Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

reply to post by LeSigh

How about you stop generalizing?

That's what it is though - a GENERALIZATION. Metaphysics cannot do without generalization. I am not speaking about the particular, but the general; and we infer something about the general, in this case, about the characteristics of each sex, by observing a law or norm in the particular (a particular female); We then elevate this axiom (women are more emotional in nature) to the the level of some general idea; by doing so we construct some deeper meaning to the nature of the existent order, for example the 'masculine' becomes associated with the ideas of causation, abstraction, intellect, activity, positivity etc, while the feminine becomes the opposite, or derivation of the former qualities: effect, manifestation, emotion, passivity, negativity etc.

It's hard not to notice these principles.

I'm not unstable, unreasonable, highly subjective, or irritable when I'm menstruating.

That's tremendous. I know, I completely agree that a woman has it in her power to control her feelings when she's menstruating, but that doesn't change the simple biological fact of PMS, does it?

In fact, I would say that any incidents of such were dramatically reduced to nil since I started using alternative menstrual products.

So you're implying that modern feminine products is responsible for a woman's irritability during her menstrual cycle, and not the hormonal change?? Have you read ancient writings?? It's an extremely frequent idea in ancient literature of women being 'irritable' or 'difficult' or 'unreasonable' particularly during the times of menstruating.

This, btw, is what contributes to a woman's emotional strength. I've observed that woman tend to be stronger - and many woman would argue the same (hence the common belief "men couldn't handle pregnancy").

Difference does not mean inferior. Just because as a 'general rule' something may be said, doesn't make it an incontrovertible principle in fact. It's more like a statistical probability; thus, there will be women who are more reasonable than some men, and likewise, there will be men more emotionally resilient than some women.

That said- even if women are irritable while menstruating- they still have the ability to exert self-control and to reason.

You are seriously blowing this out of proportion. Why can't you get past this menstruation comment I made?

Bit of advice for you, dontreally. Do not get married. Ever.

That's very nice of you to say.

Don't know if this post I made a while ago will resonate with you dontreally, but thought it worth resurfacing in this thread:

The world is still a matriarchy. It's simply very well concealed.

It's obvious if you really stop and look at how things unfold and don't stop at the visible "leaders".

It's simply a matriarchy for a small percentage of women, who work through their husbands and visible male "figure heads" to help perpetuate a constant battle between the males and females "below" and create a sub-society that has all the appearances and "problems" of a patriarchy.

"Everything" (male energy) comes out of and returns to "Nothing" (female void) in spiritual matters.

The Milky Way is dominated by a Large Black Female (energy) as are many if not most other galaxies.

That's a good clue.

If you as a female read this and get angry... stop and ask yourself whether that's *EXACTLY* the reaction expected of you to help perpetuate the charade? What better way to control females you consider "lesser" than you to secure the best mates for yourself than to make those females fight WITH and OVER the "lesser" mates.

Why is it easy to just blame a patriarchy and never consider a hidden matriarchy? Ladies, you know how good your gender generally is at "concealed cattiness" vs male "fight it out in the open". Take that to the logical conclusion.

This isn't blaming "women". It's pointing the finger to a more complete picture of what's going on at the tiny minority "elite" level that is almost never spoken of.

As civilization developed we didn't transition "out" of a matriarchy... the matriarchy concealed itself out of necessity to continue to be able to retain the "best mates" for themselves from their perspective. The male figure heads get out of this... the ability to pick the "best mates" from all the remaining women. It's win win for both of them, and the rest of us get the fallout.

Both the men and women "at the top" are responsible for their part, as we are responsible for our part... but be honest with yourself about the power dynamics between men and women in marriages. Be *really* honest, not just the surface.

Both genders culturally "can't live with them" because of the false battle being setup, "can't live without them" because we are two sides of the same coin being divided.

All that said... we in the "sub-society" can do just fine and reject this system and create marriages and partnerships and other relationships (business, hobbies, etc) where the male and female are absolutely and beautifully harmonious.

No patriarchy OR matriarchy can take that away from us.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by dontreally
That's tremendous. I know, I completely agree that a woman has it in her power to control her feelings when she's menstruating, but that doesn't change the simple biological fact of PMS, does it?

Women have hormonal things to control. So do men. (IE men being unreasonably violent/thinking with their pants areas).

Simple question. Apart from attacking a very narrow band of feminism (the topless in the street variety which is not all feminism) do you actually have a proposal or point?

IE ... what is it you're actually suggesting other than you believe many women live against God's will and men should be in charge?

If we break the point down to its core elements ... I have this odd feeling that essentially you're saying, 'people don't live by the bible, and I don't like that.' Example: your objections to 'Two and a Half Men' seem more moral than anything else; you would prefer to see a comedy on the classical biblical family rather than a parody of American life styles or stereotypes.

Reply to Ergo: The conspiracy that women rule everything has been sent up in multiple comedy shows over the decades.

I imagine Henry the 8th would have an opinion on it, too. This is going to sound incredibly pro-feminist but if the excuse for how the world is that women have been secretly in control ... maybe it's because men keep misunderstanding the orders?

Perhaps we should just put women in charge if that's the case so men stop being blamed for simply enduring the horrible slavery they must endure at the hands of XX chromos. Then men can begin the battle to get their rights back and be isolated in tiny women-free space suits so they can think straight and logically without having to see breasts.

I'm being satirical but yus, I don't see much evidence for women controlling the planet in the last thousand years.

Men have hormonal cycles too. A 45 day testosterone cycle and a one year testosterone cycle. You'll recognize this cycle as soon as I point it out. If you track a teenage boys swings, you'll find the 45 day one. The one year cycle spikes in the middle of Spring. Spring Fever Anyone? Entire cultural events are planned around the male testosterone cycle.

Unlike what you would expect, men with increased testosterone tend to be more fairminded than their counterparts with lower testosterone levels. Testosterone levels in men are falling around the World. Around the World men are acting in a manner that consistenly is NOT fairminded.

How many men of "good cultural standing" are showing signs of low testosterone, and feel they are being victimized by fairness and equality? Lots of them.

So my male friends who feel victimized by gender parity and fairness and protections in the law....did it ever occur to you that you all have wimpy handshakes?

reply to post by Pinke

Women have hormonal things to control. So do men. (IE men being unreasonably violent/thinking with their pants areas).

You cannot compare the effects of the menstrual cycle on reasoning to the disturbance caused by testosterone. Yes, such disturbances occur, but not as frequently, and not as ineluctably. To argue otherwise is to engage in reductio ad absurdum.

If we break the point down to its core elements ... I have this odd feeling that essentially you're saying, 'people don't live by the bible, and I don't like that.'

You really haven't been following my posts, have you?? I think not. Because if you have, you would be a little more mature minded than you have been so far.

I have mentioned many times so far of my preference for 'mixture'; do you know what that means?? Do you know what that implies? It implies two things. In terms of government, It includes the aristocratic and republican tendencies. In terms of society, the conservative and liberal approach to life.

With the former, it's an understanding of the extremes of both approaches - and therefore - dangerous in my eyes. If we don't include an 'aristocratic' tendency, merit goes unnoticed and unrewarded. If no democratic tendency, a complete abuse of power occurs. With regard to the makeup of society, I myself incline towards the conservative position, basing myself on the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic and the philosophers of Greece, particularly Aristotles Nichmachean Ethics. You may not have read any of these things or know much about the metaphysical and philosophical foundations they're based upon, but many conservatives, the educated ones in any case, have thought it out and choose this position. However, there exist liberals; people who shirk laws and want to live 'free' - which to them is synonymous with 'less rules the better', and so they reduce their moral barometer to the bare minimum. So, knowing that such people exist and that to oppose them would only lead to interminable conflict, I make a concession to a part of their demands; in other words, I can live with a society that tolerates both positions, which makes room for both positions - but it's a very tricky matter trying to protect both. I wrote a post earlier explaining by way of example of 'public female toplessness' how one can arrive at an understanding in which one party can be protected (necessarily the conservative, which has to add on to something i.e. natural instinct, in order to preserve itself) and the other enabled to thrive, creating a situation in which both can exist in harmony.

Therefore, Ideally, I have my personal religious beliefs, but I reconcile myself to an objective reality which must be met and dealt with fairly.

In my initial post, I pointed out the danger towards nihilism and moral relativism that feminism creates; I wasn't calling for the abrogation of it, but rather, a tempering of it's sphere of influence in order to make room for the conservative position. That is all.

Originally posted by dontreally
That's what it is though - a GENERALIZATION. Metaphysics cannot do without generalization. I am not speaking about the particular, but the general; and we infer something about the general, in this case, about the characteristics of each sex, by observing a law or norm in the particular (a particular female); We then elevate this axiom (women are more emotional in nature) to the the level of some general idea; by doing so we construct some deeper meaning to the nature of the existent order, for example the 'masculine' becomes associated with the ideas of causation, abstraction, intellect, activity, positivity etc, while the feminine becomes the opposite, or derivation of the former qualities: effect, manifestation, emotion, passivity, negativity etc.

It's hard not to notice these principles.

Except that women are not more emotional. What women are, is permitted within societal constraints to honestly and openly express their emotions. Or rather , certain emotional expressions are accepted. Men on the other hand are taught and encouraged to suppress their emotions. This inequity, to both sides, leads men to feel the necessity to project their emotions onto others passively aggressively, or to blame others for any uncontrolled outburst of emotion that they may have.

The ‘existent order’ as you put it, is almost entirely built upon notions developed by sexually segregated groups of men, and does not have any basis in actuality.

Originally posted by dontreally
So you're implying that modern feminine products is responsible for a woman's irritability during her menstrual cycle, and not the hormonal change?? Have you read ancient writings?? It's an extremely frequent idea in ancient literature of women being 'irritable' or 'difficult' or 'unreasonable' particularly during the times of menstruating.

Women are usually irritable during menstruation because of the pain that accompanies it, not because of hormonal fluctuations, once menstruation commences, hormones change, hence why it is called Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. The offending hormones are the ones that stimulate the release of the womb lining. Each and every woman has a different bio-chemical make-up and some have no PMS symptoms, while some are more severly effected.

Perhaps you can provide some examples of this ancient literature that talks of the symptoms of the menstrual cycle and it's negative impact on women's behaviour, and I would lay money on it having been written by men with little or no exposure to women themselves. Certainly, the ancient literature that I have read which pertains to medical matters in women, such as the Egyptian Papyri and Trotula of Salerno, written by female physicians, makes no such generalisations. And besides, those ‘modern’ feminine products that your refer to, are only refinements of products used in antiquity, the Knot of Isis is an early example of a device of similar usage to a tampon.

reply to post by Aeons


I would estimate that very, very few men have the level of self-awareness that would make them capable of being aware of the physiological processes that influence their behaviour.

Originally posted by Pinke
Reply to Ergo: The conspiracy that women rule everything has been sent up in multiple comedy shows over the decades.

Comedy is often the first thing able to speak openly about uncomfortable issues.

I don't agree with a lot of dontreally's specifics, but he is raising a topic that is worth much more consideration. Getting into specifics makes it harder for the bigger pattern to be recognized, so I will try a slightly different phrasing/generalization to tease out alternative vantage points to be considered.

Generalization:
- Men must learn to understand and control the application of their Physical Power, especially when interacting with women.
- Women must learn to understand and control the application of their Sexual Power, especially when interacting with men.

Both are equally volatile, powerful, and capable of being misused if not taken seriously. Fundamentally this is all dontreally is trying to communicate, and is the firm ground from which a clearer view of what is happening in modern culture can be seen.

I do not feel "slavery" to women, nor victimized, though I can see the effect of modern culture's approach to male/female differences and efforts to reach "equality". I definitely want to continue enjoying female sexuality just as much as women want to enjoy male physical strength... but when applied with integrity and respect.

I simply recognize a significant blind spot modern female culture has for the negative effect on their surroundings arising from their behavior that is not being honestly addressed. But sure, if you believe we're moving forward please help spread the culture of "Daddy's Pretty Princesses" being increasingly unsatisfied and confused when they start seeking a REAL partner from the crop of "Mommy's Castrated Princes".

This is a very nuanced topic... because it's addressing an entire culture which has as standard fare this sort of behavior that is near automatic and unconscious on every level of interaction:

"That dress suits you"

Quite often a veiled insult... yet people are "programmed" to ACT and SPEAK like it is a compliment to keep up appearances. The giver and receiver typically know it is a more complex and nuanced "dig".

This is going to be a bigger issue down the road, but I understand it's ahead of its time.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


Thank you for clearing that up. Seems you're the first person to actually understand what it is I'm talking about.

This is a very nuanced topic

Yes, it is. This is the thing that only you apparently notice, while all the women in this thread appear to be projecting onto me all their insecurities they feel go along with an embrace of the conservative position i.e the morality bequeathed to us from the Jewish and Christian traditions.

Just as the ancient inquisition showed no honest appraisal of any liberal notion that challenged their authority, I see the exact same thing occurring in this thread with the liberals; a REFUSAL to recognize the danger an unqualified pursuit of 'equality' poses to those who harbor a conservative belief system. It's tyrannical. Words such as 'progress' mean nothing but the continuous evisceration from society of everything held dear by a large portion of the population; it means an elimination of difference - just witness the reductionism of some of the women posting in this thread; to generalize something - the bigger pattern - such as 'woman are more emotional' - this generally, historically recognized fact is 'explained away' by mentioning a possible testosterone cycle, which, even if it were to exist, is not as prominent in the male personality as the menstrual cycle is in the female personality; This reduction ad absurdum - something feminists, relativists and all haters of objective experience, of empirical facts - repeatedly engage in. Perhaps it's because metaphysically speaking, they're philosophy rests on a hyper emphasis on the general or absolute - 'what makes things similar' - jettisoning or cynically opposing differences at the particular level;

Or how about the reduction of "to hold to an ethic that sees controlling emotion as wise" translates in the minds of the opponents into "Men trying to oppress Women" - as if there weren't women who don't as well recognize the primacy of reason over emotion (and so the 'patriarchal' perspective) - which means the protection of institutions such as marriage, monogamy, etc as a religious and social ideal.

All I hear is nauseating repetition of slogans and mantras megaphoned in the liberal media that trains thought instead of instructing people how to think: and this is apparent in their blatant dishonesty in abusing my argument and reducing it to 'men trying to control women' - as if what they suggest didn't amount to the exact opposite - 'woman controlling men'.

Most of all, none of them seem to be very trained in abstract reasoning otherwise I wouldn't be encountering such harrowing difficulties trying to impress upon them basic subtle patterns: I said, a woman's provenance is covert, private, hidden, and this appears throughout her general nature; thus, a woman's power is hidden, concealed - as John Adams adroitly noted, they ALREADY exercise power over a mans thinking and decision making. No?? How many men concede to their girlfriends or wives, just because of the other's stubbornness? It's a fact of culture - routinely exploited and drilled into our heads in TV shows and other media; it puts men at the whim of the emotional other; so, a woman's power derives from that emotionalism - which is the subtle undercurrent beneath thought; take away a mans reasoning - his particular strength - and fill his environment with feminine energies - sexual license, or fill his food with estrogen (i.e. reduce his sperm count) - and make him as hyper concerned with physical beauty as women usually are, and whats left to oppose it - or to balance it?

Christianity, despite all it's merit, really created a false impression of 'patriarchy' in the minds of the masses, which today has left such a bad taste in the mouths of so many that all they feel sufficiently needed to regard as important are popular platitudes.

I said earlier with regard to a woman walking topless; if a males biological/psychological response is to be ignored, and his intellectual integrity compromised by exposing him to distressing stimuli - than what argument can be advanced to prevent men or women from walking around bottomless? I'd like to know. What can be left? Nothing. If you say a woman has the right to go about topless, despite the sexuality of it, then you provide a precedence for people to walk around bottomless.

I hope society never degrades to such bohemianism.

Many cultures have women topless, and suffer nothing because of it.

In European cultures historically, a woman could pop a boob and no one would have batted an eye. But turn an ankle out of your skirt, and watch the sweat pour.

Instead of trying to control me, control yourself. Currently you present the idea that males should control things while also arguing that they can't. I gotta tell ya, it ain't a convincing argument.

reply to post by Biliverdin


You really are full of yourself, aren't you?

You think physical processes are 'so easy' to overcome?

Go to the depressive or obsessive - someone afflicted by a psychosomatogenic malady - and go and tell them to 'use your self awareness to overcome it!'

Ignoramus. It is not easy. It is horrifically difficult. There is a physical chemical which you have to work against, and it is simply arduous, exceedingly hard; one very respected psychiatrist I know described overcoming OCD without medication as requiring a "military-like regiment" and he isn't exaggerating. The mental discipline - and the continuous awareness required is taxing to the extreme.

Now, this is just neuroses; what about biological processes IMPRINTED into the human psyche over thousands of years of conditioning?

reply to post by dontreally


You're right.

You should work on that.

While doing that, stop projecting your inability onto women, and the blowing it up to global proportions.

As it is, women over time have proven to be very flexible in many formats to help you poor sods - maybe you should try to control yourself and when you manage that then you might deserve the leadership you're claiming as your right.

reply to post by Aeons

You should work on that.

Work on what? Overcoming thousands of years of biological/psychological conditioning?

While doing that, stop projecting your inability onto women, and the blowing it up to global proportions.

oh, again, more reductionism.

My problem with the effect toplessness has is on the CULTURE, and ultimately, the morality and spiritual philosophy of half the population.

Even as you accuse me of projecting, again, it is you projecting.

As it is, women over time have proven to be very flexible in many formats to help you poor sods -

Why do you make it out to be men verse women? I speak in metaphysical language, of masculine and feminine, and how each necessarily exists, and you reduce it to the silly and short-sighted male verse female dogma repeated by the feminists in order to keep you from honestly addressing the reality of your position.

Just allow one thing to be clear to you: you want the elimination of the morality of Judaism and Christianity, correct? And by this I mean, marriage and monogamy, which by extension necessitates consideration for social dress (and at the bare minimum, it means not walking around topless). If you want this gone - metaphysically speaking - in the language of philosophy and metaphysics, you move society from being 'patriarchal' in which the reason rules over the emotion, protecting itself from the irrational excess of the passions - towards a matriarchy.

Every time you speak as you do, you merely call for the opposite, more unnatural state.

You are claiming the mantle to talk about Christianity as a representative? That's interesting. Jesus's ministry existed on women. Being welcomed into women's homes, talking to women's families. Where there was no door open with men, the door in was through the women in any community. Apparently, he wasn't provoking women to reject him and could win their trust.

Let me reiterate. You can't control yourself, and you're argument is that you want to control women BECAUSE you can't control yourself. It isn't a convincing argument. Pretty simple. It is neither logical nor emotionally sensible.

My heart doesn't trust you. See. That's a very "female" thing for you. Not only are you illogical but you're lack of logical argument makes your argument about "maleness" untrustworthy. You fail on all accounts.

You neither appeal to my "masculine" nor my "feminine."

reply to post by Aeons

You presume the female culture of today is remotely similar to the female culture of Jesus' time. I couldn't explain this to you in any way you will likely to accept, as it only comes from personal experience. Being accepted by female culture of 33AD is an entirely different beast from being accepted by female culture of 2012AD.

The nuance is lost, and this is unfortunate for "both sides".

reply to post by Aeons

You are claiming the mantle to talk about Christianity as a representative?

I'm sorry, have you read Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Do you know the official position of the Catholic Church and the majority of protestants?

I'm not speaking about the fringe-Christian liberals who purport to follow Jesus' example as 'logos' by reducing things the way the ancient gnostics did; no. When I talk about Christian and Jewish morality, I feel I am justified in saying that conservatism better suits its nature than moral relativism.

Jesus's ministry existed on women. Being welcomed into women's homes, talking to women's families.

Where on earth do you get the idea that going to a woman's house necessarily means "Jesus was a feminist"? So what? I go to women's houses all the time. Some of my best friends are women. And still - I have my conservative beliefs.

Amazing that putting restrictions to protect certain values from being trampled upon translates into your mind as hating women.

Where there was no door open with men, the door in was through the women in any community. Apparently, he wasn't provoking women to reject him and could win their trust.

Jesus, granted, was more liberal than the Rabbinic Judaism which he preached against. However, it is a false conclusion to believe that he was against the moral institutions of Judaism. He may have sought to tone it down, to transfer the burden of obligation from the social to the personal, which has it's own presumptions (that the personal suffices); but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have vociferously opposed a woman walking about topless. He would have regarded that as immodest and insensitive to the spiritual values of the Judaism he grew up with.

Logos - in case you aren't acquainted with the word - means 'reason'; reason demands freedom from the passions, otherwise the individual is being dictated and determined by external factors. Thus, we put up 'walls' in the form of external laws.

However liberal Jesus may have been, his liberality never would have led him - contrary to the claims of some christian's - to ignore the need to protect some values in the form of social laws, of course, not to the degree in which the Rabbis acted (the 613 laws of Judaism) but whatever reason dictated as necessary.

Let me reiterate. You can't control yourself, and you're argument is that you want to control women BECAUSE you can't control yourself. It isn't a convincing argument. Pretty simple. It is neither logical nor emotionally sensible.

Control, in action? I can control my action. I will not rape anyone. Control in thought? That is far more difficult. Control in feeling? That is almost impossible.

The biological response to a stimulus such as a woman's toplessness is immediate attraction. To limit that gratuitous sexualizing, we enact laws. Simple solution.

You don't like it, go form your own amazonian society.

My heart doesn't trust you

Ahh..that's very respectable. You admit to basing your argument on an intuitive feeling about me.

My reactions to you are both logical and emotional. I find you illogical, and I find you icky.

Your assumption that I'm a liberal is very amusing though. I'm centrist. I have both liberal and conservative value sets. Based on what is logical.

Was Jesus a feminist? Since feminism didn't exist then, it would be impossible to say. He seems to have had a better opinion of them than you do.

You feel attracted to a topless woman because it is abnormal in your view. If all the women for one day went around topless, by the end of the day you'd only be noticing the ones that you would have noticed with when they all had their shirts on. That's how the new guy at the nudest beach is. "Attention" problems at the beginning go away, and eventually he goes back to only liking what he likes.

In most cultures and socieites women aren't running around with vaginas out, so I think that regulating hemlines for your personal mind control is unnecessary. Really, you'll just find something else to obsess about and then want to regulate women again to help you with your new obsession.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by Aeons

 

You presume the female culture of today is remotely similar to the female culture of Jesus' time. I couldn't explain this to you in any way you will likely to accept, as it only comes from personal experience. Being accepted by female culture of 33AD is an entirely different beast from being accepted by female culture of 2012AD.

The nuance is lost, and this is unfortunate for "both sides".

The nuance is being lost here. If Jesus didn't treat women like there were nothing but childlike emotion-bots, and showed respect for them, they showed respect and love back. In doing so, they allowed what he was doing to spread and take hold in the bastion of culture - women.

Regardless of the form, the foundation remains the same. The men in this thread have no foundation, and are immensely disrespectful and demand respect while doing doing to earn it or give it.

But please explain to me about your personal experience. Since even the men around Jesus didn't get it, somehow I doubt even your personal experience would be all that illuminating.

Originally posted by Aeons
...I doubt even your personal experience would be all that illuminating.

Ergo...

Best on your path.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by Aeons
...I doubt even your personal experience would be all that illuminating.

Ergo...

Best on your path.

edit on 13-9-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)

That was amazingly offensive on a number of levels. Good stuff.