designer wrote:

Quote:

Like it or not, women are empowered to choose who they want, I think that's progress,

Sums it all up. Same old liberal arts bullshit. I guess you also say "more power to them" too? Following comments about female assertiveness. Well I am "empowered" too to know that women who select men on superficial and fantasy notions of economic 'security' are ill. Passion and love are what life is about not this economic nightmare called capitalism. Any Man or woman who selects mates on the basis of money or status is a shack of shit as far as I am concerned. There is nothing 'empowering' about being a whore for money. Security is a fantasy as it has been proven quite easily that what is here today can be gone tomorrow. I as a human being am worth more that a Job, a car or some piece of paper, a certificate. There are certain traits and values within my being that define me beyond being a human brand or walking wallet. But that is what it is really all about isnt it? It's about Men or humanity being defined purely in terms of money. Codifying life itself. Thus a man's worth only comes down to money. So great is the pressure for a man to define himself through the accumulation of things that so many go into debt, crime, drugs and worse all to please women. For many men, women are the prime motivators of their negative behaivor. Because without $$ a man feels as if he has no self worth or value. It's the 'things' that give him meaning, not his mind or his compassion and love. The genius is worthless until he makes his first million right? indeed by your logic that is the case. And I am supposed to feel that "Like it or not, women are empowered"? Empowered to do what? Even in your statement you devalue men. As if its all a one way street. You are so clearly conditioned sir. I have spent much time around the Royal Academy, Goldsmiths and various other colleges and universities in the usa and europe. The liberal arts bullshit has come to an end. I saw all of this stuff, the whole language that is now mainstream. I saw all of it during its development. I spent loads of time around losers like Bell Hooks. A mentally ill pervert who preaches male hate through an manifesto of suedo communist, black nationalist, racist propaganda. The bitch needs to be sectioned. Seriously but these people were allowed to have much influence and I see how the ideology of their illness has spread. I was trained in marketing in a very famous school and I see how the language of marketing has been applied now to society. They got everyone talking in the language of the market. In the language of radical feminism. They took men and turned them against themselves and made center not the value of their well being. But the well being or women. Men are more concerned about protecting the concerns of women even at the cost of their existence. This my friend is conditioning. I studied it and know it well. All of it. It is a science. If I saw that I do not like chocolate ice cream your response automatically is to come to the defense of the chocolate flovor. To convince me that not all chocolate ice cream is bad. never can it be left alone that perhaps I simply reject chocolate icecream of all types and that it is my prorogative to not like it. I must be 'educated' by - You and then explained to that those who like chocolate icecream are 'empowered' and that there isnt anything I can do about. As if I am in some way projecting my personal choice onto others, or OPPRESSING them in some form. You cant see that in using certain language you participate in a system that does not promote free expression, opinion or free thought. The true oppressive act is to be found in the language of liberal arts. Because it projects the ideology of socio political conflict onto others throug ha system of selective language. Kind of like being PC, thus if I say that I dont like black gangsta people. The the pre-package label is then applied to suggest and absolute that I must dislike All black people. Though I never said that I did. An assumption about another becomes a political motive or objective. Contained within the language of liberal arts is a mechanism to prevent objective discussion. Its a skillful system of intellectual warfare. It has it founding in the communist paradigm. There is nothing selective or original about any of this. These are hard old true vices used to manipulate and modify collectively a society. There is no conspiracy about this, it is fact and it is a science. I have worked in marketing and I can tell you the systems that are used in place to make people more suggestive. Words like "empowered" are very much used to sum up a number of very clever marketing and political processes. The problem today in the west is that there is no dialog. The language used itself creates further conflict.

Great reply designer, thanks for taking the time to elaborate. That's the quality of debate I like.

Let set one record straight: I am not talking, indeed I'm not even interested in talking about radical feminist ideas. I agree with your definition of radical feminism and how dangerous and destabilising it can be for a system of healthy human relations. The good news for you, me and everybody is that those groups are fringes, a small minority that have always had little impact on the public discourse, at least that which sets lasting change in society: laws, policies, major cultural trends, etc. I believe there is nothing, absolutely nothing in UK (and Italian policy, if you ask me) that pushes men to fear women, or that shapes anti-social or immoral behaviour in young women any more than it does on young men. Divorce laws are a notable exception, although they weren't born with that in mind, and could be discussed to exhaustion. Still, I see most of you are not pointing your anger to women who want out of marriage, but female behaviour in general.

Since you picked up on the “empower” term, I want to clarify it. In general "empowering" = granting an individual or group some "power". Now, this can be power they don't need or deserve, or more power than they deserve. Or power they don't know how to use. Or perhaps a kind of power, which to me is the power of self-determination, that is and should be common to all of mankind. Poor, rich, first through third world, adult men and women. During the early Roman republic, when their military might was so successful that every campaign would rake thousands of men to be used as slaves for physical labour, a few in the upper ranks realised that a sizeable portion of those cheap labourers were of such intellectual value that it would have been stupid and wasteful not to tap into them for the common benefit of society. Many of such slaves were then made "liberi" (freemen) and granted not only freedom from slave labour, but also rights almost on a par with Roman citizens. Freemen became teachers, men of philosophy and science, advisors and even political figures. In their wisdom, the empire that could have crushed every one of those subjected without distinction, recognised that being a war casualty doesn't deprive a man of who he is, his dignity and his potential.

By the same token, a young woman who enjoys studying maths from an early age, or has a soft spot for Asian male faces, must be empowered with the level of self-determination that allows her to continue with her studies as much as she wants, instead of being forced to stay at home, and marry an Asian man instead that one chosen by her family. Public policy plays a role by forbidding arranged marriages and giving away university scholarships, yet what really makes the system work is that the vast majority of people - maybe not you but most people - recognise that this is the right thing to have, and anything less than that would be perceived as a big step backwards for society.

This is the kind of power I am talking about. The kind of power that gives value to women without taking value off men. Self-determination is akin to free will, the power to decide what to do with your own life. If they want to study hard or bum around with other Asbo kids. Whether they want their public life shaped more by cultural fulfilment or the pursuit of public success, money, and any nuance thereof. We don't live in a primitive society, where the less able to hunt and procreate will be naturally discarded in favour of alpha males. We may have been born less financially endowed, not so handsome or without large breasts, but society gives us enough power and devices to determine how to develop ourselves as complete beings and overcome those parameters of natural attraction that used to be the only cards on the table in ancient societies.

Just like giving a Cambridge place to a poor kid may well exclude an upper middle class boy with more sense of entitlement than talent, giving women the power of choice comes at a cost: the end of patriarchal society, where men had such a clear edge over women that, for centuries, women never even thought it possible to develop themselves outside the socially-accepted roles of housewives, moms and and lovers.
So what has gone wrong then?

Materialism, capitalism, extreme consumerism, hyper-sexualised branding of everything, that's what happened. We allowed the institution of family to be bent and twisted into a two-salary, joint-mortgage and bill paying machine. We allowed transnational corporations to design and execute methods of social engineering so powerful that have become self-reinforcing. Even a ghetto kid killing for a pair of Nike snickers would be publicity for the brand, nowadays. A handsome, uber-fit Olympic athlete will be automatically associated to one of those two or three top sportswear brands, and vice-versa. This is true for both men and women.

Modern society and public policy have given women an unprecedented level of gender equality and self-determination, which of course includes the status of (financially) empowered consumers. Then private corporations have come along and have been allowed to leverage this to turn anything, even feelings and human relationships, into marketable items.

And since sex is indeed their best-seller, and with women such docile consumers, what surprise is it that women are “consuming” sex as they would with the latest brand of alcopop? If all women need when buying sexual pleasure is to pay with the same currency, which they happens to have in much higher abundance than men, it’s quite obvious that they become the ones with the upper edge in this type of transaction.

Those same agents of social engineering must have, at some point, realised that maintaining their brainwashing machine would be more economic and cost efficient if they shaped males and females into a unisex model of consumer, driven by a common set of basic impulsions and desires: social inclusion and appreciation, quick and mindless self-gratification, aesthetic perfection, efficiency, financial success. And, obviously, the message had to be all the stronger as the value of the products they were selling became poorer and less central to our lives.

And boy, haven't they been successful at that. They have taken entire generations of young men and women and flattened the desires, the symbols, the rituals and the behaviours of their dating and mating game to the same common denominator. They have turned the banquet of human relationships into a picnic basket full of junk food and plasticky, disposable items. And the tools of the trade for winning over the opposite sex have shifted from the usual mix of human and material values to exclusively material values, all duly carrying a label and a price tag. With the added magic that they’re basically the same for men and women.

Men have become more of the "metrosexual" type, who buys as many cosmetic products and serves himself at plastic surgery clinics almost as much as their female counterparts. Women have started to behave like the caricature of a man. They might have gained ever easier access to sex and material possessions but, in doing so, they have lost many of the feminine qualities that used to make the game balanced and equally fulfilling by either party.
So far I don’t think I have said anything wildly different from what other people have said in other places in this forum. This is what I believe.

The current system of materialistic life is shocking news to everyone. So how do we fix it? Here is where we disagree. You and somebody else here say, by getting back to some more primitive form of human relationship that makes men feel back in control, and perhaps relegates women back to the role of backbenchers waiting to be called and played in the game.

I say that women behaving like aggressive bitches is not the cause, but an effect of the system of materialism we live in. Nothing short than a revolution is needed for the system to change. Luckily enough, one way or another, the system is showing the cracks and will be crumbling down soon. When that happens, modern society will perhaps have a healthy relapse into a more localised, tribal, community based form of living, perhaps one where we will learn to trust each other and respect our imperfections instead of aspiring for an artificial form of perfection. One where we will still afford women the freedom they deserve, yet see them going back to the game of choosing us more for who we are, than what we look like or how successful we are. Once at least the ugliest of the many superstructures of materialism and consumerism have gone, I believe this is not only achievable. I believe that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

It is never proper for one group to be disenfranchised for the benefit of another. There is only so much "power", to "empower" one person often means dis-empowering another. Let's use racism as an example. Would it be correct to suggest that by "empowering" blacks economically and impoverishing whites americans would be in any kind of way proper? Would this bring about equality? or would it help to divide society and cause unrest? The use of the word 'empowerment' you must understand that that word often is used in popular media to describe something in terms of disenfranchisement of others through the redistribution of wealth or some other element or resource. It is usually paired with women's issues. Also this belief that you have that women are sleeping around is not so common in that it is not a viable market. If so there would be a massive demand for male p4p. Women are NOT Men and the so called redefinition of women's gender roles is has not resulted in some kind of massive shift. in fact it has been the doorway to much suffering and the degradation of the community and family. There is nothing liberating about the fall of humanity. As much as society tries to run from its normal pattern structure the greater the disconnectedness and insanity. I do not see women in any sort of liberated position. I see them as slaves, voluntary slavery. In ancient egypt the slaves were often kept naked. They were completely on the lowest level of humanity. Thus whenever I see a scantily clad woman I think the same thing. To me it does not represent freedom, it very much is a sign of conformity and control. Women's greatest enemies are themselves. I also want to respond to what you explain to be Men's "fear of women". M8, there is no fear. I do not fear women. I am not a capitalist so for me money is not something that equals 'power' and other bullshite. I see very little value in allowing ones self to be devalued by a system that places monetary value on human life. Western women to me are not 'empowered'. Many muslim and other so called oppressed women of the world have a greater understanding of their role as women and the value of being a woman. Of femininity and the rewards that come with investing in community, family and children. These kinds of investments bring about much greater rewards to the human family than if a woman can have a low end BMW. We all must be responsible in life and understand what we must do as individuals to help humanity. Yet in a capitalist society it all becomes about what you can have. Selfishness is absolute tops. There is certainly a culture of take take take vs giving. Women have been conditioned to consume. They are mindless in that way and are a threat to the survival of the human family. They care very little about others. There is only the 'me' and what I can get. What you define as equality in many ways becomes more about how can I get what the next man has. Or perhaps how can I take what the next man has. The very foundation of Western feminism is built upon the redistribution of wealth and 'power' from white males. It is about destroying men through a well constructed system of state endorsed programs and outright villainy. Sadly men in the west are too stupid to intellectualize these concepts. Instead they have been conditioned to accept this system and to defend it. The same process has been used many times. All of this is just a modified form of communism. Women serve the state, thus the state invests in them. Women are 'better' than men as being a part of the system. men act up, cause problems, ask questions. Like I do and damn me for doing so. A man who asks questions is often attacked by most women and other like minded men who reject his right to challenge the system. No matter if he is correct or not in his claims. Its all bullshit, this whole place but guess what? I dont give a damn. American/British women can go to hell. I am working hard to rid myself of this place and of them.

designer wrote:

Quote:

Like it or not, women are empowered to choose who they want, I think that's progress,

Sums it all up. Same old liberal arts bullshit. I guess you also say "more power to them" too? Following comments about female assertiveness. Well I am "empowered" too to know that women who select men on superficial and fantasy notions of economic 'security' are ill. Passion and love are what life is about not this economic nightmare called capitalism. Any Man or woman who selects mates on the basis of money or status is a shack of shit as far as I am concerned. There is nothing 'empowering' about being a whore for money. Security is a fantasy as it has been proven quite easily that what is here today can be gone tomorrow. I as a human being am worth more that a Job, a car or some piece of paper, a certificate. There are certain traits and values within my being that define me beyond being a human brand or walking wallet. But that is what it is really all about isnt it? It's about Men or humanity being defined purely in terms of money. Codifying life itself. Thus a man's worth only comes down to money. So great is the pressure for a man to define himself through the accumulation of things that so many go into debt, crime, drugs and worse all to please women. For many men, women are the prime motivators of their negative behaivor. Because without $$ a man feels as if he has no self worth or value. It's the 'things' that give him meaning, not his mind or his compassion and love. The genius is worthless until he makes his first million right? indeed by your logic that is the case. And I am supposed to feel that "Like it or not, women are empowered"? Empowered to do what? Even in your statement you devalue men. As if its all a one way street. You are so clearly conditioned sir. I have spent much time around the Royal Academy, Goldsmiths and various other colleges and universities in the usa and europe. The liberal arts bullshit has come to an end. I saw all of this stuff, the whole language that is now mainstream. I saw all of it during its development. I spent loads of time around losers like Bell Hooks. A mentally ill pervert who preaches male hate through an manifesto of suedo communist, black nationalist, racist propaganda. The bitch needs to be sectioned. Seriously but these people were allowed to have much influence and I see how the ideology of their illness has spread. I was trained in marketing in a very famous school and I see how the language of marketing has been applied now to society. They got everyone talking in the language of the market. In the language of radical feminism. They took men and turned them against themselves and made center not the value of their well being. But the well being or women. Men are more concerned about protecting the concerns of women even at the cost of their existence. This my friend is conditioning. I studied it and know it well. All of it. It is a science. If I saw that I do not like chocolate ice cream your response automatically is to come to the defense of the chocolate flovor. To convince me that not all chocolate ice cream is bad. never can it be left alone that perhaps I simply reject chocolate icecream of all types and that it is my prorogative to not like it. I must be 'educated' by - You and then explained to that those who like chocolate icecream are 'empowered' and that there isnt anything I can do about. As if I am in some way projecting my personal choice onto others, or OPPRESSING them in some form. You cant see that in using certain language you participate in a system that does not promote free expression, opinion or free thought. The true oppressive act is to be found in the language of liberal arts. Because it projects the ideology of socio political conflict onto others throug ha system of selective language. Kind of like being PC, thus if I say that I dont like black gangsta people. The the pre-package label is then applied to suggest and absolute that I must dislike All black people. Though I never said that I did. An assumption about another becomes a political motive or objective. Contained within the language of liberal arts is a mechanism to prevent objective discussion. Its a skillful system of intellectual warfare. It has it founding in the communist paradigm. There is nothing selective or original about any of this. These are hard old true vices used to manipulate and modify collectively a society. There is no conspiracy about this, it is fact and it is a science. I have worked in marketing and I can tell you the systems that are used in place to make people more suggestive. Words like "empowered" are very much used to sum up a number of very clever marketing and political processes. The problem today in the west is that there is no dialog. The language used itself creates further conflict.

+1

designer wrote:

It is never proper for one group to be disenfranchised for the benefit of another. There is only so much "power", to "empower" one person often means dis-empowering another. Let's use racism as an example. Would it be correct to suggest that by "empowering" blacks economically and impoverishing whites americans would be in any kind of way proper? Would this bring about equality? or would it help to divide society and cause unrest? The use of the word 'empowerment' you must understand that that word often is used in popular media to describe something in terms of disenfranchisement of others through the redistribution of wealth or some other element or resource. It is usually paired with women's issues. Also this belief that you have that women are sleeping around is not so common in that it is not a viable market. If so there would be a massive demand for male p4p. Women are NOT Men and the so called redefinition of women's gender roles is has not resulted in some kind of massive shift. in fact it has been the doorway to much suffering and the degradation of the community and family. There is nothing liberating about the fall of humanity. As much as society tries to run from its normal pattern structure the greater the disconnectedness and insanity. I do not see women in any sort of liberated position. I see them as slaves, voluntary slavery. In ancient egypt the slaves were often kept naked. They were completely on the lowest level of humanity. Thus whenever I see a scantily clad woman I think the same thing. To me it does not represent freedom, it very much is a sign of conformity and control. Women's greatest enemies are themselves. I also want to respond to what you explain to be Men's "fear of women". M8, there is no fear. I do not fear women. I am not a capitalist so for me money is not something that equals 'power' and other bullshite. I see very little value in allowing ones self to be devalued by a system that places monetary value on human life. Western women to me are not 'empowered'. Many muslim and other so called oppressed women of the world have a greater understanding of their role as women and the value of being a woman. Of femininity and the rewards that come with investing in community, family and children. These kinds of investments bring about much greater rewards to the human family than if a woman can have a low end BMW. We all must be responsible in life and understand what we must do as individuals to help humanity. Yet in a capitalist society it all becomes about what you can have. Selfishness is absolute tops. There is certainly a culture of take take take vs giving. Women have been conditioned to consume. They are mindless in that way and are a threat to the survival of the human family. They care very little about others. There is only the 'me' and what I can get. What you define as equality in many ways becomes more about how can I get what the next man has. Or perhaps how can I take what the next man has. The very foundation of Western feminism is built upon the redistribution of wealth and 'power' from white males. It is about destroying men through a well constructed system of state endorsed programs and outright villainy. Sadly men in the west are too stupid to intellectualize these concepts. Instead they have been conditioned to accept this system and to defend it. The same process has been used many times. All of this is just a modified form of communism. Women serve the state, thus the state invests in them. Women are 'better' than men as being a part of the system. men act up, cause problems, ask questions. Like I do and damn me for doing so. A man who asks questions is often attacked by most women and other like minded men who reject his right to challenge the system. No matter if he is correct or not in his claims. Its all bullshit, this whole place but guess what? I dont give a damn. American/British women can go to hell. I am working hard to rid myself of this place and of them.

I will be short this time. I don't think "empowering" means the receiver of the powers will necessarily use them. It's always a matter of personal choice, self-determination as I explained above. If you see the struggles to gender equality haven't resulted in a revolutionary shift, well it's because they were not supposed to. You may want to take for granted historical achievements like women being able to vote, compete with men for good education and good careers, but they have been important markers of social progress in the last 100 years.

I don't subscribe to the idea that women are easily manipulated and aligned to the system because they don't have critical thinking and don't ask questions. The proportion of women among those who campaign for truth and against the rotting of our society, economy an politics is huge, probably close to 50%. We have the Gore Vidals and the Michael Chossudowskys but we also have the Naomi Kleins and the Eva Gollingers, to name a few. If you are implying that it takes assertiveness and intellectual courage to go against the system, modern women surely don't lack the culture and personality to develop and exhibit such qualities.

All in all, I agree with most of your arguments, I'm only seeing you locking in the wrong target. Of course you are worth more than a degree certificate, a bank account, or a lucrative career. Of course genius is not measured by the number of fans or zeroes on payslips. If you get criticised or ridiculed for challenging the status quo by men as well as women is because women, like men, have opinions and might defend them out of the same mix of genuine conviction and hypocrisy. But feeling an outcast for not aligning to the system of values of modern society is not something you can, and should, blame on women in particular. It's a systemic issue, it involves everybody, society at large.

In my travels to over 75 countries, Puerto Rican women proved to be the most obnoxious, entitled, feminist women I have ever encountered. Case closed.


_________________
Feel free to visit my sites and to leave your respected words of wisdom:

http://thedeclineofmyamerica.blogspot.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/ContrarianExpatriate

All_That_Is_Man wrote:

I'm gonna revise your list just a little bit...

1. PRETTY MUCH ALL AMERICAN BLACK FEMALES BORN AFTER 1970

2. AMERICAN-BORN FEMALES OF HISPANIC PARENTS

3. AMERICANIZED WANNABE-SNOBBISH AY-RAB FEMALES

4. AMERICAN WHITE FEMALES

5. CUNTY WHITEWASHED ASIAN-AMERICAN FEMALES

I would also like to add that these are in order from 1 being the worst to 5 being the lesser evil.


_________________
"Manginas grovel. Men travel." - me (04/17/2012)

"I used to be one of those men who believed that men are better than women at everything. Then I stood corrected!
Women are better than men at... getting fat." - me (02/24/2013)

Black women suck at life.

We could add also their Asian sisters.

-South Korea
-Singapour
-HK
-Taiwan
-Some part of China

All the arab,muslim countries where females are a prize to have, are a total no go zone for a man who wants easy interaction.

Last time in Thailand i met a Norwegian of Iraqi descent.
He told me that he went to Egypt and that it was the most shitty country he has ever been.
He had a Norwegian female friend and she was totally harrassed non stop.
They were like savages.

Nothing to do in these places,most women have to be covered or they would end up abused,aggressed by sexually frustrated males.
One of the last place to be on earth for easy going interaction with females.
You will have more chance to end up with a closet homo as these guys have nothing more to do than f**k themselves because females are so hidded.

Take this as my observation.

Countries like Thailand or the Phillipines are exception on this earth.

Few places or societies have smooth and easy going women to be met.


_________________
If a man talk dirty to a woman,it's called sexual harassment.
If a woman talk dirty to a man,it's 3.95 $ a minute.

You are all wrong the correct answer is the women where ever you live are always the worst followed closely by the next 4 nations that are most like your own. For most people here that means Australians, Americans, Brits, Canadians and Kiwis, in what ever order based on where your from.