Modern sexism and the modern man

What's that?

You don't think that women smoking cigarettes is a good thing?

Oh, then you must hate women!

You probably just want a little slave girl to pander to your every Phallocentric whim! You evil BRUTE!

YOU COULDN'T HANDLE A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN YOU WEAK MAN, YOU!!!

/sarcasm



Next up... we are passing the "W.O.M.E.N.A.R.E.A.W.E.S.O.M.E.A.N.D.M.E.N.A.R.E.E.V.I.L. Act"

Oh, and let's not forget about the "D.I.V.I.N.E.G.O.D.D.E.S.S. Act"

And the "M.E.N.A.R.E.E.V.I.L.O.P.P.R.E.S.S.O.R.S. Act"


It's all just classical conditioning, designed to use your emotions to bypass your Critical thinking.

And it has worked quite well, actually....

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I dont know if feminism is the first step in a huge plot to take control of people. Feminism is about relinquishing control of people. Half the population was abused and dominated by the other half...for CENTURIES. Its a big step to say that because women deserve equal rights that we are being led like sheep to the slaughter. In fact, theres not even a step it. Its a leap in logic.

But youre right about not handing down OUR values to our children. I do believe in a plot to wrestle control of the family from the family and putting it in the hands of corporations and governments. After all, the leaders of corporations and governments are generally power monger psychopaths. They want to control EVERYTHING, not just the family.

And feminism may have been promoted in the media by the leaders because of its potential to divide and conquer. It doesnt matter what people are arguing about as long as they're arguing they'll be too busy with each other to deal with the conquerers.

Montezuma : Cortez isnt a god, he's just a man. Lets kill him.
Dude: No, he's a god. Our society and religion say so. Lets not kill him.
Montezuma: You're in idiot. Just because he has a beard doesnt mean he's a god.
Dude: Yeah it does.

This went on for some time until an entire civilization came under Spanish control. Nowadays the natives argue about sexism, abortion, gun control, gay marriage, Michelle Bachmann, Obamacare, blah blah blah.

So maybe feminism is pumped up by TPTB because it divided one half of the world against the other.

reply to post by doctornamtab

I dont know if feminism is the first step in a huge plot to take control of people. Feminism is about relinquishing control of people.

Ya, Exactly... like how the Torches of Freedom campaign was about relinquishing control of women, so they could be controlled by Big Tobacco.

Half the population was abused and dominated by the other half...for CENTURIES.

I think it was more like the Majority were oppressed by a small minority of the elite, actually.

You see? This is more of that emotional garbage they use to get you to stop thinking about your enslavement

Its a big step to say that because women deserve equal rights that we are being led like sheep to the slaughter. In fact, theres not even a step it. Its a leap in logic.

And being controlled by the Corporate oligarchy is a BIG step in the right direction, right?



If you really think that women are any more "Free" than they used to be, I'm afraid you are quite mistaken.

We are all *LESS* free now than we used to be.

But youre right about not handing down OUR values to our children. I do believe in a plot to wrestle control of the family from the family and putting it in the hands of corporations and governments. After all, the leaders of corporations and governments are generally power monger psychopaths. They want to control EVERYTHING, not just the family.

Ya, they want to control women too.... and it's easy to do, just lie to them.... and the women usually lap up that "Oppressed Victim Goddess" thing, don't they?

And feminism may have been promoted in the media by the leaders because of its potential to divide and conquer. It doesnt matter what people are arguing about as long as they're arguing they'll be too busy with each other to deal with the conquerers.

Ya, and their plan is multi teared.... social conditioning....

You know they are actually REALLY good at social conditioning, right?

Like, M.K. ULTRA?

Ya... totally.

It is obvious why they are pushing feminism,

Ever looked at "woman's" credit card bill? They spend huge sums of money on consumer crap. Not just that they often get "men" to buy them even more.

Now, look at a metrosexual's credit card bill. Exactly the same.

All over college campuses these lemmings are buying into it. I know dozens of college age men who sit around for hours on internet markets looking for that shirt to go with their face type. They all want to be business management, lawyers, trust fund kids and mock anyone who even tries to break the mold and act like an intelligent human.

To get ahead in the work force today one no longer needs real skills but rather they need to be able to just fit in and do as they are told.

I think there most definitely is an agenda to dumb people down and enforce this psuedo-feminism. Women love to fit in and feel accepted and this is just a sick marketing ploy on a massive scale playing off that need to fit in.

Commercials, schools, music all repeat the same messages over and over, its brainwashing.

Seriously, have you ever hated a song but loved it after having to hear it repeated over and over?

Originally posted by doctornamtab

But thats the thing. Control. It seems like women who want to be "strong" women have to act like a controlling male in order to make them feel "equal" to men (who are supposed to be the strong ones). But these same strong, alpha female women, who are so proud to say they dont need a man, constantly act like the men they profess to reject. They become what they hate because they imitate what they hate.

So its not the repression in the strong partner that causes the loss of control. Its repression in the weak partner that gets overcome when they cant stand being controlled anymore. The weak partner overcomes the repression of their OWN feelings, the feelings they put in the back seat to the controlling partners feelings. So, maybe the problem isnt with male-female stereotypes because those are breaking down. What we're talking about isnt the difference in gender or even social perceptions of that gender. What we have is a struggle between the controlled and the controller. It can be man-woman, woman-man, man-man, woman-woman, whatever really. No relationship works when one is controlled and the other is controller (yes even grand social relationshps like the ruler and the ruled, politician and citizen, etc)

So we're really not talking about men and women, we're talking about how men and women act in relationships. Some act more controlling and we attribute the word "manly" to controlling, dominant people. When people are meek and giving we call it "womanly". Its not about gender, its about gender roles and mainly how control fits into the relationship.

edit on 9-9-2011 by doctornamtab because: (no reason given)

The Master-Slave Dialectic (G.W.F. Hegel)

Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic really encapsulates your description of the male-female struggle, and highlights your point that it can really occur in a gender-neutral context as well. Read that section of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit because it's relevant to feminism, government oppression, economic systems, personal liberty, and reminiscent of certain eastern religious philosophies.

Originally posted by doctornamtab



So its not the repression in the strong partner that causes the loss of control. Its repression in the weak partner that gets overcome when they cant stand being controlled anymore. The weak partner overcomes the repression of their OWN feelings, the feelings they put in the back seat to the controlling partners feelings.

Note that I wrote « the men repressing their urges ». I’m refering to self control, or self –repression. Repressing ones urges, instincts, or desires causes them to lose control of them. I wasn't talking about the person in control of another losing control of the other!!!

I am not contrary to the dynamics of power that are inherent in almost all social exchanges, acknowledged consciously or played out subconsciously. I do not see it as « evil ».

I can step into a role of power, or into a role of powerless, either way they both have their benefits and drawbacks. Sometimes I like to hand over the wheel to another and relax a bit to charge my batteries.... sometimes I feel ready to take on the responsibility and take the wheel for another.

I am very very sceptical of the victim perception because I think we do choose these roles at times and deny it when we feel fed up with it. Less responsibility is nice, and then after a while, the lack of power can get irritating. Personally I prefer changing the roles back and forth with my husband as we feel it.

I also do not think this is just « done to » men. They choose to embrace certain values. And many do want to experience and feel more of their feminine side, of sensitivity, gentleness, passivity, receptivity, connection with life energy, and often hope that their contact with a woman will awaken and help them find that. That is why I say it is totally valid if that is one wills ! So many men will describe that they have a deep fear and dislike of their aggressive instincts, a fear of not being able to control it, like the Incredible Hulk ! They’d often like to do away with this themselves.

But this is exactly why I challenge the collective ideologies on this, like some New Age ideologies which reject violence or aggression under any circumstances, as something inherently evil. It gets in the way of changing positions when that is appropriate. That's where you get the problems like- if you catch a sick individual in the middle of killing a child, is it not okay to kill them in that moment if it will save the child, and is the only way of stopping the event before you? If you are too deeply restricted by your ideological system, you cannot use the aggression when it is appropriate..... for there is a time and place for all things.

It seems the woman who complains about her man not being « man enough » is somehow not wanting to carry on the responsibility that goes with the power they embraced. Maybe they are just tired and drained, and want to switch places for a while ?
Maybe they just aren’t being honest with themselves about the responsibility that goes along with the power position ?

Of course it is all about balance.... but hell, if that was so easy, we’d all be Buddha or Jesus by now ! Relationships allow us to explore and know different sides of ourselves, to work on mastering them.



-oh and I do NOT have a credit card, I do not buy clothing except when I absolutely have to, and fitting in is a matter of behavior and having a sense of tact and class, not clothing ! (in response to "Ever looked at "woman's" credit card bill? They spend huge sums of money on consumer crap.")

Originally posted by doctornamtab
Women seem to be guided toward acting dumb and shy because they think men want the kitchen wife. Or something. Who knows what women want? By the OP even women themselves dont know what they want.

I think all of us humans struggle a bit with the subconscious desires, and the conscious ones.
I am in my early forties, and I have been painfully honest with myself in looking back and analyzing what was going on with me when I was younger. What I will tell you today, I would have adamantly denied at that time. I couldn't face the deeper truth because of my own various conditionings.

I did used to play stupid, on purpose. For a few reasons, depending upon who I was facing. Sometiems you gain the habit of doing a behavior subconsciously without realizing that you did it because it always gave you the results you deeply desired. Acting the passive, weak, and shy girl attract a certain type of male personality. The kind of male I was interested in. I was young, I was feeling the instinctual desire to reproduce and so find a protector/provider type of mate that I could rely upon while in a state of vulnerability- pregnancy and with small baby.

I am not, and was not at that time, a weak or dependant person. But some part of me knew that being pregnant would make me so, temporarily. So I felt the draw towards men that wanted to be dominant, that were very willful and go after what they want and are attracted to challenges. In being shy, (hard to get) I posed a challenge. In seeming weak or unintelligent, I attracted those who wanted to feel strong and intelligent.

So the women that act like that might be acting under that instinct to find a protector/provider in preparation for reproduction. If that isn't what you are wanting to do, then it is all the fine that you don't feel attracted to that. It is a way of screening out suitors.

reply to post by Bluesma


Well as you were pregnant this does not apply to you, but don't forget birth control.

Birth control as a primary effect stops a woman form menstruating which usually releases hormones that make them attracted to more "manly" men.

On birth control women menstruate much less and therefore are attracted to more feminine men during that time.

Long periods of time without menstruating leaves the Manly-Man at a disadvantage to Wo-Man in attracting women.

Now I am too lazy to go look right now but there is good evidence suggesting is the case.

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Well as you were pregnant this does not apply to you, but don't forget birth control.

Birth control as a primary effect stops a woman form menstruating which usually releases hormones that make them attracted to more "manly" men.

On birth control women menstruate much less and therefore are attracted to more feminine men during that time.

Long periods of time without menstruating leaves the Manly-Man at a disadvantage to Wo-Man in attracting women.

Now I am too lazy to go look right now but there is good evidence suggesting is the case.

I didn't know that! But no, I was not pregnant at the time, LOL! I was on the pill, in fact. But I did have a deep seated desire to have children that was especially strong between the age of 18 and 30, that was a physical instinct that really was not affected by the way I thought and said I didn't want kids!
I didn't actually go on to getting pregnant until after I had found myself a mate.

I never noticed such an effect upon myself, but if that is true, it is interesting to consider as a possible influence in the collective change in values and roles????

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Well as you were pregnant this does not apply to you, but don't forget birth control.

Birth control as a primary effect stops a woman form menstruating which usually releases hormones that make them attracted to more "manly" men.

On birth control women menstruate much less and therefore are attracted to more feminine men during that time.

Long periods of time without menstruating leaves the Manly-Man at a disadvantage to Wo-Man in attracting women.

Now I am too lazy to go look right now but there is good evidence suggesting is the case.

I didn't know that!

yes, the link between mate choice and contraceptives is mildly interesting, since it would explain many break-ups, childless couple who tried everything and a rise in the number of (practicing) singles. i severely doubt that the influence is all that relevant within the timeframe of the first generation.

i'll add a couple of links you might be interested in if this is news to you:

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.livescience.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by Long Lance

Really very interesting! Thanks for the links!

Originally posted by doctornamtab
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

 

I dont know if feminism is the first step in a huge plot to take control of people. Feminism is about relinquishing control of people. Half the population was abused and dominated by the other half...for CENTURIES. Its a big step to say that because women deserve equal rights that we are being led like sheep to the slaughter. In fact, theres not even a step it. Its a leap in logic.

edit on 9-9-2011 by doctornamtab because: (no reason given)

If women where so oppressed please explain to me why little orphan girl's got half decent orphanages while little orphan boy's where hanged if they stole a loaf of bread(1800's UK).

In Caucasian cultures, wealthy and middle class women(the poor regardless of gender where treated horribly) have been and are the most over privileged people on the planet.

Feminist's have to go back to Ancient Sumeria and Ancient Greece to justify that kind of rhetoric. They have to use peoples and cultures that are now extinct. And people forget the reality of the past. How many women died in the coal mines? How many women died in the silver/gold/salt mines? How many women died in quarries or fishing boats? How many women died building bridges and other necessities of semi advanced or advanced civilizations? How many women broke their backs toiling in the fields?

Women where never oppressed in true western civilization(our ancestors only robbed the graves of the Roman's and Ancient Greeks, Western Civilization has it's real roots in the Germanic and Celtic peoples, as it was those people who brought an end to the Roman Civilization).

And even in the Roman time wealthy women had great power. If women where nothing but chattel ed slaves then please explain how wealthy women where able to get law's that limited social excesses(designed labels would be a modern equivalent) and limited women's amount of gold to like an ounce(?, not sure if it was 1 or more ounces of gold limit). they could own.

The fact that such a law existed shows that women could own property, and after the law was repealed(I believe it was only put into effect during the Punic War's) women could become very wealthy.

Or look at Sparta. Little girls went to school to learn to read, write and manage the slaves while little boy's where sent to a military school where they where beaten, tortured and twisted into killing machines. Heck look at the saying Spartan mothers(notice fathers aren't the ones shaming, meaning they lack power) shaming their son's into being good little killing machines by the "come home carrying your shield in victory or come home on it[dead]". Sounds like women were very oppressed in ancient Sparta.

Or heck look at right before the US civil war. Women in both the North and the South wrote many books attacking each other. Heck look at all the great female authors of the Victorian age(an age where feminist's claim women where totally oppressed and where owned property). Or heck look-up how Hershey Chocolate company was founded. Milton went to his mom and aunts to borrow money and they made him agree to the condition of he had to start it alone(his dad was a get rich quick type idiot that ruined businesses).

The ones oppressed for centuries have been poor men and women, and the average man.