob, I expect you to call me Bob. Don't be a dick.

 

I know that's a different subject, and I got a little rant-y. I apologize.

 

As far as sexuality is concerned, I do agree you are born with a certain preference when it comes to sexual encounters with others. Some guys like blonde girls, some guys like red head girls. Some guys like both. To say it's a choice that those guys like a certain hair color is absolutely crazy. It's what appeals to them, and that's just how they are. Some girls like other girls. Some guys like other guys. They aren't choosing that. It's what appeals to them, because they are born that way.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#41

Posted 24 December 2015 - 07:11 AM

this discussion is moving over large swaths of territory way too fast and much too callously.
 

The f*cked up thing is, that if you are charismatic, funny, and good with women, you can say the most f*cked up things and get away with it. You can call women 'sluts', 'whores', whatever f*cked up thing you can think of, and get away with it. If you know how to get away with it (if you are funny), the more f*cked up the things you say, the more attractive you'll be as a man to women. It's that f*cked up. What you can not do though, is appeal to people's rational side with such f*ckedupness, which would actually be self castration. But then again, if you are aware of how attraction between men and women works, you'll know that appealing to a womans rational side is really never a good idea if you have the purpose of making her attracted to you. A debate will not likely get you laid. Thus why men who are naturally good with women are rarely analytical. Analytical men can learn how to be good with women, but they are rarely naturally good at it. What you'll notice anyway, is that if you debate your female friends with rationality they'll treat you like an idiot, so it is actually women enforcing this.

like, what is this crap?
this is such generic nonsense. you're making so many assumptions about social mores and norms and male/female psycho-social interactions at once that none of it really applies to whatever point you were trying to make.
 
charismatic/funny guys do not get away with murder just because. they are not automatically found more attractive based on increasing levels of offensiveness.
 
plenty of women are totally attracted to intellectual challenge and respond to stimulating dialogue. debates can absolutely get you laid. plenty of analytical men are great with women.
 

there are so many other factors at play.

your points are painfully superficial. this issue is way more complex than you're giving it credit for. you're talking out of inexperience so fast that you don't even realize what you're saying with these huge brush strokes. you keep saying things like "we know" this or "you'll know" that, and you keep talking about "Alphas" and "Betas" like they're Laws of Physics that everyone agrees on... and they're f/cking not :sigh:
 

Society is structured in specific ways. Those structures give way to cultures, ideas, virtues, values, etc. To dismiss the material conditions that lead to our ideologies is to miss half of the picture.

I get it. but you haven't exactly addressed my concern.
lemme try another angle.
 
it is perhaps akin to someone who is suffering anxiety from a mental or emotional trauma that occurred in their past. after awhile there comes a point at which understanding the past trauma is fruitless. you can only talk about it and break it down for so long. real progress in overcoming your current situation will only come from addressing it as it exists today.
 
I'm not dismissive of the foundations of our gender or sexual identities. I'm asking what difference it makes in addressing their status today. the only reason we're having this debate is because of this query:

If we're born with a certain sexuality is it so out of the question we're probably also born with gendered attributes attributing to biology as well? which means gender isn't entirely a social construct.

are we really arguing this point?

 

people are obviously born with a certain sexuality.

this cannot be up for serious debate. sexuality orientation and intimate attraction are not consciously chosen.

 

prenatal development is a fundamental phase in determining certain aspects of your base physiology that cannot be changed. under all normal conditions, humans are either born with ovaries or testes. and from that point, there are natural conditions that determine significant aspects of gender identity before sexual orientation. real differences between men and women that are completely observable based on our biological predispositions.

 

men will tend to have greater muscle mass, thicker bones in the upper body. women will tend to have greater fat deposits, thicker bones in the lower body. gender borrows obvious characteristics from natural predispositions. of course society modifies them further.

 

so where we are in 2015 seems pretty straightforward.

it's the result of an ancient cocktail that is part nature and part nurture, fairly fluid, and rarely set in stone. society seems to be moving in the 'right' direction in terms of the kind of sexual acceptance and liberties that should have been left intact from our nomadic ancestors. progress could be quicker I suppose but... yeah...

 

so exactly what are we debating? :turn:

we've had multiple topics here recently, each converging on this same line of discourse, and they all tend to end up in the same sort of conclusions.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#42

Posted 24 December 2015 - 07:40 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 24 December 2015 - 07:45 AM.

this discussion is moving over large swaths of territory way too fast and much too callously.
 

The f*cked up thing is, that if you are charismatic, funny, and good with women, you can say the most f*cked up things and get away with it. You can call women 'sluts', 'whores', whatever f*cked up thing you can think of, and get away with it. If you know how to get away with it (if you are funny), the more f*cked up the things you say, the more attractive you'll be as a man to women. It's that f*cked up. What you can not do though, is appeal to people's rational side with such f*ckedupness, which would actually be self castration. But then again, if you are aware of how attraction between men and women works, you'll know that appealing to a womans rational side is really never a good idea if you have the purpose of making her attracted to you. A debate will not likely get you laid. Thus why men who are naturally good with women are rarely analytical. Analytical men can learn how to be good with women, but they are rarely naturally good at it. What you'll notice anyway, is that if you debate your female friends with rationality they'll treat you like an idiot, so it is actually women enforcing this.

 

like, what is this crap?
this is such generic nonsense. you're making so many assumptions about social mores and norms and male/female psycho-social interactions at once that none of it really applies to whatever point you were trying to make.
 
charismatic/funny guys do not get away with murder just because. they are not automatically found more attractive based on increasing levels of offensiveness.
 
plenty of women are totally attracted to intellectual challenge and respond to stimulating dialogue. debates can absolutely get you laid. plenty of analytical men are great with women.
 

there are so many other factors at play.

your points are painfully superficial. this issue is way more complex than you're giving it credit for. you're talking out of inexperience so fast that you don't even realize what you're saying with these huge brush strokes. you keep saying things like "we know" this or "you'll know" that, and you keep talking about "Alphas" and "Betas" like they're Laws of Physics that everyone agrees on... and they're f/cking not :sigh:

 

I should've nuanced it more. It is not necessary to be offensive to be attractive, off course not.. And if you are offensive in a situation where it is completely inappropriate, like at certain situations at your work .. it will communicate low value. But consider a situation where it is late at night at a bar. In such a situation, throwing out extremely offensive humor when said with the right confidence backing it up, is a fast way to communicate individuality, confidence, independence etc.. and women respond positively to that, because women are emotional and not analytical creatures. They care more about the attitude behind what you are saying, than a deep analysis of the content of what you are saying. You can have situations like this where women are laughing at extremely offensive things, and white knight guys come in telling that it's completely wrong and disrespectful. Off course talking about 'women' is relative. There are women who look for a submissive male, but that's just not what I'm talking about. That's rare anyway though. Many women are able to be dominant, but by far most prefer not to be.

Actual debates, dissecting word by word what the woman says, like I'm doing with your post right now, and refuting it, does not get you laid. 'Debating' in a playful, personal, and engaging emotional way might though sure, but that wasn't what I meant. It seems like you are interpreting me saying that intelligence is a turnoff, which off course is nonsense. What matters is what you use your intelligence for, and what attitudes you back it up with. Haha, first you say I make quick assumptions, and then you go on to assume I talk out of 'inexperience'. Kinda hypocritical bro.

  • Gay Tony likes this

epoxi
  • epoxi

    Your Mother

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003
  • None
  • Draw Contest Winner 2016
    Best Poster [Vehicles] 2015
    Best Poster [Vehicles] 2014

#43

Posted 24 December 2015 - 09:17 PM Edited by epoxi, 24 December 2015 - 09:22 PM.

I think the practical relevance of gender is a function of economic and technological development. At present it is not entirely a social construct but as the world progresses I think it will be reduced to a social construct (and hopefully then we can 'socially destruct' that social construct).

Before civilisation, as illustrated by animals, it is beneficial for each sex to adopt a different role to survive, reproduce and then ensure survival of offspring. Life is short and resources are proportional to strength, so the odds are weighted in favour of the males who hunt/farm and the females who do not as they are weighed down by the numerous offspring they have to have for the population to continue.

Today virtually all of the resource-related constraints have been eliminated, at least in developed economies. Most farming is heavily mechanised to the point strength gives no advantage, low infant mortality means we barely need to break even in terms of offspring to continue the population, and the vast majority of jobs are served equally well by both men and women. Add to that technological advances in biology enabling IVF, surrogacy, hormone therapy, sex-change operations and it is possible for anyone to have the sexual physical traits, societal roles and parental role they desire and share it with anyone else.

They key remaining barrier is reproduction however. While surrogacy and adoption allow for a parenthood as real as any other, every human on the planet is restricted to using the reproductive equipment they are born with, and they can only have a biological child with someone of the opposite sex. I am sure there is research underway to change this, but it is in such infancy that sex and gender remain inextricably linked by this one last practical opportunity gap, but it is one opportunity that figures very highly for a large proportion of people regardless of sex.

However, I think the possibility of equal sex/sexuality opportunity is less relevant than the probability of it. The fact is that designing one's ideal sexually independent life is very costly if one wishes to escape their biological constraints. IVF is astronomically expensive and has a low success rate, various sex operations and treatments also carry big risks and big expense. It is my belief that it is only through technological advancements that we can make these accessible to all in the long term. There is also an economic factor: how high a priority do we assign such research relative to other issues in the world that the majority of people might deem more important than their sex and sexuality? Inevitably there will be many things that trump it.

So to answer the original question of "Is gender purely a social construct?" I would respond: "Almost, but not quite today."
  • Gay Tony likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#44

Posted 24 December 2015 - 09:40 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 25 December 2015 - 12:08 AM.

Before civilisation, as illustrated by animals, it is beneficial for each sex to adopt a different role to survive, reproduce and then ensure survival of offspring. Life is short and resources are proportional to strength, so the odds are weighted in favour of the males who hunt/farm and the females who do not as they are weighed down by the numerous offspring they have to have for the population to continue.

The funny thing is, the opposite is true.. So in hunter gatherer societies the men went hunting and the women collected fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and the women would consistently bring back food, whereas a day hunting could completely fail. So the 'alpha males' that had went hunting, were dependent on women for consistently being fed. It is when agriculture started, which is not that long ago, that there was a power shift towards male labor.

There's a misconception that somehow women have always been below men in terms of power, but this is completely untrue. People believe this, because they take private property and agricultural society for granted (post hunter gatherer society). Private property is the origin of all the patriarchal top down tyrannical institutions that rule our societies in modern times. Male power is dominant in such undemocratic unegalitarian conditions. I think anyone knows that were you to go make a picknick with a mixed group of men and women, lets take such a picknick as a metaphor for the hunter gatherer period, that there is very little power inequality between genders. In such a condition it is uncharismatic males that are far less powerful than women, which relates to 'male disposability' which we talked about earlier.
 

 

I think the practical relevance of gender is a function of economic and technological development. At present it is not entirely a social construct but as the world progresses I think it will be reduced to a social construct (and hopefully then we can 'socially destruct' that social construct).

I believe 'destructing' gender will prove to be dysfunctional. I think humanity as a species can only function on the basis of the polarity that is gender. I believe women are happier with a charismatic man who knows how to lead, and that men are more happy being such a man, than being a shamed provider male, who has no idea on how to be sensual, on how to escalate physically on women, on how to charismatic, on how to lead.. I believe a society like the one we live in, where you mainly have emasculated men, and women that are taught to grow balls because of emasculated and/or mediocre men, is an unhappy dysfunctional and messed up society.


X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#45

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:46 PM

The funny thing is, the opposite is true.. So in hunter gatherer societies the men went hunting and the women collected fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and the women would consistently bring back food, whereas a day hunting could completely fail. So the 'alpha males' that had went hunting, were dependent on women for consistently being fed. It is when agriculture started, which is not that long ago, that there was a power shift towards male labor.

There's a misconception that somehow women have always been below men in terms of power, but this is completely untrue. People believe this, because they take private property and agricultural society for granted (post hunter gatherer society). Private property is the origin of all the patriarchal top down tyrannical institutions that rule our societies in modern times. Male power is dominant in such undemocratic unegalitarian conditions. I think anyone knows that were you to go make a picknick with a mixed group of men and women, lets take such a picknick as a metaphor for the hunter gatherer period, that there is very little power inequality between genders. In such a condition it is uncharismatic males that are far less powerful than women, which relates to 'male dispoability' which we talked about earlier.

 

Disagree here.  Take your cues from nature.  For example, lion prides; a female lion isn't subservient to a male because the males are non-nomadic or undemocratic.  Male lion patriarchy is a result of competition: Lionesses seek out males not only to mate, but to also provide protection for their young from other male lions.  Therefore, patriarchy is a result of male aggression and the constant state of war, not of property and agriculture.  In fact, the latter would actually be a product of the patriarchy.  Again, lions will assert their dominance by controlling territory and feeding grounds.  This allows the females to hunt without issue.

 

You could argue that the perpetual state of war in humanity has been much more benign over the latter course of the 20th century, with what historians call the "Long Peace", and thus allowed egalitarianism to prosper over the last 50 years.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#46

Posted 24 December 2015 - 11:34 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 25 December 2015 - 02:01 AM.

I'm not an expert on lions, but from what I've seen from them it really seems lionesses run the sh*t, and lions barely do anything. It is doubtful anyway, whether the concept of political or social power applies to animals, who have no language, and who can't reason with one another. The concept of power manifests itself far more simplistically with regards to animals compared to people. It is not like the male lion discusses with the lionesses how they should hunt, and they follow his orders.. It is much more instinctive and much less rational. Furthermore, if it is so like I think you imply that every group of lions has only one male, then they are unlike human hunter gatherer tribes, where there are multitudes of men and women living in one tribe. Female humans don't often, except when isolated in rare occasions, depend for their protection on individual men. You should look at what men do when a woman complains on the subway that she is being harassed.. The white knights flood in. So as far as my knowledge about lions or your analogy reaches, your comparison is not very good.

What you see is that Western foreign policy is aimed at creating a perpetual state of war, to drive innovation and geopolitical exploitation. The perfect situation is a cold war, where you can justify tyrannical policies like taking away the right to privacy, and high defence spending to drive innovation. Currently specifically Republicans want to pressure Russia as much as possible into a cold war, by for instance installing missile defence near their border and economic sanctions and isolation, to justify the aforementioned policies. There are other members on this forum who are equally apt to explain to you that Western societies, giant nation states, are by definition unable to be truly egalitarian. You should be able to understand that the nation states we live in, and the tyrannical institutions that run our society, are fundamentally inegalitarian and undemocratic, and this results in patriarchy.


X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#47

Posted 25 December 2015 - 02:50 AM

I'm not an expert on lions, but from what I've seen from them it really seems lionesses run the sh*t, and lions barely do anything.

 

It's an interesting symbiotic relationship.  Females are certainly capable of defending themselves in larger numbers, but they prefer the protection of males in order to defend their young.  Otherwise, rogue males will kill and commit infanticide in hopes of mating with their newly conquered pride of females.  Most prides consist of two males, and some may have up to three males, but the females cannot hunt without issue unless the males are willing to defend their territory.  The males' position might look comfy because they don't do much, but their mortality rate is much higher and many don't survive into adulthood.

 

Anyway, it can be argued that the social hierarchy of a lion pride is a construct, given that females are fully capable of defending themselves, yet they choose to have males provide for their security.  Of course it may be primitive, but the same can be said for much of human behavior.  As a species, we are still quite far from these primitive behaviors.  As I said earlier, only up until the post-war 20th century, much of humanity was dominated by warring nations/empires/tribes/sects of humans vying for resources.  As a result, men were tasked with protecting these rights to prosperity for obvious reasons related to physical strength.

 

 

What you see is that Western foreign policy is aimed at creating a perpetual state of war, to drive innovation and geopolitical exploitation. The perfect situation is a cold war, where you can justify tyrannical policies like taking away the right to privacy, and high defence spending to drive innovation. Currently specifically Republicans want to pressure Russia as much as possible into a cold war, by for instance installing missile defence near their border and economic sanctions and isolation, to justify the aforementioned policies. There are other members on this forum who are equally apt to explain to you that Western societies, giant nation states, are by definition unable to be truly egalitarian. You should be able to understand that the nation states we live in, and the tyrannical institutions that run our society, are fundamentally inegalitarian and undemocratic, and this results in patriarchy.

 

 

I would argue that the current state of war is much more benign than it has been in the past.  The Cold War may have been one the greatest eras of aggression, but it also fueled one of the greatest eras of technological advancement and sustained one of the longest eras of "peace" .  I do agree, however, that a perpetual state of war can certainly stifle egalitarianism, but for the sake of argument, realpolitk suggests that there is no universally established norms among nations.  Therefore, the Western hegemony is required to exert its position (beat its chest, for a lack of a better phrase), in defense of things like egalitarianism in order to prevent nations that do not share these values from subverting our own.  And by definition, I don't think this sort of behavior fuels patriarchy.  If Hillary Clinton were to become President of the United States, the West would technically be lead by a matriarchy, would it not?


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#48

Posted 25 December 2015 - 03:51 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 25 December 2015 - 04:18 AM.

I don't think the term 'social construct' applies to animals who's behaviour is caused by a combination of instinct, reciprocity, and their material environment, and who lack the rational capacities to construct their own social behaviour. Humans are fundamentally unique in that regard. Now that I've been reading about it a bit out of curiosity, it seems to me the way lion groups function socially isn't similar to how humans do at all..

There is scientific disagreement over how violent humanity was pre agriculture, but my layman's suspicion is that it probably differed depending on the scarcity of resources. The scarcer the resources, the more war, the more inegalitarianism. It seems to me that the areas where resources were not extremely abundant (like they are in tropical Africa for instance), but that were very fit for agriculture, like Western Europe, were first to develop advanced agriculture, which spurred technology, which made these regions develop the most advanced war machines, and made them conquer the globe. So whether a society is war prone and whether gender power relations are egalitarian depends on the same kinds of material conditions.

You are right that from the view of amoral realpolitik, you don't have maximum security and prosperity until you have dominated the entire globe and have oppressed the entire human species. That's true.

Haha Hilary Clinton feminine... hahaha, thats funny... Monica Lewinsky, now that's femininity hahaha.


X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#49

Posted 25 December 2015 - 05:03 AM

I don't think the term 'social construct' applies to animals who's behaviour is caused by a combination of instinct, reciprocity, and their material environment, and who lack the rational capacities to construct their own social behaviour. Humans are fundamentally unique in that regard. Now that I've been reading about it a bit out of curiosity, it seems to me the way lion groups function socially isn't similar to how humans do at all..

 

But you could argue that this capacity, one we so well revere, is nothing more than a combination of instinct, reciprocity and environment, and that humans have just ascribed more meaning, complexity and value to these primitive behaviors.  It's a bit of circular argument, but I'd say it's also a reflection of how accurately we categorize humans separately distinct from animals, and it's easy to see why it's such a common theme of satire.  It acknowledges that we are victims of our own nature.

 

You are right that from the view of amoral realpolitik, you don't have maximum security and prosperity until you have dominated the entire globe and have oppressed the entire human species. That's true.

 

Mmhm, but I don't think the end game is oppression.  For realpoltik, not the neo-con perversion, is that humanity, given all of its differences, might hope to live and coordinate its efforts on a global scale in some sense of decency, freedom and social mobility.  Similar to what was being discussed in the Aliens thread, the Kardashev Scale doesn't even acknowledge humans as an "intelligent" species.  We have yet to reach Type I civilization, which may require some sort of global governance.  True realpolitk would therefore establish good will and dialogue with nations that don't share common values in hopes of finding common ground.  It would be the hope of the West that egalitarianism would be compatible with all nations and cultures.  The buzzword and conduit of this is 'globalization', and we could actually dedicate an entire thread to this subject of globalization, so I'll just keep it brief so that this topic doesn't get too far off topic and post my favorite Japanese bro, Michio Kaku:

 

 

 

Haha Hilary Clinton feminine... hahaha, thats funny... Monica Lewinsky, now that's femininity hahaha.

 

Touche.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#50

Posted 25 December 2015 - 05:43 AM

 

I don't think the term 'social construct' applies to animals who's behaviour is caused by a combination of instinct, reciprocity, and their material environment, and who lack the rational capacities to construct their own social behaviour. Humans are fundamentally unique in that regard. Now that I've been reading about it a bit out of curiosity, it seems to me the way lion groups function socially isn't similar to how humans do at all..

 

But you could argue that this capacity, one we so well revere, is nothing more than a combination of instinct, reciprocity and environment, and that humans have just ascribed more meaning, complexity and value to these primitive behaviors.  It's a bit of circular argument, but I'd say it's also a reflection of how accurately we categorize humans separately distinct from animals, and it's easy to see why it's such a common theme of satire.  It acknowledges that we are victims of our own nature.

I kinda agree with this, but also kinda not.. lol. Yes, human behaviour is caused by these exact same factors, which I've argued for myself constantly in this topic, but rationality (the language capacity) brings another level of complexity to it, and it makes human social behaviour distinct from anything else in the animal kingdom. Like I said, the male lion can't set forth an ideology that other lions must follow.. Without language political power doesn't exist. Furthermore, because of technological advancement, humanity has mastered nature and its material conditions to such a large extent, that it gives us massive freedom to reconstruct our own social condition.

What I'd like to point out about the Clinton matriarch idea.. Is that that it is a complete facade. Femininity can be present in men, and masculinity in women. Femininity and masculinity are energies. Hilary Clinton might be a woman, but she has a predominantly masculine energy, like all women with power in hierarchical institution need to have to function within them. It is the institutions that are fundamentally masculine, and thus society is patriarchal even if you put a woman on top. That's something even gender studies feminists would agree with me on. And it is not like the president of the US is some kind of omnipotent tyrant anyway. So one woman, even if it is the president, is insignificant in the sea of men who control politics through capital.

  • Gay Tony likes this

X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#51

Posted 25 December 2015 - 05:23 PM

What I'd like to point out about the Clinton matriarch idea.. Is that that it is a complete facade. Femininity can be present in men, and masculinity in women. Femininity and masculinity are energies. Hilary Clinton might be a woman, but she has a predominantly masculine energy, like all women with power in hierarchical institution need to have to function within them. It is the institutions that are fundamentally masculine, and thus society is patriarchal even if you put a woman on top. That's something even gender studies feminists would agree with me on. And it is not like the president of the US is some kind of omnipotent tyrant anyway. So one woman, even if it is the president, is insignificant in the sea of men who control politics through capital.

 

Well, I think this also hinges on what we typically ascribe to a patriarch or matriarch.  For example, hyenas, the mortal nemesis of lions; their clans are a matriarch with a very strict social hierarchy, ruled by an alpha female.  In fact, males are so low on this social structure that even the lowest ranking females take precedent over males.  Aside from the obvious attributes of carnivorous social structures, such as the lowest ranking being the last to eat, female hyenas are actually incredibly abusive to their male counterparts.  Males are strictly subservient to females even when mating.  It's a cougar S&M session... ya know, if you're into that kind of thing.  ;)  It's literally a caste system, as well.  Only females of alpha blood can succeed the current alpha female.

 

So I'm reluctant to label patriarchy as inherently undesirable, because a matriarchy can be equally inegalitarian.  What I think we'd like to achieve is a social order that more closely resembles that of dolphins, elephants and birds.  But given our inherent nature as primates, we still have to tackle the undesirably aggressive traits of humans, whether it's at the helm of a man or a woman.  So I would certainly say that Clinton as President would represent a matriarchy, and that even if women controlled a majority of capital, it might be just as aggressive.  We just don't know.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#52

Posted 25 December 2015 - 11:31 PM

Actual debates, dissecting word by word what the woman says, like I'm doing with your post right now, and refuting it, does not get you laid. 'Debating' in a playful, personal, and engaging emotional way might though sure, but that wasn't what I meant. It seems like you are interpreting me saying that intelligence is a turnoff, which off course is nonsense. What matters is what you use your intelligence for, and what attitudes you back it up with. Haha, first you say I make quick assumptions, and then you go on to assume I talk out of 'inexperience'. Kinda hypocritical bro.

ok "bro."

 

but I wasn't talking about you personally.

you're speaking out of the inexperience of our cultural limitations. you and I could be world travelers who have bedded thousands of women and been to a million parties, and we've still only scratched the surface of human interaction. the depth of human interaction, especially across differing cultures, is astounding to say the least.

 

I just think that a lot of the statements you're making on this particular topic are much too generalized and without a real point. you say things like "debate doesn't get you laid" but this is like saying "you can't water your plants with salt;" no one is actually trying to do that. it's an empty statement to make... among others.

 

some of the conclusions you're reaching are agreeable, but in the process you're taking some awfully clunky steps around delicate issues in order to get there. as you guys go back and forth here (with little time for input by anyone else) you're making up a lot of rules about women (as well as men), and you're doing it pretty hastily, with questionable accuracy.


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#53

Posted 26 December 2015 - 01:21 AM

I think gender, and sexuality, might be a social construct as much as language is a social construct. To explain this metaphor, I'm going to use another metaphor haha. Compare language to eye sight. People who don't develop vision during their critical period, the first stages of their life, never develop the ability to see like people who do develop vision by being exposed to light. The same is true of language, though language isn't as universal as vision is, because there are infinite possible languages that correspond to the same innate ability to learn language, whereas all people see the same set of colors. There is 'I-language' (internal language), as Chomsky calls it, as opposed to 'e-language' (external language) the actual language you learn.

I think gender is the same as language in this respect. Off course there is a strong biological basis for gender, and if you raise a human being isolated in a room without human contact, it won't develop this innate ability to have a gender. This inborn ability for a gender we call 'sex', and the external ability which is culturally relative like language we call 'gender'. Language is a uniform phenomenon, the more the way your language ability is like those of others around you the better it functions. Gender/sex is different in this respect. Humanity needs at least two sexes to function, and there can be many succesful genders, 'feminine men', 'masculine women', masculine men', 'feminine women', that can flourish in society, and reproduce successfully..

More helpful to look at it like age. Age entails real biological differences in the brain but at the end of the day 'childhood', 'middle age' and being 'elderly' are social constructs. 


 True realpolitk would therefore establish good will and dialogue with nations that don't share common values in hopes of finding common ground. 

Oh my God

  • Gay Tony likes this

Absurdity
  • Absurdity

    ϟ

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • None

#54

Posted 26 December 2015 - 01:53 AM

To start the references to alpha males in Christianity and Islam. Mohammad being an alpha male? Like wot? Men deny their traits? Do you even know a single thing about Islam? As for Christianity, how does God himself personify any male traits whatsoever? God transcends gender in Christian doctrine.. referring to God as "He" does not = male. 

 

And how is the state an alpha male exactly? 

 

The alpha male is the supreme dominant male. It is he who all must submit to or face the consequences.

 
For the Christian, God is the alpha male. The follower must submit to his will or be damned to an eternity of suffering. For the Islamic man humiliation awaits if he refuses Muhammad, the prophet he fears so much that he can't even bring himself to draw. For the citizen the alpha male is the state, the institution, it is the state who controls all resources, who makes the laws. After all the institution does not adjust to the people's wishes, but the people adjust their beliefs to that of the institution. 
 
In the natural world the alpha male is a biological one, it is visible. It is him who controls the resources, including females. All other males being his competition, possible usurpers that must be driven away. There can be only ONE alpha, only one dominant male. From here we get the concept of the singular. 
 
For our species, our alpha, our ONE has been abstracted, again just as resources have been abstracted in to codified monetary units that can be bought and sold but representing nothing but stale air full mind farts. 
 
So when masculinity has been abstracted, Irv, in to an institution all can be placed in the privileged position of being a representation of this abstraction. We get women, children, degenerate men, becoming its representations, or corporal symbols of abstracted masculinity. 
 
The institution Irv, this alpha male, the state, has control of all resources, and access to these resources is designated among those who show the proper amounts of obedience and loyalty to it, as wealth and property. Currently material wealth has now come to display the total obedience and the compliance of the individual to this dominating entity. 
 
For their submission the individual is rewarded with material riches, his economic independence is, in actual fact his dependence on the system and his submission to it. George Orwell -- "Slavery is freedom" springs to mind.
 
So Irving, you see, as long as you submit you can have any title you want in this world, and as submission is a trait that contradicts masculine character traits such as a rejection of all authority and a challenging spirit the system by design can flush out its competitors. Other Alphas. Only the most submissive, effete men may pass through the system, and females, who readily submit to an authority stronger then themselves flourish within the system. 
 
The illusion of gender equality is achieved. When effete males and females stand side beside they rather do seem similar..
 
Here I may as well quickly just bring up the topic of feminism. NO female liberation occurred with this so called women's liberation. The movement served only to free the female from biological males and deliver her to the non-biological alpha male, The system. Under the system she is now totally submissive. 
 
So, still following this Irv? 
 
When the only true masculine power here is the institution, only the institution can use violence and kill and rape and pillage, here mindless soldiers and those in law enforcement act as representations of its will. They are it's arms and legs.
 
One of the points I often make to people is that the biggest pussies you will ever meet can be found in the forces for they have totally submitted to the will of the state. Like good bitches. 
 
Any other male who displays his naturally evolved physicality, not for the benefit of the institution must be made a brute. He must be shunned, or shamed. He must be removed, physically incarcerated , or mentally castrated by using the human invention of morality. This is eugenics by "moral" method.  His supreme traits must not pass on. They are a threat to the system. It's stability. It's survival.  
 
So here's a question Irv. If the system favours submissive men, and these submissive men reproduce with females and the more demanding, rebellious alpha male is ostracised, what kind of offspring do you think such a union would produce?
 
One can assume, these submissive traits would be passed on to the offspring.
 
Another question, and these are rhetorical by the way, just how much further can we remove the species from natural selection before mother nature steps in to self-correct herself.
 
How much longer can we continue sell obedience as intelligence before stupidity takes over?
 
How much longer before tipping point? 

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#55

Posted 26 December 2015 - 02:38 AM

you're speaking out of the inexperience of our cultural limitations. you and I could be world travelers who have bedded thousands of women and been to a million parties, and we've still only scratched the surface of human interaction. the depth of human interaction, especially across differing cultures, is astounding to say the least.

Human interaction is radically unpredictable, off course. The ways in which gender can function on the surface level, and the type of behaviours it can possibly cause, are infinite. I believe though that the underlying gender dynamic of attraction, which is based on a polarity between masculinity and femininity, is innate and universal. Whenever I'm attracted to a woman, I don't feel like I'm acting purely according to a social construct, but that the underlying dynamic is innate. That's a bold statement, and I can't pretend to be able to prove it with absolute certainty, but that's what I believe.

So sure, the example I gave of offensive humor might not be functional in every culture, but that wasn't what I meant anyway. I meant it was functional in my culture.

 

 

I just think that a lot of the statements you're making on this particular topic are much too generalized and without a real point. you say things like "debate doesn't get you laid" but this is like saying "you can't water your plants with salt;" no one is actually trying to do that. it's an empty statement to make... among others.

If you would have made the effort to try to grasp that statement within it's complete context, you might've understood that it wasn't empty at all. We were talking about how hard it is for men to talk honestly about feminity, due to the pressure of white knighting (being courteous, and protecting women). We talked about male disposability, and how it is a man's task to protect women and children, and why it is "women and children first".

Within this context I said that if you appeal to women emotionally in stead of rationally (debate), so for instance with humor in stead of rationality, that your freedom of speech is much larger, and the opposite effect can occur where you say extremely uncourteous 'unwhiteknightish' stuff, and it actually turns women on. So that wasn't 'empty' at all. If I could expand on that: reasoning is something women don't respect, because it is a form of permission seeking, which is very lower value and submissive. Dominant men don't ask for permission, or try to reason with women for it. They are naturally aware on when to lead and take initiative, and back off on 'hard no's'. Women enforce this norm themselves. They don't respect men who don't know how to lead. This is a view that is not allowed in the mainstream explicitly though, because an idiot might misunderstand it and it may cause horrible behaviour. The mainstream only allows views that are retard proof.

 

some of the conclusions you're reaching are agreeable, but in the process you're taking some awfully clunky steps around delicate issues in order to get there. as you guys go back and forth here (with little time for input by anyone else) you're making up a lot of rules about women (as well as men), and you're doing it pretty hastily, with questionable accuracy.

You are free to argue against anything I posted. In fact, I invite you to, and would find it enjoyable. I'm aware though that the terrain I am on is taboo, because of aforementioned norms of white knighting. That might be a reason why there is not much discussion relating to many of my posts in this topic.

  • Gay Tony likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#56

Posted 26 December 2015 - 07:38 AM

I believe though that the underlying gender dynamic of attraction, which is based on a polarity between masculinity and femininity, is innate and universal. Whenever I'm attracted to a woman, I don't feel like I'm acting purely according to a social construct, but that the underlying dynamic is innate. That's a bold statement, and I can't pretend to be able to prove it with absolute certainty, but that's what I believe.

see that's basically true, probably, but even so that doesn't quite make it a "universal" truth either. because at the end of the day, despite the fact that it's extremely rare, the simplest laws of attraction still break down once we're talking about people who are otherwise asexual to some degree.
 
to what extent that someone is even interested in attraction will greatly define the ways in which they communicate with others; perhaps especially the opposite sex. and even then, people's degree of sexual interest can fluctuate over time ranging from periods of complete nonchalance to utter infatuation and everything inbetween.
 
I don't know how we would even begin to explain or describe the motivations and proclivities of people who are asexual or how their existence can even be explained by our society. there's all kinds of literature on all kinds of sexuality, and little-to-nothing (by comparison) when it comes to asexuality. but I'm pretty sure that everyone goes back and forth to some extent and it's one of the few things that our culture is unequipped to deal with; the fact that not all people are even interested in sex at all times.
 
almost everything remotely important in modern society is geared towards the advancement of sexual activities/interests and the constant consumption thereof. in general, I think that more people are slightly less interested in sex than they're willing to admit.
 
 

Within this context I said that if you appeal to women emotionally in stead of rationally (debate), so for instance with humor in stead of rationality, that your freedom of speech is much larger, and the opposite effect can occur where you say extremely uncourteous 'unwhiteknightish' stuff, and it actually turns women on. So that wasn't 'empty' at all. If I could expand on that: reasoning is something women don't respect, because it is a form of permission seeking, which is very lower value and submissive. Dominant men don't ask for permission, or try to reason with women for it. They are naturally aware on when to lead and take initiative, and back off on 'hard no's'. Women enforce this norm themselves. They don't respect men who don't know how to lead. This is a view that is not allowed in the mainstream explicitly though, because an idiot might misunderstand it and it may cause horrible behaviour. The mainstream only allows views that are retard proof.

perhaps "empty" was the wrong word.
it still strikes me as a narrow-minded train of thought.
 
you even begin the assumptions that men are considered disposable next to the women/childrens. but even this premise is off-base. if we're talking about who gets the first life-raft on the sinking ship, then yeah, men are more disposable. if we're talking about going to war and combat, then yeah, men will have to be more disposable. there are very natural reasons for this that we shouldn't need to rehash.
 
but after that, I feel like it's a lot more complicated then you're giving it credit for.
men are asked to provide physical protection for women and to be courteous to them out of a sign of respect and because it often occurs completely naturally in most situations. you wouldn't really argue that it's a form of sexual oppression to expect this of men, would you? are you saying you don't want to hold the door for a woman or pull out her chair at dinner? should we not be expected to do this? it's not because you shouldn't do the same for a man, but isn't just good human manners in general?

 

after awhile I'm not sure we're even talking about sexual distinctions but the mere social lubrication of common gestures and behaviors that smooth over all forms of human interaction.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#57

Posted 26 December 2015 - 09:08 PM Edited by Eutyphro, 26 December 2015 - 09:15 PM.

see that's basically true, probably, but even so that doesn't quite make it a "universal" truth either. because at the end of the day, despite the fact that it's extremely rare, the simplest laws of attraction still break down once we're talking about people who are otherwise asexual to some degree.

 
to what extent that someone is even interested in attraction will greatly define the ways in which they communicate with others; perhaps especially the opposite sex. and even then, people's degree of sexual interest can fluctuate over time ranging from periods of complete nonchalance to utter infatuation and everything inbetween.
 
I don't know how we would even begin to explain or describe the motivations and proclivities of people who are asexual or how their existence can even be explained by our society. there's all kinds of literature on all kinds of sexuality, and little-to-nothing (by comparison) when it comes to asexuality. but I'm pretty sure that everyone goes back and forth to some extent and it's one of the few things that our culture is unequipped to deal with; the fact that not all people are even interested in sex at all times.
 
almost everything remotely important in modern society is geared towards the advancement of sexual activities/interests and the constant consumption thereof. in general, I think that more people are slightly less interested in sex than they're willing to admit.
 

 

I'm not saying there aren't an infinite range of people, like asexual people, who dont fit this norm, which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all. There are also people who's language capacity is unable to function like it does in most people due to whatever reason. That doesn't mean such a capacity is not innate. There are people who get sexually aroused by immaterial objects like exhaust pipes..That's interesting, but it doesn't relate to what I'm saying. The biological/evolutionary, cultural, or social causes of non heterosexual orientations is an interesting scientific subject, sure.

 

Asexuality might have to do with the dysfunctionality of sexuality in our current society. Human beings have very high libido, and the actual amounts of sex don't get anywhere near that. Such a circumstance might cause sexuality to not develop properly on occasions. I'm not a scientist though, but that is what I'd speculate. Or sometimes people might be born with a dysfunctional sexual ability, just like people get born blind. Asexuality is rare though anyway.

 

Whatever society considers a 'disease' depends on the norms within society, and not on laws of nature though. We wouldn't call 'asexuality' a disease if people are able to function that way within society, and don't suffer because of it, or cause suffering to others with it.

 
 
perhaps "empty" was the wrong word.
it still strikes me as a narrow-minded train of thought.

 

you even begin the assumptions that men are considered disposable next to the women/childrens. but even this premise is off-base. if we're talking about who gets the first life-raft on the sinking ship, then yeah, men are more disposable. if we're talking about going to war and combat, then yeah, men will have to be more disposable. there are very natural reasons for this that we shouldn't need to rehash.
 
but after that, I feel like it's a lot more complicated then you're giving it credit for.
men are asked to provide physical protection for women and to be courteous to them out of a sign of respect and because it often occurs completely naturally in most situations. you wouldn't really argue that it's a form of sexual oppression to expect this of men, would you? are you saying you don't want to hold the door for a woman or pull out her chair at dinner? should we not be expected to do this? it's not because you shouldn't do the same for a man, but isn't just good human manners in general?

 

after awhile I'm not sure we're even talking about sexual distinctions but the mere social lubrication of common gestures and behaviors that smooth over all forms of human interaction.

 

 
Where did I say it is oppression? It is the result of innate tendencies. It is as much oppression, as the fact that women can't be considered both sensitive, caring, and vulnerable (feminine), and rational at the same time (they can be combined, but they cancel each other out). It is a natural rule and limitation that relates to how the human species functions. I myself would rather die than not protect any female partner of mine. That's perfectly fine and functional. Construction workers or soldiers would look at you with confusion if you'd tell them they are being oppressed by being disposabel. It's a non issue, but interesting anyway.
 
You make all kinds of assumptions without argument in this paragraph. You say I'm "off-base", and that "it is a lot more complicated", but then in other parts affirm my ideas, and provide no further argument for anything.

Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#58

Posted 30 December 2015 - 02:10 AM Edited by Gay Tony, 30 December 2015 - 02:52 AM.

perhaps "empty" was the wrong word.
it still strikes me as a narrow-minded train of thought.
 
you even begin the assumptions that men are considered disposable next to the women/childrens. but even this premise is off-base. if we're talking about who gets the first life-raft on the sinking ship, then yeah, men are more disposable. if we're talking about going to war and combat, then yeah, men will have to be more disposable. there are very natural reasons for this that we shouldn't need to rehash.
 
but after that, I feel like it's a lot more complicated then you're giving it credit for.
men are asked to provide physical protection for women and to be courteous to them out of a sign of respect and because it often occurs completely naturally in most situations. you wouldn't really argue that it's a form of sexual oppression to expect this of men, would you? are you saying you don't want to hold the door for a woman or pull out her chair at dinner? should we not be expected to do this? it's not because you shouldn't do the same for a man, but isn't just good human manners in general?

 

after awhile I'm not sure we're even talking about sexual distinctions but the mere social lubrication of common gestures and behaviors that smooth over all forms of human interaction.

 

I think where the issue comes isn't quite social lubrication or good manners but that there is somewhat of a double-standard in many ways. That is nowadays for one to say a woman belongs at home or whatnot tending to children is just unspeakable, old fashioned, misogyny, etc. Whereas in many ways men are still kinda expected to take on the traditional roles they always have providing, dying for their county when need be, paying for dates, etc. or they're often socially shamed as loser men.

 

To even speak of the issues and expectations placed on men is often taboo, especially when it comes to attracting women. As pointed out earlier you never really see social movements advocating for women to accept men the way they come no matter how unappealing. No-one would even say a fat out of shape man is "curvy" or "This is what a real man looks like". The only people who can talk about men's issues, expectations, etc. comfortably without being shamed, called neck-beards, misogynists, etc. are often women or LGBT individuals.

 

 

This is an extremely taboo subject amongst heterosexual men which is prolly why Eut is really the only one digging into it and otherwise it's a subject left buried in the ground or begrudgingly talked about.

  • Eutyphro and Skeever like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#59

Posted 30 December 2015 - 02:56 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 30 December 2015 - 03:28 AM.

To even speak of the issues and expectations placed on men is often taboo, especially when it comes to attracting women. As pointed out earlier you never really see social movements advocating for women to accept men the way they come no matter how unappealing. No-one would even say a fat out of shape man is "curvy" or "This is what a real man looks like". 

Imagine a Dove commercial with bald men, being all like "yeah, bald pride, deal with my lack of hair" lmao
Men get shamed for their looks, and it's a joke and everybody laughs. If you do it to a woman, it's actually sexist. The same thing is true for violence. If a guy cheats on his girlfriend and she hits him in the face, nobody cares. Switch things up and see what happens. I remember those c*nts on the view laughing at a guy who got his dick cut off and put in a meat grinder. I wonder if they would laugh like that at female genital mutilation.

I don't even agree with the butthurt guys that these dubbel norms are bad. These dubbel norms relate to concepts like male disposability talked about earlier, and are inevitable. Nature isn't fair. The point is though, that feminists cherry pick male privileges, and don't look at the corresponding downsides (which can outweigh the privileges that correspond). The dubbel standard will always be there, but it is the cherry picking of privileges that is ridiculous. If you always focus on your fundamental lack, it will make you an unpleasant and dysfunctional person, like radical feminists are. This is an issue for people with a victim mentality in general, including guys.

People living in Western civilization expect that the position they are born in will have all possible priviliges and acceptances. Because we are all a bunch of entitled c*nts, including guys who think they are victims of society. Eventhough ending discrimination off course is a majorly significant issue, people should learn to accept that any type of physical appearance you get born into will have privileges and downsides, that many of these will affect you greatly, and that you need to play them to your advantage and need to stop being a f*cking victim. This is true if you are black, white, tall, short.. woman, man, there are infinite things to think of. Stop being a victim, and play the cards you were handed as well as you can.

You can't cherry pick how you want to be treated and perceived in every possible instance. But it is only white guys that can't complain about how they want cherry picked privileges. This has turned groups of white guys on the internet into the most aggressive hate groups in the world, because they are the only ones that can't blame society or talk to their 'girlfriends' (which they off course don't have..) about their issues... Without being told they are just f*cking losers, and that nobody cares. Feminists (white women) can organize a congress about their victimhood.

  • Average white guy, Gay Tony, Skeever and 1 other like this

Gay Tony
  • Gay Tony

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 May 2014
  • United-States

#60

Posted 31 December 2015 - 07:22 AM Edited by Gay Tony, 31 December 2015 - 10:17 AM.

What some feminists in general often don't really seem to consider is the obligations and responsibilities put forth on men in other ways aside from more traditional roles of child rearing, managing the home, being a submissive housewife, etc.

 

We seem to refer to female oppression as subjugation; while obligations put forth on men is "male privilege" or w/e

 

 

Being born male or female has it's advantages and disadvantageous and certainly has an effect on the way we're raised and taught (which ties back to the original topic; this territory may be relevant). Though it seems one sided the way women are kinda looked at now as having the short end of the stick most of the time, and that just isn't true.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users