Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by 3Sum » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:52 pm

In this thread I'll explain why I think the current way many approach how the two human gender relate/compare to each other in society fails to adequately explain it, and I will propose my own explanation.

Let's start with the obvious. All except the most insane of the feminists and MRAs will agree that male and female are 2 biologically different sexes, meant to fulfill distinct but complimentary roles. So, we can establish that the sexes are not equal - men are superior at some things, and women are superior at others. In my experience I'd say that MRAs are generally a bit more receptive to this information than feminists, but another time about that.

Despite recognizing the differences between males and females, many of these very same MRAs and feminists will also argue that men and women should be "equal under the law". I will show why equality under the law fails.


Since men and women are different when you make them equal under the law, depending on with regards to what you made them equal about, you are benefiting either one side or the other. I've discussed this concept a lot on PhilosophyForums and I'd link to the specific thread, but unfortunately that site has been fucked for quite some time now so I'll just explain it shortly here:

Let's say there is a race between an ostrich and an eagle. If the law/rule of the race is: no flying, then the ostrich and the eagle may be equal under that law in the sense that they are both equally banned from flying, and yet the law clearly handicaps the eagle, and by handicapping the eagle it benefits the ostrich. Likewise, if the rule/law stated no running, that would benefit the eagle even if they were both equally banned from running.

This is, in short, why equality under the law fails. Because different entities have different advantages and disadvantages, if they are held to the same law, that same law will affect them differently - one will benefit, the other will be handicapped. So I don't think what we need is equality, I think what we need is something more akin to BALANCE, or rather, BALANC-ING, since absolute balance would be impossible. Something close to what traditionalists advocate but more based on a scientific, evolutionary understanding of reality instead of just tradition.

So it is clear that in order to create a fair society (by natural standards) we must take into account what men evolved for and what women evolved to see what either side has to offer (what their advantages/disadvantages are) so we can predict how certain laws would affect the two sides differently, and to try to balance it out. Keep in mind though, that this is a matter of which sex is GENERALLY better suited for something, not that EVERY member of a sex must be superior in that aspect to every member of the opposite sex.

What men have to offer to women is protection (dealing with threats) and provision (extraction of resources from the environment), this includes both the physical aspect of doing it and the intellectual aspect of coming up with more refined ways of dealing with threats/extracting resources. Essentially, dealing with the external world, reality, nature is the most important thing men can offer to women, and what makes masculinity irreplaceable. The second thing is sperm, less important because it is abundant in relation to eggs.
What women have to offer to men is, primarily, access to reproduction - their pussy and, more importantly, womb. This is what makes females irreplaceable. The secondary thing females can offer is homemaking (dealing with the internal world, a man's home), this is less important because men can do it themselves.

So far it seems balance is had. I am reminded of the movie blue lagoon, which to some extent has this scenario of balance and harmony between male and female, displaying male/female interactions in their purest, most natural form, without any external interventions.

What disrupts the balance between males and females is when the state, a masculine force, intervenes and begins determining the behavior of its subordinates. This can result in balance which favors males, or balance which favors females, by replacing certain things that individual males and/or females have to offer, which reduces the value of these males/females since they can obtain what the other has to offer from the state directly. The law of the market dictates that if something is scarce and/or difficult to obtain it is valuable, while if it is abundant and/or easy to obtain, it loses value.

Although in principle it could go either way, in practice, since the state is a masculine entity, it by necessity replaces more of what males have to offer than what females have to offer. It makes what males have to offer (protection, provision) easy to obtain, and thus less valuable. Depending on circumstances, it also replaces what females have to offer, varying from high replacement (the most oppressive patriarchy you can imagine) to low replacement (the most feminist society you can imagine).

I'll shorten state replacement to SR, and M will stand for males, while F for females. (-) will mean state replacement is not present, aka, male/female retain their value, + indicates state replacement is present, which makes individual males/females less valuable.

The following combinations thus exist, 2 of them are balanced and about different types of equality (just to show feminists what REAL equality would mean. Neither equality 1 nor 2 or any of their more moderate forms have ever existed, since a state of equality is impossible and societies have always and will always lean a little bit more to either gyno or andro centrism. The other 2 are about the actual kinds of societies which have and will exist, the only kinds of societies possible. What follows are 4 extremes on a spectrum similar to the famous political compass 4 side spectrum, of course there are also positions inbetween, in fact, the only reason I'm showing the extremes is so you can understand all that is inbetween by implication.


1. SRM+ SRF+ (state replaces both men and women completely) EQUALITY TYPE 1

The state replaces both what men have to offer to women, and what women have to offer to men. Men don't have the control who to protect and provide for, while women don't have the control over to whom they grant access to their womb/vagina, basically everybody protects and provides for everybody and everybody fucks everybody and this is enforced by... everybody. A sort of communism mixed with hippie sexuality in its most extreme form, a truly non-discriminate and tolerant society and yet something feminists would never advocate for.

2. SRM+ and SRF- (state replaces men completely women not at all) GYNOCENTRISM, FEMALES GENERALLY BENEFIT

The state replaces what men have to offer to women, aka, it forces men to protect women and provide for them while not replacing what women have to offer, instead women are given complete freedom to use the benefits of their own sexuality which is physically ensured by other men (police/military). This raises the value of females in relation to men. The extreme of this part of spectrum is feminist utopia, more moderate is gynocentric traditionalism. Due to the above mentioned fact that the state itself is a masculine entity, on the more moderate side of this part of the spectrum one can find the average, the most common type of society throughout history and especially in modernity, with regards to gender relations - some form of gynocentric traditionalism.

3. SRM- and SRF+ (state replaces females but not males) ANDROCENTRISM - MALES GENERALLY BENEFIT

In this case men can choose who to protect and provide for (so no police/military protecting women and threatening men and no general transfer of resources from men to women through taxation), so they are given the advantages of their sexuality, while women are not given the advantages of theirs and the access to their womb/pussy is controlled by men, so women don't have anything left to offer and the value of men is higher than the value of women. THIS is actual male oppression of women, not the nonsense feminists talk about. Perhaps a few ancient, patriarchal (androcentric) traditionalist societies which were warrior cultures existed on this part of the spectrum, albeit in a more moderate form. Also possible during short transitory stages of anarchy, where there is nobody to keep males in check and they can naturally dominate females. The prevalent type of society when many men die in wars and thus women become abundant in relation to men.

4. SRM- SRF- (state replaces neither females nor males) EQUALITY TYPE 2

In this type of equality men have the complete freedom to choose whom to protect and provide for (no state forcing police and military to protect all women and no state taxing men and transferring resources from men to women under threats of violence), and women have complete freedom to choose whom to grant access to their womb/vagina to (no state controlling female sexuality under threats of violence).


Neither equality 1 nor 2 or any of their more moderate forms have ever existed, since a state of equality is impossible and societies have always and will always lean a little bit more to either gyno or andro centrism. I included the equalities just to show how absurd and impossible they are, and that it's not what any feminist would ever want.

3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by 3Sum » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:54 pm

[youtube]8nSSIBQcMGA[/youtube]

This video gets to the core of feminism, explaining its very origins.

Feminism is just the consequence of women forgetting that the world, the human world of social constructs, isn't built on 'proper grammar', 'correct political opinions', or 'nice manners'. It is a consequences of women beginning to take masculine protection/provision for granted and starting to think that whatever comfort they enjoy is purely a consequence of their own success, and has nothing to do with the infrastructure backing them - that if anything, men are the ones who always held them back. It is the inversion of reality.

Like when the spoiled child of a successful man inherits wealth and thinks he deserved it himself.

The world of human social constructs becomes THE WORLD for them, and any trace of THE WORLD, nature as it is, becomes cruel, evil and oppressive.

I've also noticed this lack of balance myself, by just observing real life. It was always odd to me how my uncle has to do a backbreaking physical job 8 hours a day for a month (a minimum of 200 hours of work) to get the same pay a prostitute can get in less than 1 day of work, which is less than 8 hours.

Neither of the two jobs require any sort of training, but the former can only be done by a man and the latter can only be done by a woman, so they are a good example of how little masculinity is valued in relation to femininity when men are restricted from acting upon the advantages of masculine sexuality and dominating females to determine the price of pussy (should go without saying, but just in case - this does NOT necessarily mean rape), while females can fully use the advantages of their own sexuality. Naturally, this means that the price of what females have to offer skyrockets, while the price of what males have to offer is lowered, since the protection/provision of any individual male cannot match that of the daddy state.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2831
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:09 am

I have devised a nice way of dealing with gender - ignore it. People are people. Are they competent, reasonable and or interest? The rest is detail. To this end it helped to give up sex and relationships along with work a few years ago, figuring it was a greater source of aggravation and constriction for me than joy and growth.

From that somewhat-removed standpoint, any prescription of gender roles appears silly, childish and pointless. Primal games that too often cause harm in a modern context. When I watch people engaging in gender-based display behaviours I feel embarrassed, not only for them, but more so for myself, recalling my own cringeworthy display behaviours in years past. Living a dignified life is much harder than it looks.

Bottom line: While grouping provides some information about people, it's pretty shallow. Judging the individual will yield a more accurate impression of reality. Sometimes we prefer politics to "getting real". That's something I'm working on. I see politics of all types (including sexual politics) that does not involve positive engagement with a group doing work on the cause's behalf to be a ticket to pointless stress and unhappiness.

// 2c

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Post by TSBU » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:28 pm

Greta wrote:I have devised a nice way of dealing with gender - ignore it. People are people. Are they competent, reasonable and or interest? The rest is detail.

Image

Walker
Posts: 4098
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Walker » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:22 pm


3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Re:

Post by 3Sum » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:13 pm

TSBU wrote:
Greta wrote:I have devised a nice way of dealing with gender - ignore it. People are people. Are they competent, reasonable and or interest? The rest is detail.

Image
It would indeed be favorable for you Greta, at least in the short term, that people ignore gender relations now that the system is so heavily in favor of females (I presume you live in Europe or North America).

In the long run however, the current Western system is not sustainable and unless some drastic changes happen, it will be replaced by a superior, more patriarchal system.

Degeneracy and weakness cannot go unpunished. The only question is: Will the West awaken in time to change itself and fight back, or will it get conquered? Remains to be seen.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2831
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Re:

Post by Greta » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:59 pm

3Sum wrote:
TSBU wrote:
Greta wrote:I have devised a nice way of dealing with gender - ignore it. People are people. Are they competent, reasonable and or interest? The rest is detail.


It would indeed be favorable for you Greta, at least in the short term, that people ignore gender relations now that the system is so heavily in favor of females (I presume you live in Europe or North America).

In the long run however, the current Western system is not sustainable and unless some drastic changes happen, it will be replaced by a superior, more patriarchal system.

Degeneracy and weakness cannot go unpunished. The only question is: Will the West awaken in time to change itself and fight back, or will it get conquered? Remains to be seen.
I suggest exactly the opposite. The success of the west - and China - comes to a fair extent through the maximal use of their "human resources", with double the field from which to choose from for their "best and brightest". A patriarchal system is wasteful and ultimately weaker than an egalitarian one.

3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by 3Sum » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:10 pm

You obviously haven't read the OP. It's long and perhaps boring, can't blame you. But I do blame you that you try to argue without having read it.

EDIT: I'll post here, as this thread is more appropriate for the topic of discussion

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=21494#p301194
Greta wrote:
3Sum wrote:Who ever said anything about going with muscles against technology? Out-competed, how?
Out competed economically, technologically, organisationally and intellectually - in just about every way a society can out compete another. All of the dominant societies are those that allow women to actualise.
Ah, I see. You're confused.

Economic, technological... success is a PRODUCT of patriarchal systems. Once a patriarchal system reaches success, THEN feminist/matriarchal (what you call egalitarian) tendencies set in and ruin everything slowly.

You will not find a single society which was matriarchal at its roots and which out-competed other, patriarchal societies with its matriarchal system, all other factors equal.

Maybe a picture will illustrate this idea better:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy2h1kqVEAApcmH.jpg

When a patriarchy has successfully dominated the natural environment and built a sheltering bubble we call human society within it (creating good times), THEN, after all the hard work has already been done, we will see weak men (and women) grow in number, take over the system, make it more matriarchal and then claim falsely, like you do, that all the past successes are a consequence of matriarchy (inverting the reality, which is that matriarchy is a consequence of past successes), all the while destroying everything their ancestors have built while thinking not only that they are not destroying it, but that they are making "progress". It is a complete, utter, shameless inversion of reality.

The only time a matriarchy exists in nature is if masculine roles I outlined in my OP (protection and provision) are provided for by nature - f.e. if a society is geographically isolated by a mountain range and thus physically inaccessible which protects it from conquest, and if it is in an environment with naturally abundant resources, taking care of provision.

The current feminized Western system cannot even do something as basic as get population birthrates to replacement levels.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2831
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:37 pm

3Sum wrote:
Greta wrote:
3Sum wrote:Who ever said anything about going with muscles against technology? Out-competed, how?
Out competed economically, technologically, organisationally and intellectually - in just about every way a society can out compete another. All of the dominant societies are those that allow women to actualise.
Ah, I see. You're confused.

Economic, technological... success is a PRODUCT of patriarchal systems. Once a patriarchal system reaches success, THEN feminist/matriarchal (what you call egalitarian) tendencies set in and ruin everything slowly.
It's irrational to associate egalitarianism with hubris. Unconnected. The kind of irrationality you are promoting is a feature of patriarchal societies and is actually the reason why they are being so dominated by egalitarian countries today. It's not even close - patriarchal societies today are the weak.

Robots are thousands of times stronger than humans, so physical strength means very little today outside of specialist occupations. Unless patriarchal societies evolve and progress to egalitarian ones they will continue to be weak and uncompetitive.

Studies show that the most patriarchal societies in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east. It appears to me that patriarchy = weakness and dysfunction. The evidence is there. Meanwhile, all you have is speculation that is "grounded" on a deeply biased worldview.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:58 pm

Another sicko, or do you have several accounts? Are you suggesting that modern societies are 'matriarchal'? They are neither, idiot. Go and live in a patriarchal society then. Who's stopping you? I'm sure Iran or Somalia would welcome you with open arms.

3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by 3Sum » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:53 pm

Like I said, patriarchy is one of conditions for a sustainable high civilization but not the only one. Another is high average IQ of the population - something which the countries you mention lack.

The West now still has the firepower to defeat Muslims, but it has that firepower BECAUSE of previous patriarchal influences, and it is now losing it BECAUSE of matriarchal influences, which you could also call feminist/liberal/leftist, different names for denoting different aspects of disordering/entropy/chaos.

There are species where matriarchy is the superior way of organizing society, hyenas are an example. But not humans.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:01 am

3Sum wrote:Like I said, patriarchy is one of conditions for a sustainable high civilization but not the only one. Another is high average IQ of the population - something which the countries you mention lack.

The West now still has the firepower to defeat Muslims, but it has that firepower BECAUSE of previous patriarchal influences, and it is now losing it BECAUSE of matriarchal influences, which you could also call feminist/liberal/leftist, different names for denoting different aspects of disordering/entropy/chaos.

There are species where matriarchy is the superior way of organizing society, hyenas are an example. But not humans.
Where to start? You are a seriously sick individual. Enjoy wallowing in your own excrement.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2831
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Greta » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:03 am

3Sum wrote:There are species where matriarchy is the superior way of organizing society, hyenas are an example. But not humans.
Nah, you're off beam all round on this. These things change. Before technology the environment largely decided the status of women. In rich lands and those where vegetation was in much greater supply than meat there was greater equality because women could contribute equally to food. Eskimo women, however, were treated as chattel, men's possessions, because hunting was the main source of food.

Since status is largely conferred by perceived contribution, in a technological society women can contribute equally and thus need not be subjugated. There no sound logic in subjugating half of the people in modern society because they might not be as physically strong as the other half.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:12 am

DUH!
Usual disabling binary thinking which places all men as grunts are all women and child bearers.

Fact is that gender is a spectrum; and not even a linear one at that.

Humans come in many shapes and sizes. Some boys are born effeminate and some girls are born masculine. But it does not just stop there. XYY men exist, as well as XXY. These present a range of definitive problems. There are others whose gender confuses attempts to generalise into the binary opposition that society would demand. Biologically gender orientation is not only determined by differing amounts of hormones in each of us, but in our own body's ability to react to those hormones.
Far from being determined simply by XY, or XX chromosomes, gender is also determined by a range of genes independent of theses particular hormones.
And I've not even started on historical, cultural, social and familial attitudes which base expectations and anticipations on roles expected of us as we enter puberty.

GRETA nailed this thread.
Treat people as they want to be treated and accept their choices. There is NOTHING "to deal with". Like it or lump it- it's no one's business but their own, the choices people want to make.

3Sum
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Re: Gender relations - another way of looking at them

Post by 3Sum » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:32 am

Greta wrote:
3Sum wrote:There are species where matriarchy is the superior way of organizing society, hyenas are an example. But not humans.
Nah, you're off beam all round on this. These things change. Before technology the environment largely decided the status of women. In rich lands and those where vegetation was in much greater supply than meat there was greater equality because women could contribute equally to food. Eskimo women, however, were treated as chattel, men's possessions, because hunting was the main source of food.

Since status is largely conferred by perceived contribution, in a technological society women can contribute equally and thus need not be subjugated. There no sound logic in subjugating half of the people in modern society because they might not be as physically strong as the other half.
So you still haven't read my post? I explained all this.

The fundamental principles don't change, no, they remain the same regardless of technological advancements. The current technology and the way society is structured replaces what males have to offer (protection/provision) but not what females have to offer, resulting in imbalance and explaining why equality under law doesn't necessarily mean actual equality, which would be balance. So if anybody is "subjugated", it's men.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and Africans and middle-easterners are invading European countries under the name of immigration and have extremely high birthrates, while Europeans are in a state of decline and can't even get birthrates to replacement levels. You really don't see that as a potential problem in the future?

But I think we need to bring this discussion to an end, since you obviously aren't interested in actually reading the thread before arguing. You keep doing what you do and continue to promote ideals which are weakening the West and pray that you are never forced to face the consequences of your political choices. No worries, most women are protected from the consequences of their choices, but the few that do face the consequences of following their degenerate, delusional ideals... ever heard of Pippa Bacca, maybe?

Or these women, who wanted to bring in immigrants, and they did, then they faced the consequences...

http://madworldnews.com/wp-content/uplo ... 20x624.jpg

The most critical thing is detachment of authority from responsibility. Women like you are given the authority over political decisions but if it comes to war you would never be forced to actually be held responsible for those decisions. You constantly weaken the country but when it comes to paying the price of that weakening in a war, you will demand men do so and go to war to defend your political decisions... well, I say FUCK THAT.

And even if by some miracle you WERE forced to go to war, you wouldn't be as effective in combat as a man anyway. This is why I think women never should have been given authority in the first place, because most of them have neither the capacity nor the desire to fulfill the responsibilities which come with that authority.
Usual disabling binary thinking which places all men as grunts are all women and child bearers.
I never said that and everything else that follows in your post is based on this strawman. Yes, it is a matter of degree and not absolutes, I never claimed otherwise. If you read my thread you would know this, quoting my OP:
this is a matter of which sex is GENERALLY better suited for something, not that EVERY member of a sex must be superior in that aspect to every member of the opposite sex.
But you keep building strawmen and knocking them down. You fit right in with others here who can't read and those who come here only to insult and nothing else.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest