Women cannot be Philosophers.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is weird. Are you stating that women can't think or reason?

[ForgedinHell]

This is weird. Are you stating that women can't think or reason?

I think what is going on is this guy can't keep up with women, who outthink him on a regular basis. Guys like this make me ashamed to admit I am a man. I thought this sexism garbage was long dead.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[reasonvemotion]

I get it, but it is not the first time all this has been questioned. It is presented in a new way. Satyr's way and it is impressive.

reasonvemotion wrote:

There is no "competition" for me, it always has been "my choice".

Outsider wrote:
Free-Will is the biggest Illusion

My next question is


Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traitsand characteristics while she condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice, based onwell thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate

I was under that illusion.

.In fact, she is merely following her genetic drive, her intuitive instinctivemotivations and her culture’s prejudiced beliefs.

She only becomes disconcerted when previous, evolved, sexual preferences,contradict current socially established man-made ones. Then she findsherself thinking one way while behaving in a manner which contradicts it.

this is where I need an example

[Outsider]

Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traitsand characteristics while she condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice, based onwell thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate

I was under that illusion.

Yes; another residue of the enlightenment values.

In fact, she is merely following her genetic drive, her intuitive instinctivemotivations and her culture’s prejudiced beliefs.

She only becomes disconcerted when previous, evolved, sexual preferences,contradict current socially established man-made ones. Then she findsherself thinking one way while behaving in a manner which contradicts it.

this is where I need an example

I'll choose not to answer that as its Satyr's thesis and no one can explain it better than him. He's far more experienced and well-aware in these matters than I, and so I'll let him answer that for you.
But, to give a quick example, the most obvious one that strikes me is Princess Diana. Gets married in a 'fairy-tale' romance to a well-established superrich Prince, a "nice guy", plays the social-role well; and yet no amount of social pressure, status, responsibility as a princess - nothing could stop her from natural genetic drive to go for the 'bad' guy - the 'play boy' greek millionaire. Blood-instinct and natural genetic drives always speak louder and no amount of money, status of belonging to a prince, living up to the social image, etc. can put down this natural drive.
If my example is a wrong one to reflect what Satyr has said there, he can correct me.

[Outsider]

This is weird. Are you stating that women can't think or reason?

Darling.

[Outsider]

Sounds like women putting up with men to me.

Haven't they always, as they should. The Feminine is Endurance. That is its natural biological predisposition.
Some women also Celebrate Man, and not just put up.

I would maintain that there has been very little change for thousands of years, and that women are putting up with these endless cycles of war, revolution and usurpance - which are not changes in themselves, but repetitions.

Exactly. Because that's the level of repetitive stagnation those feminized men could amount to. But these stagnations always also provide a counter-stimulus and a parallel environment for real males to overthrow. Every repetition still adds something "new". It is never exactly 'the' same. Every war is a stimulus and a catharsis.

They are not as capable as men are in consolidating the changes they bring.

Because females are no longer females. Thus.

[Outsider]

I get it, but it is not the first time all this has been questioned. It is presented in a new way. Satyr's way and it is impressive.

I missed this bit. No, then you are not paying attention.
The repercussions of modernity and what Feminism entails and tracing it back to Judaeo-Christian values was done till Nietzsche, Ludovici, and Evola the last. Satyr's thesis is phenomenal. It traces how Judaeo-Christian values have Morphed today into a plethora of mutations that set to Blur and obliterate Reality itself into artificial domains. The previous philosophers worked within the framework of reality; Satyr's vision traces the spill into the blurring line that could make Man the Male in the authentic bio-genetic-spiritual sense extinct leaving technological drones and mindless sex-puppets.
Read the whole work.

[reasonvemotion]

I'll choose not to answer that as its Satyr's thesis and no one can explain it better than him. He's far more experienced and well-aware in these matters than I, and so I'll let him answer that for you.
But, to give a quick example, the most obvious one that strikes me is Princess Diana. Gets married in a 'fairy-tale' romance to a well-established superrich Prince, a "nice guy", plays the social-role well; and yet no amount of social pressure, status, responsibility as a princess - nothing could stop her from natural genetic drive to go for the 'bad' guy - the 'play boy' greek millionaire. Blood-instinct and natural genetic drives always speak louder and no amount of money, status of belonging to a prince, living up to the social image, etc. can put down this natural drive.
If my example is a wrong one to reflect what Satyr has said there, he can correct me.

Thank you for this.

I think I recall that the "family" did not approve of her affair with the greek, he was considered rather below their status and perhaps she did get involved with him simply as revenge, to establish her freedom from them. I do recall reading something about this. He was rich enough for her, but I don't think anything would have come from it. They were decidedly mismatched. The father wanted her in the family purely as a status symbol, you see they had the wealth, but not the class. There wasnt anything they could give her she didnt already have.

But I understand what you mean, the choice is not always appropriate for the chooser.

[Outsider]

I'll choose not to answer that as its Satyr's thesis and no one can explain it better than him. He's far more experienced and well-aware in these matters than I, and so I'll let him answer that for you.
But, to give a quick example, the most obvious one that strikes me is Princess Diana. Gets married in a 'fairy-tale' romance to a well-established superrich Prince, a "nice guy", plays the social-role well; and yet no amount of social pressure, status, responsibility as a princess - nothing could stop her from natural genetic drive to go for the 'bad' guy - the 'play boy' greek millionaire. Blood-instinct and natural genetic drives always speak louder and no amount of money, status of belonging to a prince, living up to the social image, etc. can put down this natural drive.
If my example is a wrong one to reflect what Satyr has said there, he can correct me.

Thank you for this.

I think I recall that the "family" did not approve of her affair with the greek, he was considered rather below their status and perhaps she did get involved with him simply as revenge, to establish her freedom from them. I do recall reading something about this. He was rich enough for her, but I don't think anything would have come from it. They were decidedly mismatched. The father wanted her in the family purely as a status symbol, you see they had the wealth, but not the class. There wasnt anything they could give her she didnt already have.

But I understand what you mean, the choice is not always appropriate for the chooser.

What I'm noting more than that is not if he would have proved a good match or not, but its the fling, that cannot be resisted no matter what a powerful status you've been gifted with. A Princess of a Nation... and yet... she can't control her natural instincts. It acts out.

[Satyr]

The imposition of a limit upon female power consists in the imposition of a limit on her sexual choices.
It is this which females resent and call Paternalism...yet, without it, and its cultural codes: monogamy, morality, marriage...civilization as we've known it would not have been possible.

The shift is occurring after centuries of feminization, shaping a more docile, effete, tolerant, dependent masculine mind - a more effete, beta-male; add to this technologies, themselves a product of male competitiveness, which have made male attributed marketable, one of which being the technologies, the techniques, the innovations, in husbandry, where force is no longer required to control the masses; add to that the absence of frontiers, except for the internal ones...and you've got the expandability of biological males.
This is where we are now.

But there is one form of monogamy which is more noble since it is based no discrimination and embracing need.
Take a sophisticated female, one with the mental faculties that exceed the average of both females and males.
Such a female naturally drawn to the superior, to the higher form of order, and one released from her social and cultural shackles, will not find it easy to find a male to settle for.
The average male, for her, would be like a beast to her; copulating with him, reproducing his seed, would almost be like bestiality.

For such a rare female monogamy would be a fact, simply because there would be few who could inspire her to be as promiscuous as she has evolved to be.

[reasonvemotion]

It wont happen. As we all know the majority rules in all things human. She would probably be ridiculed and ostracised from society.

[Satyr]

It wont happen. As we all know the majority rules in all things human. She would probably be exterminated instantly.

This is not so.
I've met a few.
She lives a life of quiet desperation. She denies her flesh and becomes totally immersed in her mind; she turns more masculine, rejecting her feminine side, to the point where she can no longer give herself to a man as she once wanted to.

[reasonvemotion]

She lives a life of quiet desperation. She denies her flesh and becomes totally immersed in her mind; she turns more masculine, rejecting her feminine side, to the point where she can no longer give herself to a man as she once wanted to.

That is fear. Fear has taken over her natural ability because of the prolonged absence of expressing her sexuality. It could return, but it would take patience, reassurance and restraint in the man who wished to change this altered state she unwittingly put herself in.