Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Decline Of The West

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby PeterAndrewNolan » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:36 pm

publicduende wrote:DA you're a pathological case of social paranoia.

About my secret inclinations, I make no secret of the fact that I'm inclined to give people like you a good reality kick in the arse when they need it.


He happens to be correct and you happen to be wrong.
Feel free to check out my blog:Click ME!
PeterAndrewNolan
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:25 am







Postby publicduende » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:38 pm

PeterAndrewNolan wrote:
publicduende wrote:DA you're a pathological case of social paranoia.

About my secret inclinations, I make no secret of the fact that I'm inclined to give people like you a good reality kick in the arse when they need it.


He happens to be correct and you happen to be wrong.


No mate, you happen to agree with him, and nobody else does.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby DevilsAdvocate » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:42 pm

publicduende wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
publicduende wrote:Most women are intellectually competent people driven by the same instincts and desires as men

This is sort of the liberal equivalent to believing that the earth is flat. Actually I am not being entirely fair to the flat-earthers because realizing that the earth is round requires some understanding of science, one can't just see this fact with one's own eyes. But seeing that men and women have different instincts and desires is completely obvious to anyone who opens their eyes and has been known throughout history. When I think of all the absurd beliefs that people have held through history, I cannot think of one that is more absurd than that men and women have the same instincts and desires.


Look, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to accept such a statement at face value. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, by my experiences with women, starting with my family (my Mom and a couple of aunties I'm really close to), my female friends, my ex girlfriends, and then my wife, I just can't see so much of a difference.

One thing to consider is that our society has been wildly successful in flattening the behavioural differences between men and women, to the point that we ultimately come pre-packaged in socially acceptable personas: the Consumer, the Career Man/Woman, the Good Parent, etc. Take the first one, the Consumer. Yes we make lots of fuss about women whining about that new pair of shoes and queuing up to buy cheaps replica of a Cavalli dress from 5 AM in the morning. Yet I've seen the male specimen doing exactly the same with a new iPhone, or a new videogame console. We have become a unisex culture, exhibiting the same herd patterns whether it comes to shopping, making a career move or planning for a child. In some cases, the things we desire and/or buy are different. How we get to them is not.

About instinct and desires, yes of course deep down women will have some of their biological instincts intact: the desire of protection for their own sake and that of their offspring, for example. Yet when it comes to our social, public identities, I really don't see so much of a difference anymore. Men can be career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Women can be are career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Some men have a sense of entitlement and want to impose this on their partner. Same for many women. Men can be calculating b*stards, always aiming at the best they can get given their status. Women can, too. Willing or nilling, this is the level of gender equality we have built for ourselves. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the product of social evolution, sometimes the result of painful political and cultural struggles.

So what I have a problem accepting is when a man says that some of these instincts and desires and perfectly acceptable when exercised by a male, and are the sign of a rotten state of things when they are found in a woman. I have a problem with those who want to affirm their own male identity by negating the female one.

Let me give you an example. Most of you guys complain about Anglosphere women being calculating b*tches who use their perceived status as a "protected species" (as well as their assets) as a leverage to obtain what they desire: say, material possessions that will give them an idea of success and stability. Indeed, one of the main themes of this forum is that of travelling to second and third world countries to...leverage your status as first world men to obtain sexual gratification and the perception of being wildly sucessful with the ladies. In this case, the desire of giving oneself gratification at the expense of the other sex is quite similar, even though the object of desire is different. If a woman dares talk about desiring a ripped male model, maybe one these Olympic swimmers on display, we will immediately dismiss them as superficial sluts. Yet, on this forum I have seen a lot of men pontificating on their holy desire for a Russian or Asian goddess with perfect skin, cute face and big breasts. Not saying our desires aren't legitimate, only that it's pointless to find a woman doing the same absolutely reprehensible and blame the Zionists or the NWO.

Another one: I see lots of complaining about good looking girls looking for impossible heights of male perfection on online dating sites. And yet I remember trying to convince one of you guys to learn to appreciate an average-looking woman for her personality, and being told that no, we can't settle for anything less than the exact same female equivalent to what those hotties have (or may have) in mind.

Man let's face it: gender equality is a good thing. We men still have a massive edge in so many aspects of our public life, from employment to culture and arts. Women know full well they have to be twice as smart and work a lot harder to get what men think is theirs by birth right, or out of some obscure natural law.




The things you say sound to me like you're a women pretending to be a man....

I don't really know how it is in the UK, but what you describe has no basis for the USA....

In the USA fat girls believe they have a chance with good looking guys, and in many cases, they do. They will buy you gifts and presents and stalk you everyday until you finally throw them a bone....

Damn, I cannot believe I'm talking like this, never in my life did I think I would come down to this level but shit, rough times call for rough talk....

In the USA there is a broader culture of hatred of men, especially white men in general, but all men are fair game at being idiots and worthless....

This is being portrayed on TV where a fat guy is going out with a hot girl and she runs the show while he runs around being the idiot....

This is being done everywhere on every possible level there is, including all movies, all talk shows on TV, etc. Men are being portrayed as being dumb by their nature, dumb and shallow and stupid and only think about sex and can easily be controlled and manipulated because of their inherent stupidity of being a man. Not to mention how evil men are that they held women down and didn't allow them to vote and kept that as slaves in the home to have cook and clean and wash the mans dirty clothes (yuck) and have babies while the man goes out and get's sex from younger women, and then leaves you to have the kids by yourself and you're washed up and ruined as a person, all because of a man....

What good is a man? If a women has her own job, why would she want a man?

Oh yeah, for sex, and hmmm, a lot of men have money so that also is what men are good for, to extract money from....

This is what it's been reduced to, and it's called "feminism"....

Signed,

Devils Advocate
DevilsAdvocate
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:41 pm

Postby publicduende » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:14 pm

DevilsAdvocate wrote:
publicduende wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
publicduende wrote:Most women are intellectually competent people driven by the same instincts and desires as men

This is sort of the liberal equivalent to believing that the earth is flat. Actually I am not being entirely fair to the flat-earthers because realizing that the earth is round requires some understanding of science, one can't just see this fact with one's own eyes. But seeing that men and women have different instincts and desires is completely obvious to anyone who opens their eyes and has been known throughout history. When I think of all the absurd beliefs that people have held through history, I cannot think of one that is more absurd than that men and women have the same instincts and desires.


Look, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to accept such a statement at face value. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, by my experiences with women, starting with my family (my Mom and a couple of aunties I'm really close to), my female friends, my ex girlfriends, and then my wife, I just can't see so much of a difference.

One thing to consider is that our society has been wildly successful in flattening the behavioural differences between men and women, to the point that we ultimately come pre-packaged in socially acceptable personas: the Consumer, the Career Man/Woman, the Good Parent, etc. Take the first one, the Consumer. Yes we make lots of fuss about women whining about that new pair of shoes and queuing up to buy cheaps replica of a Cavalli dress from 5 AM in the morning. Yet I've seen the male specimen doing exactly the same with a new iPhone, or a new videogame console. We have become a unisex culture, exhibiting the same herd patterns whether it comes to shopping, making a career move or planning for a child. In some cases, the things we desire and/or buy are different. How we get to them is not.

About instinct and desires, yes of course deep down women will have some of their biological instincts intact: the desire of protection for their own sake and that of their offspring, for example. Yet when it comes to our social, public identities, I really don't see so much of a difference anymore. Men can be career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Women can be are career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Some men have a sense of entitlement and want to impose this on their partner. Same for many women. Men can be calculating b*stards, always aiming at the best they can get given their status. Women can, too. Willing or nilling, this is the level of gender equality we have built for ourselves. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the product of social evolution, sometimes the result of painful political and cultural struggles.

So what I have a problem accepting is when a man says that some of these instincts and desires and perfectly acceptable when exercised by a male, and are the sign of a rotten state of things when they are found in a woman. I have a problem with those who want to affirm their own male identity by negating the female one.

Let me give you an example. Most of you guys complain about Anglosphere women being calculating b*tches who use their perceived status as a "protected species" (as well as their assets) as a leverage to obtain what they desire: say, material possessions that will give them an idea of success and stability. Indeed, one of the main themes of this forum is that of travelling to second and third world countries to...leverage your status as first world men to obtain sexual gratification and the perception of being wildly sucessful with the ladies. In this case, the desire of giving oneself gratification at the expense of the other sex is quite similar, even though the object of desire is different. If a woman dares talk about desiring a ripped male model, maybe one these Olympic swimmers on display, we will immediately dismiss them as superficial sluts. Yet, on this forum I have seen a lot of men pontificating on their holy desire for a Russian or Asian goddess with perfect skin, cute face and big breasts. Not saying our desires aren't legitimate, only that it's pointless to find a woman doing the same absolutely reprehensible and blame the Zionists or the NWO.

Another one: I see lots of complaining about good looking girls looking for impossible heights of male perfection on online dating sites. And yet I remember trying to convince one of you guys to learn to appreciate an average-looking woman for her personality, and being told that no, we can't settle for anything less than the exact same female equivalent to what those hotties have (or may have) in mind.

Man let's face it: gender equality is a good thing. We men still have a massive edge in so many aspects of our public life, from employment to culture and arts. Women know full well they have to be twice as smart and work a lot harder to get what men think is theirs by birth right, or out of some obscure natural law.


The things you say sound to me like you're a women pretending to be a man...

I don't really know how it is in the UK, but what you describe has no basis for the USA....

In the USA fat girls believe they have a chance with good looking guys, and in many cases, they do. They will buy you gifts and presents and stalk you everyday until you finally throw them a bone....

Damn, I cannot believe I'm talking like this, never in my life did I think I would come down to this level but shit, rough times call for rough talk....

In the USA there is a broader culture of hatred of men, especially white men in general, but all men are fair game at being idiots and worthless....

This is being portrayed on TV where a fat guy is going out with a hot girl and she runs the show while he runs around being the idiot....

This is being done everywhere on every possible level there is, including all movies, all talk shows on TV, etc. Men are being portrayed as being dumb by their nature, dumb and shallow and stupid and only think about sex and can easily be controlled and manipulated because of their inherent stupidity of being a man. Not to mention how evil men are that they held women down and didn't allow them to vote and kept that as slaves in the home to have cook and clean and wash the mans dirty clothes (yuck) and have babies while the man goes out and get's sex from younger women, and then leaves you to have the kids by yourself and you're washed up and ruined as a person, all because of a man....

What good is a man? If a women has her own job, why would she want a man?

Oh yeah, for sex, and hmmm, a lot of men have money so that also is what men are good for, to extract money from....

This is what it's been reduced to, and it's called "feminism"....

Signed,

Devils Advocate


Glad to see you took a deep breath and brought the conversation back to debatable points. I can guarantee you I'm no woman, and actually a pretty traditional, Southern Italian man.

I don't think what you said above finds its extremes in US or UK pop culture. It's everywhere. I have seen TV shows taking the mickey out of fat dumb men, or fat dumb women in Japan as well as Italy, and of course here too. Extreme, paroxistic situations are always good for dramatic effect and winning the audience over. What's wrong with fat US chicks thinking they're entitled to good looking men? Let them be: some of them might realise they need to take better care of themselves to woo the finest of the opposite sex, some others might retreat to average looking people, some more might continue to moan about their solitude forever. Same for men.

What you call "feminism" is just a paranoia of yours, revolving around the caricature of extreme female indepence as portrayed by some media. I don't think the world is in such a bad state, from this particular point of view. UK might be one of the havens of Anglo bitches as you call them, but it's also a place where I've seen loads of examples of near-perfect man/woman teamwork, where both parties go to great lengths to ensure their kids have the best in life. And rest assured, it takes a balanced relationship and equal degrees of maturity and wisdom for a couple to do that. Where I would see a problem is, like I said elsewhere, in the fact that modern societies are run to the maximum benefits of tiny elites, while the vast majority of normal couples are left to juggle with two jobs and long hours and very little is left of the once great safety and welfare nets.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby fschmidt » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:56 pm

publicduende wrote:Look, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to accept such a statement at face value. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, by my experiences with women, starting with my family (my Mom and a couple of aunties I'm really close to), my female friends, my ex girlfriends, and then my wife, I just can't see so much of a difference.

One thing to consider is that our society has been wildly successful in flattening the behavioural differences between men and women, to the point that we ultimately come pre-packaged in socially acceptable personas: the Consumer, the Career Man/Woman, the Good Parent, etc. Take the first one, the Consumer. Yes we make lots of fuss about women whining about that new pair of shoes and queuing up to buy cheaps replica of a Cavalli dress from 5 AM in the morning. Yet I've seen the male specimen doing exactly the same with a new iPhone, or a new videogame console. We have become a unisex culture, exhibiting the same herd patterns whether it comes to shopping, making a career move or planning for a child. In some cases, the things we desire and/or buy are different. How we get to them is not.

About instinct and desires, yes of course deep down women will have some of their biological instincts intact: the desire of protection for their own sake and that of their offspring, for example. Yet when it comes to our social, public identities, I really don't see so much of a difference anymore. Men can be career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Women can be are career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Some men have a sense of entitlement and want to impose this on their partner. Same for many women. Men can be calculating b*stards, always aiming at the best they can get given their status. Women can, too. Willing or nilling, this is the level of gender equality we have built for ourselves. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the product of social evolution, sometimes the result of painful political and cultural struggles.

So what I have a problem accepting is when a man says that some of these instincts and desires and perfectly acceptable when exercised by a male, and are the sign of a rotten state of things when they are found in a woman. I have a problem with those who want to affirm their own male identity by negating the female one.

Let me give you an example. Most of you guys complain about Anglosphere women being calculating b*tches who use their perceived status as a "protected species" (as well as their assets) as a leverage to obtain what they desire: say, material possessions that will give them an idea of success and stability. Indeed, one of the main themes of this forum is that of travelling to second and third world countries to...leverage your status as first world men to obtain sexual gratification and the perception of being wildly sucessful with the ladies. In this case, the desire of giving oneself gratification at the expense of the other sex is quite similar, even though the object of desire is different. If a woman dares talk about desiring a ripped male model, maybe one these Olympic swimmers on display, we will immediately dismiss them as superficial sluts. Yet, on this forum I have seen a lot of men pontificating on their holy desire for a Russian or Asian goddess with perfect skin, cute face and big breasts. Not saying our desires aren't legitimate, only that it's pointless to find a woman doing the same absolutely reprehensible and blame the Zionists or the NWO.

Another one: I see lots of complaining about good looking girls looking for impossible heights of male perfection on online dating sites. And yet I remember trying to convince one of you guys to learn to appreciate an average-looking woman for her personality, and being told that no, we can't settle for anything less than the exact same female equivalent to what those hotties have (or may have) in mind.

Man let's face it: gender equality is a good thing. We men still have a massive edge in so many aspects of our public life, from employment to culture and arts. Women know full well they have to be twice as smart and work a lot harder to get what men think is theirs by birth right, or out of some obscure natural law.

I actually agree with your criticisms of men in this post. Feminism doesn't just destroy women, it also destroys men. Modern men are just as much of an abomination as modern women are.

I also have a mother, wife, and daughter. And from my experience, the difference between the sexes is vast. I homeschool my kids and I find it fascinating how differently my son and daughter learn.

Regarding consumerism, yes this is a direct product of feminism. Women become sluts and spend all their income on status symbols, mostly to impress other women. Men become players and spend all their income on status symbols to impress women in the hopes of getting laid. Any feminist society will become obsessed with consuming. Modesty and simple living are incompatible with feminism.

Feminism and the idea of equality between the sexes isn't new. In fact it is a fairly standard view in most declining cultures. You should study history. Feminism existed in the declining Roman Empire, in the declining Hellenistic period after Alexander, in much of Byzantine history, and even during the decline of the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate which was the height of Islamic culture. Feminism quite simply is a symptom of terminal cultural decline.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Postby fschmidt » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:04 pm

DevilsAdvocate wrote:Now the only question is for all Jews, and indeed all people on planet earth, which side do you choose? God's side? Or Satan's side?

Actually I think there is a second question - what are you going to do about it? This second question is Jewish thinking, namely that belief by itself is meaningless, that belief only becomes meaningful when coupled with action. And it is this second question that I am struggling with.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Postby gsjackson » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:08 pm

fschmidt wrote: For example in the 1800s, Americans were outraged by the monopolies and elected Woodrow Wilson who broke them up. .


Sherman Antitrust Act passed, 1890. Woodrow Wilson elected president, 1912. The Fed, which you rightly say should be torpedoed, was started under Wilson. He was some sort of progressive, but not much of one. TR was more known as a trust-buster.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby publicduende » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:15 pm

fschmidt wrote:
publicduende wrote:Look, I see where you're coming from. It's difficult to accept such a statement at face value. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, by my experiences with women, starting with my family (my Mom and a couple of aunties I'm really close to), my female friends, my ex girlfriends, and then my wife, I just can't see so much of a difference.

One thing to consider is that our society has been wildly successful in flattening the behavioural differences between men and women, to the point that we ultimately come pre-packaged in socially acceptable personas: the Consumer, the Career Man/Woman, the Good Parent, etc. Take the first one, the Consumer. Yes we make lots of fuss about women whining about that new pair of shoes and queuing up to buy cheaps replica of a Cavalli dress from 5 AM in the morning. Yet I've seen the male specimen doing exactly the same with a new iPhone, or a new videogame console. We have become a unisex culture, exhibiting the same herd patterns whether it comes to shopping, making a career move or planning for a child. In some cases, the things we desire and/or buy are different. How we get to them is not.

About instinct and desires, yes of course deep down women will have some of their biological instincts intact: the desire of protection for their own sake and that of their offspring, for example. Yet when it comes to our social, public identities, I really don't see so much of a difference anymore. Men can be career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Women can be are career minded, materialistic, aggressive, assertive, or not. Some men have a sense of entitlement and want to impose this on their partner. Same for many women. Men can be calculating b*stards, always aiming at the best they can get given their status. Women can, too. Willing or nilling, this is the level of gender equality we have built for ourselves. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the product of social evolution, sometimes the result of painful political and cultural struggles.

So what I have a problem accepting is when a man says that some of these instincts and desires and perfectly acceptable when exercised by a male, and are the sign of a rotten state of things when they are found in a woman. I have a problem with those who want to affirm their own male identity by negating the female one.

Let me give you an example. Most of you guys complain about Anglosphere women being calculating b*tches who use their perceived status as a "protected species" (as well as their assets) as a leverage to obtain what they desire: say, material possessions that will give them an idea of success and stability. Indeed, one of the main themes of this forum is that of travelling to second and third world countries to...leverage your status as first world men to obtain sexual gratification and the perception of being wildly sucessful with the ladies. In this case, the desire of giving oneself gratification at the expense of the other sex is quite similar, even though the object of desire is different. If a woman dares talk about desiring a ripped male model, maybe one these Olympic swimmers on display, we will immediately dismiss them as superficial sluts. Yet, on this forum I have seen a lot of men pontificating on their holy desire for a Russian or Asian goddess with perfect skin, cute face and big breasts. Not saying our desires aren't legitimate, only that it's pointless to find a woman doing the same absolutely reprehensible and blame the Zionists or the NWO.

Another one: I see lots of complaining about good looking girls looking for impossible heights of male perfection on online dating sites. And yet I remember trying to convince one of you guys to learn to appreciate an average-looking woman for her personality, and being told that no, we can't settle for anything less than the exact same female equivalent to what those hotties have (or may have) in mind.

Man let's face it: gender equality is a good thing. We men still have a massive edge in so many aspects of our public life, from employment to culture and arts. Women know full well they have to be twice as smart and work a lot harder to get what men think is theirs by birth right, or out of some obscure natural law.

I actually agree with your criticisms of men in this post. Feminism doesn't just destroy women, it also destroys men. Modern men are just as much of an abomination as modern women are.

I also have a mother, wife, and daughter. And from my experience, the difference between the sexes is vast. I homeschool my kids and I find it fascinating how differently my son and daughter learn.

Regarding consumerism, yes this is a direct product of feminism. Women become sluts and spend all their income on status symbols, mostly to impress other women. Men become players and spend all their income on status symbols to impress women in the hopes of getting laid. Any feminist society will become obsessed with consuming. Modesty and simple living are incompatible with feminism.

Feminism and the idea of equality between the sexes isn't new. In fact it is a fairly standard view in most declining cultures. You should study history. Feminism existed in the declining Roman Empire, in the declining Hellenistic period after Alexander, in much of Byzantine history, and even during the decline of the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate which was the height of Islamic culture. Feminism quite simply is a symptom of terminal cultural decline.


Well, I fully agree on what you said about your kids, as it's well known that young boys and girls are very different in their cognitive development. I was talking to a colleague of mine the other day, and he was telling me how he finds it puzzling that her elder daughter is growing up as a girly girl while her younger daughter is picking up hobbies and interests that would qualify as being more "male", like playing guitar (electric, nonetheless!) and computer programming. That's the amazing variety called human personality. No one is the same, we are unique and all very, very precious.

I think you're using the word feminism to mean something much wider and generic. I am confused because I actually agree with what you're saying, only, I wouldn't use the term "feminism" as my umbrella word, as to me it refers to something much more specific and largely unrelated to the system of materialism, mindless consumption and delusional self-gratification we are currently living in. A system where, as you rightly say, men and women are equally victims.

So let's call it "materialism", for the sake of argument. Modern materialism and consumerism are not products of feminism. They are the product of decades of social engineering designed to maximise revolving profits for a bunch of crafty multinationals. Perhaps some Western countries have used feminism and the "girl power" narrative as a leverage to make women feel more empowered and profligate consumers, but I insist, I see a very similar story when selling products to men, and even children. So if women spending on fashion items meant to impress their peers are sluts, what are men doing the same? Pimps? :) This is what I don't understand: why is succumbing to the same kind of drive to mass consumption producing two completely different judgment depending on whether the target one of us, a man, or a woman?

About your last statement, again: what have women to do with the widespread degeneration of ethical and moral standards typical of mature or declining societies? That you see the appearance of gender equality at such junctures in history, it may have something to with the relatively advanced nature of political and cultural discourse required for that to happen. Slave trade too was abolished not only because machines were replacing mass human labour as sources of profit, but because society was mature enough to recognise how profoundly unjust it was. And it's no surprise it happened when Britain had already started its decline as the world's trading empire.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby Truthville » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:23 pm

You make good points publicduende and I agree with most of them.

However,

Some woman really DON'T want equality IMHO. What they want is variable equality. The right to demand equal treatment and the right to also demand superior treatment. The right to be the "strong independent woman" one day, and the right to be a "weak, emotional woman" the next.

Do some some research on what was called the ERA amendment in the U.S. and you will find that most woman groups like NOW dropped support for it when they realized that the law would enforce TRUE equality between sexes such as requiring women register for the Select Service and that child custody decrees would no longer be heavily slanted in the mother's favor.

SO these organizations decided to get laws passed piecemeal so that women could benefit without having to give up their "historic" privileges.

The fact is publicduende that western men, by and large I believe, have no problem with TRUE equality between the sexes. It's this false situational equality that drives most of us insane!

"I'm a woman and I demand equal treatment!"
"I'm a woman and I demand preferential treatment!"

"I'm a woman and I demand the pay, benefits and status of my male co-workers BUT I shouldn't have to have the same responsibilities, duties, expectations as my male co-workers BECAUSE I'm a woman and I'm different!"
"What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: "I am a wretchedly longstanding victim;therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition."

"It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised."
Truthville
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:42 am

Postby fschmidt » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:32 pm

gsjackson wrote:
fschmidt wrote: For example in the 1800s, Americans were outraged by the monopolies and elected Woodrow Wilson who broke them up. .

Sherman Antitrust Act passed, 1890. Woodrow Wilson elected president, 1912. The Fed, which you rightly say should be torpedoed, was started under Wilson. He was some sort of progressive, but not much of one. TR was more known as a trust-buster.

Thanks for the history corrections. From what I know, TR tried to regulate the monopolies but Wilson actually broke them up. Wilson was no saint but my point is that the public forced action to be taken to correct the economic problems of their time. This won't happen now.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Postby fschmidt » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:48 pm

publicduende wrote:I think you're using the word feminism to mean something much wider and generic. I am confused because I actually agree with what you're saying, only, I wouldn't use the term "feminism" as my umbrella word, as to me it refers to something much more specific and largely unrelated to the system of materialism, mindless consumption and delusional self-gratification we are currently living in. A system where, as you rightly say, men and women are equally victims.

So let's call it "materialism", for the sake of argument. Modern materialism and consumerism are not products of feminism. They are the product of decades of social engineering designed to maximise revolving profits for a bunch of crafty multinationals. Perhaps some Western countries have used feminism and the "girl power" narrative as a leverage to make women feel more empowered and profligate consumers, but I insist, I see a very similar story when selling products to men, and even children. So if women spending on fashion items meant to impress their peers are sluts, what are men doing the same? Pimps? :) This is what I don't understand: why is succumbing to the same kind of drive to mass consumption producing two completely different judgment depending on whether the target one of us, a man, or a woman?

Our primary drive is for survival and reproduction. We will fight hard for resources to the extent that these resources promote these basic ends. In a traditional monogamous society, everyone gets one mate and no one is allowed more. This means that acquiring additional resources or status will not have reproductive benefit and so has little value. Instead, men tend to focus on supporting the tribe in a fairly ego-less way and women focus on raising their children. This makes for a stable and virtuous society. In contrast, in a promiscuous society, there is desperate competition between men for women. In this contest, men fight to acquire status in order to attract women. Promiscuous women also behave very differently from monogamous women. Women have a pecking order that depends on their ability to attract men and to show off resources. Promiscuous women will compete in this pecking order based on consumption. In a monogamous society, women's place in the pecking order is largely determined by the success of her husband and so her best way to improve her status is to support her husband. Feminism is basically anti-marriage, pro-promiscuity. It causes an extremely selfish and immoral culture for reasons just explained. Only traditional monogamous societies can be moral and non-materialistic.

About your last statement, again: what have women to do with the widespread degeneration of ethical and moral standards typical of mature or declining societies?

Women aren't the problem. Women can be good or bad. Men can be good or bad. Liberalism causes everyone to be bad and feminism is a part of this.

That you see the appearance of gender equality at such junctures in history, it may have something to with the relatively advanced nature of political and cultural discourse required for that to happen.

This is true. Only an advance society has the ability to support decadence. Once society collapses, it can no longer afford decadence and it returns to a primitive Hobbesian state of nature. Decadence, liberalism, and feminism are all parts of the process of the decay of successful cultures.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

Postby publicduende » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:50 pm

Truthville wrote:You make good points publicduende and I agree with most of them.

However,

Some woman really DON'T want equality IMHO. What they want is variable equality. The right to demand equal treatment and the right to also demand superior treatment. The right to be the "strong independent woman" one day, and the right to be a "weak, emotional woman" the next.

Do some some research on what was called the ERA amendment in the U.S. and you will find that most woman groups like NOW dropped support for it when they realized that the law would enforce TRUE equality between sexes such as requiring women register for the Select Service and that child custody decrees would no longer be heavily slanted in the mother's favor.

SO these organizations decided to get laws passed piecemeal so that women could benefit without having to give up their "historic" privileges.

The fact is publicduende that western men, by and large I believe, have no problem with TRUE equality between the sexes. It's this false situational equality that drives most of us insane!

"I'm a woman and I demand equal treatment!"
"I'm a woman and I demand preferential treatment!"

"I'm a woman and I demand the pay, benefits and status of my male co-workers BUT I shouldn't have to have the same responsibilities, duties, expectations as my male co-workers BECAUSE I'm a woman and I'm different!"


Absolutely, Truthville. Female groups lobbying for preferential treatment are, well, lobbies, and I believe a vocal but not so significant minority. I am not in favour of any preferential treatments in society, however it's also true that complete equality can never be achieved, for two reasons:

1) the historical bias towards a male-ruled society, which I believe will never truly disappear;
2) some simple biological facts, like women requiring more allowance when they are pregnant or just gave birth to a child.

I think one extra source of confusion here is that people are associating these fringe movements battling for women's "uber-equality" with a purported worldwide plan to subjugate the entire male population to the will of the Amazons, and using it to justify whatever bad experiences they had at the personal level when dealing with local girls. I for one am married to a wonderful Colombian woman and enjoying every minute of it. And, by exchanging opinions with you guys on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that Colombia does sport a higher number of women who are a better mix of looks, personality and traditional values. Yet this doesn't give me any ground to criticise British or Italian women as spoiled, pretentious sluts, especially if I never had particularly bad experiences with them.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby gsjackson » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:52 pm

fschmidt wrote:
gsjackson wrote:
fschmidt wrote: For example in the 1800s, Americans were outraged by the monopolies and elected Woodrow Wilson who broke them up. .

Sherman Antitrust Act passed, 1890. Woodrow Wilson elected president, 1912. The Fed, which you rightly say should be torpedoed, was started under Wilson. He was some sort of progressive, but not much of one. TR was more known as a trust-buster.

Thanks for the history corrections. From what I know, TR tried to regulate the monopolies but Wilson actually broke them up. Wilson was no saint but my point is that the public forced action to be taken to correct the economic problems of their time. This won't happen now.


You're right on both points. After a quick re-reading, I see I wasn't giving Wilson enough credit for actually getting something done about the monopolies. And I agree that there isn't the sort of political consciousness in the US now for anything like the populist/progressive movements of 100+ years ago to occur again.

The main reason, IMO, is that progressivism has been undermined by its association with the lifestyle left -- feminists, gay rights supporters and the like. Americans lump all these movements under the blanket term "liberals," and often vote against their own economic interests in order to repudiate the lifestyle left. So, to return to publicduende's point, the west is in rapid decline primarily because of a corrupt political culture, but a big part of the reason it is corrupt, and currently offers no hope of reform, is that feminism and the lifestyle left have coopted and defused the part of the political spectrum from which reform used to come.
gsjackson
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA USA

Postby publicduende » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:26 am

fschmidt wrote:Our primary drive is for survival and reproduction. We will fight hard for resources to the extent that these resources promote these basic ends. In a traditional monogamous society, everyone gets one mate and no one is allowed more. This means that acquiring additional resources or status will not have reproductive benefit and so has little value. Instead, men tend to focus on supporting the tribe in a fairly ego-less way and women focus on raising their children. This makes for a stable and virtuous society. In contrast, in a promiscuous society, there is desperate competition between men for women. In this contest, men fight to acquire status in order to attract women. Promiscuous women also behave very differently from monogamous women. Women have a pecking order that depends on their ability to attract men and to show off resources. Promiscuous women will compete in this pecking order based on consumption. In a monogamous society, women's place in the pecking order is largely determined by the success of her husband and so her best way to improve her status is to support her husband. Feminism is basically anti-marriage, pro-promiscuity. It causes an extremely selfish and immoral culture for reasons just explained. Only traditional monogamous societies can be moral and non-materialistic.


I am following you 100% until the last statement, where you're dropping the F (feminism) word as some sort of wildcard for "the root of all evils in society". True, in primitive, tribal societies the amount of permissible partners was often related to the amount of resources one could afford to support each woman and associated offspring. Let's not forget that in many Islamic cultures polygamy is still accepted, so long the husband can prove to be an equally good husband towards every and each one of his spouses.

Yet I don't see how this has something to do with feminism as in the "women's rights movement". I don't even believe the historical version of feminism ever was pro-promiscuity. The last period of extreme promiscuity you Americans lived in is the 1920's, a time when the rest of the world was recovering from a devastating war and you could go full steam with an intact industrial output and rivers of cheap debt. Life seemed easy and entire swathes of the upper and middle class were up for a little swinging. You probably remember how it ended: sweeping STDs (some of them a lot less curable than they are now), loads of unwanted kids shut away in orphanages, and signs of severe social disgregation everywhere. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that points to any involvement of prominent female figures, or the feminist movement in such a catastrophic social experiment.

Truth be told, there's plenty of evidence that it's male libertarianism that promotes promiscuity as a sign of virility, charisma and "alpha power". The culture that allows prominent public figures like Berlusconi to openly admit having sex with several girls (underage and else) while still being married as some sort of party joke is as lewd and decadent as it gets, and yet it has nothing to do with feminism. Quite the opposite in fact.

fschmidt wrote:This is true. Only an advance society has the ability to support decadence. Once society collapses, it can no longer afford decadence and it returns to a primitive Hobbesian state of nature. Decadence, liberalism, and feminism are all parts of the process of the decay of successful cultures.


Agreed. I still don't see the part where women are the sole, evil agents of social decline. We're converging to the same conclusions, yet I still don't understand why your premises hinted at a "conspiracy of women againt male-kind". Maybe it's better like that, just don't pull a Devils Advocate or a Peter Andrew Nolan and we'll be alright ;)
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby fschmidt » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:47 am

publicduende wrote:I am following you 100% until the last statement, where you're dropping the F (feminism) word as some sort of wildcard for "the root of all evils in society". True, in primitive, tribal societies the amount of permissible partners was often related to the amount of resources one could afford to support each woman and associated offspring. Let's not forget that in many Islamic cultures polygamy is still accepted, so long the husband can prove to be an equally good husband towards every and each one of his spouses.

Yet I don't see how this has something to do with feminism as in the "women's rights movement". I don't even believe the historical version of feminism ever was pro-promiscuity. The last period of extreme promiscuity you Americans lived in is the 1920's, a time when the rest of the world was recovering from a devastating war and you could go full steam with an intact industrial output and rivers of cheap debt. Life seemed easy and entire swathes of the upper and middle class were up for a little swinging. You probably remember how it ended: sweeping STDs (some of them a lot less curable than they are now), loads of unwanted kids shut away in orphanages, and signs of severe social disgregation everywhere. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that points to any involvement of prominent female figures, or the feminist movement in such a catastrophic social experiment.

Truth be told, there's plenty of evidence that it's male libertarianism that promotes promiscuity as a sign of virility, charisma and "alpha power". The culture that allows prominent public figures like Berlusconi to openly admit having sex with several girls (underage and else) while still being married as some sort of party joke is as lewd and decadent as it gets, and yet it has nothing to do with feminism. Quite the opposite in fact.

Agreed. I still don't see the part where women are the sole, evil agents of social decline. We're converging to the same conclusions, yet I still don't understand why your premises hinted at a "conspiracy of women againt male-kind". Maybe it's better like that, just don't pull a Devils Advocate or a Peter Andrew Nolan and we'll be alright ;)

You conveniently ignored my quote where I said "Women aren't the problem.". It is a standard liberal/feminist debating tactic to equate oppositition of feminism to opposition of women. If you don't want me to "pull a Devils Advocate or a Peter Andrew Nolan" then I would appreciate it if you refrain from this standard liberal/feminist lie.

What a movement says about itself is irrelevant, what matters is what the movement does. Feminism has nothing to do with equal rights. The primary goals of feminism were to support women who wanted to divorce and to support female promiscuity. Modern slut-walks are perfect illustrations of feminism. You will never find feminists fighting for any kind of real justice. Everything that feminism actually does is harmful to the stability of marriage. Feminism is just a woman's power movement and when women have the power to divorce and enslave their husbands as is now the standard with modern alimony and child support laws, marriage is destroyed. There is good reason that traditional societies made it hard for women to divorce, because women are more emotionally unstable than men and more prone to making rash decisions. The vast majority of divorces are filed by women.

Feminism is a direct result of liberalism which is basically the religion of selfishness. Selfish women support feminism because they mistakenly think it gives them more choices, and selfish men support feminism because they think it gives them more opportunities for sex. Both are wrong. Both are examples of short-sighted selfishness. A good article on the real meaning of feminism is Sexual Utopia in Power.

If you really want to understand my perspective, you can read a few articles on my website. They are written for the religious because I think the religious are the only hope for the future, but these articles should still make sense to an intelligent non-religious person. I recommend these:

Human Evolution
Liberalism
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
fschmidt
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 8:16 am
Location: El Paso, TX

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests