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
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.