A philosophy for arguing with wives

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- Wow! Quite a broadside! You are right that my crusade gives me a sense of importance and confidence with women, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Neither does it make me very clever. If I’ve got it right, every man already has all this ‘definitive truth’ I am spouting -- the only problem is that it is in his subconscious. So there’s nothing very special about me at all -- I’’m just the first one for a while to write this primal knowledge down, and then broadcast it to other men. I also broadcast it to women because I’m afraid that men need women’s permission, before they dare think along these lines.

I fear we will just have to agree to differ on who’s on top at present -- we will otherwise wear each other out. As for a man feeling a ‘supreme being’, I recommend no such thing. Man and woman are equal as human beings, we just have different roles. The submissive role is just as important as the dominant role -- however hard the feminists try to trash it. God only knows why they worship male roles over female roles so much: any respectable woman has a healthy disdain for them, as you do.

Man is good at single-mindedness, leading, constructing ideas, making rules and sticking by them. Woman is good at multi-tasking, following leaders, finding flaws in ideas, bending and breaking rules. Many women get their way simply by complaining and insulting, as you are trying to do to me right now. (Don't worry, I can take it). The trouble is, instead of feeling responsible, men have now started complaining too. I am trying very hard not to do that.

You are very free with the word ‘evolution’. I prefer to reserve it for Darwin’s genetic evolution -- pretty much irreversible. Changing social habits, on the other hand, are eminently reversible -- by government (like smoking), by war or by revolution, if necessary. Many of the changes wrought by feminism, for example, are undoable if we decide they are wrong. You are using the word ‘evolution’, I believe, to give a false sense of permanence to your ideas … as if it is all part of progress, and you can’t turn back the hands of time. Am I right?

You say my view is too small and is all about MEN, MEN, MEN. No, it is all about men and women, but from a male perspective. You women are allowing the feminists to represent you, and through them you are trying to put men down as low as possible. When either the feminists (especially Women’s Studies) are dramatically reduced, or when the men’s movement has a similar number of troops in the field (Women’s Studies has around one million students, spread around the world), only then will things start to come to the balance you and I seek.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pm Man and woman are equal as human beings, we just have different roles.
Who made up the roles you are referring to? Are such ideas not subject to evolve as humans expand their understanding and awareness?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pmMan is good at single-mindedness...
Okay
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pm[Man is good at]...leading, constructing ideas, making rules and sticking by them.
More than women? Absolute nonsense. Do you know how much women do this every day?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pmWoman is good at multi-tasking
Okay
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pm[Woman is good at]...following leaders, finding flaws in ideas, bending and breaking rules.
What kind of contorted crap is this, Duncan? How can you say such obviously contrived and skewed nonsense, and expect to have any credibility? Not only is this list shriveled and weakened in comparison to your bold list of "male qualities", but this list absolutely applies to men equally. Don't massive amounts of men follow leaders... and very foolish leaders, at that? Aren't men inclined to find flaws in just about everything in life... as well as bending and breaking rules? C'mon, Duncan... you're making this all up to suit your agenda. And it's dishonest.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pmMany women get their way simply by complaining and insulting, as you are trying to do to me right now.
I'm authentically calling you out on your dishonesty and delusional statements. Your sneaky insults and twisted claims are childish and obvious, no matter how you try to disguise them and pretend to be "above" that. There's nothing wrong with me having a little fun in responding to such outrageous baloney. If you want to play this game, you need to know women much better than you think you do. So far, you've not demonstrated that you fathom much at all.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pmYou are using the word ‘evolution’, I believe, to give a false sense of permanence to your ideas
Wow... that idea doesn't even make sense to me. Sounds like the way YOU think. I use the word "evolution" to describe nature's process of sifting through possibilities and manifestations in order to promote and maintain efficiency and balance within a vast expanding system. Change and flow and growth are essential for life. Stagnancy and rigidity are a type of death.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pmYou say my view is too small and is all about MEN, MEN, MEN. No, it is all about men and women, but from a male perspective.
So you think your perspective represents a MALE perspective, rather than just your own head trip? And that somehow you uniquely are the first one conscious enough to speak of this "primal truth", which most men are UNCONSCIOUS of (as you say). So, either, you're saying that men are not very smart and aware OR you're making this up to glorify yourself? Since there are a lot of very aware and evolved men on this planet, it seems strange that they do not think the way you do -- which seems to point to: you're making this up.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:40 pmYou women are allowing the feminists to represent you, and through them you are trying to put men down as low as possible.
All of the women I've encountered represent themselves. Don't downplay the capability of individual women just because you're unsettled by the unified roar being heard around the world. Women are very independent and self-sufficient when men aren't stripping away their abilities, so that the women must then be dependent on the men. Why don't you address that messed-up dynamic?

No, I'm not trying to "put men down as low as possible" -- I try to hold ANYONE accountable when and where appropriate for the crazy crap they spew (and men throughout history have put themselves into positions to dishonestly spew a lot of crap). I may be inspired to get very vocal in response to that... which leads to the entertainment and insights that help make this forum worth my energy, in the absence of truly inspired discussions. :D
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- Oh, you disappoint me: you judge our exchanges are ‘entertainment’ -- not “truly inspired discussions.” You add that you are just, “having a little fun”. For me our discussion means a whole lot more. I am trying to improve my whole philosophy of life by talking to you. I am absolutely convinced that you know something important to me, that I myself don’t know. For me it is just a question of talking truthfully for long enough -- until we come to trust each other enough -- and then we will discover this truth. Hopefully I will have something for you, too.

I am also saddened that you judge me dishonest -- several times. I am speaking as truthfully as I know how, as far as I’m concerned, though of course I must have got some things wrong. You can judge my sincerity by my willingness to expose myself: I use my real name, I reveal my address, email and phone number, and on my website I lay out all my main ideas. Doesn’t that reassure you a little? I even confess shameful things like my stay in prison and addiction to pornography. Believe me, Lacewing, I am sure I am being at least as honest as you.

You agree with my first characterisation of male and female roles (single-mindedness versus multi-tasking), but disagree with all the rest. Would you please tell me what differences you believe in, and I will see if I agree with yours?

Three times you accuse me of ‘making things up’. You’ve got me! Not in the sense of a pack of lies, but in the sense of me developing a theory for which I have very little or no evidence. In my essay, ‘Talking Truthfully’, I have got around this problem by describing the phenomenon I am theorising about, and then asking the reader to go out and prove its existence for himself. In this way the reader provides his own evidence. Since I am dealing with social behaviour, I think this is an eminently satisfactory way to proceed. You, I worry, may not be so impressed.

Why do you dislike women being dependent on men? And presumably you also don’t want men to be dependent on women? I loved being dependent on my wife, and loved she was dependent on me, except at the very end. I think marriage and nuclear families are essential to the future of the human race. I know it is fashionable for everyone to be equal, independent, atomised individuals, but I also think it is wrong. Marriage, community, civil society -- these are the things that hold us together.

(paragraph added an hour after posting) Damn, I’m trying to be honest, and yet I failed to address your most important point. Sorry. You asked how come I, Duncan Butlin, appear to be the only man in the world who can see these truths? Well, first of all it’s not just me: several of my friends are nearly on board -- they just don’t want to out themselves in public, yet. Second, I’ve had the luck to be exposed to many extremes in life, both good and bad, and lived in several countries. I learnt a lot about eye contact while I was in prison, for example, where it was rather important for survival.

My most extraordinary qualification is my mental illness -- I’ve been in and out of mental hospitals for fifteen years now, and I’ve gone completely mad five times (for a few days each time). No-one was hurt or even offended, but each time I thought I was captain of the universe. Together with my prison sentence, I believe I have cost the country over £1 million -- to my undying shame. “Surely,” you say, “this disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again?” Maybe, or maybe it has provided me with greater insight than most people. I can promise you I am not captain of the universe at the moment. You will have to judge me for yourself.

My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 am you judge our exchanges are ‘entertainment’ -- not “truly inspired discussions.” You add that you are just, “having a little fun”. For me our discussion means a whole lot more.
You don't see them as very funny???
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amI am trying to improve my whole philosophy of life by talking to you. I am absolutely convinced that you know something important to me, that I myself don’t know.
Don't try to sweet talk me into some state of malleable or sympathetic stupor. You've already revealed what you're about.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amI am also saddened that you judge me dishonest -- several times. I am speaking as truthfully as I know how, as far as I’m concerned, though of course I must have got some things wrong.
Can you not see -- as is being pointed out to you -- how you are skewing things inaccurately? Does that not matter to you? If it's not dishonesty... is it ignorance? Either way, how much credibility can you have when you do such things?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amYou can judge my sincerity by my willingness to expose myself: I use my real name, I reveal my address, email and phone number, and on my website I lay out all my main ideas. Doesn’t that reassure you a little?
Some of the most mentally-unbalanced people who have been on this forum have revealed such information about themselves.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amBelieve me, Lacewing, I am sure I am being at least as honest as you.
Well, you certainly don't know me, and perhaps you are in denial about what your own level of honesty actually is. :)
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amYou agree with my first characterisation of male and female roles (single-mindedness versus multi-tasking), but disagree with all the rest. Would you please tell me what differences you believe in, and I will see if I agree with yours?
Why are you putting this to me instead of addressing the skewed representations you've made? I'm not making your argument of differences... you are.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amThree times you accuse me of ‘making things up’. You’ve got me! Not in the sense of a pack of lies, but in the sense of me developing a theory for which I have very little or no evidence.
:lol: :lol:
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 am In my essay, ‘Talking Truthfully’, I have got around this problem by describing the phenomenon I am theorising about, and then asking the reader to go out and prove its existence for himself.
How can you NOT think this is hilariously absurd?

Why would anyone with a reasonable brain of their own, spend their time and energy researching your cockamamie idea that has very little or no evidence, in order to prove its existence for themselves... and save you the responsibility?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amWhy do you dislike women being dependent on men? And presumably you also don’t want men to be dependent on women?
I DON'T mind that in a reasonable sense at all. I mind the way YOU characterized women as allowing someone else to represent them -- and I mind men restricting women (around the world) from capabilities, so that the women MUST be dependent on the men. Don't you see the latter as cruelty and oppression driven by ego and ignorance?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:59 amI think marriage and nuclear families are essential to the future of the human race.
I think communities are more realistic and essential for a healthy future. Like small tribes that watch out for each other, and maintain and inspire balance, together. Rather than a bunch of individuals trying to do everything alone... and becoming psychotic from LACK of balance and love and meaningful exchange. In a tribe, there could be enough accountability that there would be no tolerance of anyone dominating or abusing others. The tribe would take care of it in some appropriate way. Victims would know that they would be heard and protected. And people would be more aware of the ripple effects of their actions extending to those around them.

Family units might be fine for some, but you create unnecessary and unhealthy limitations by imposing such standards (and sometimes archaic notions) on a vast range of people and situations and the expansion of the future!

Here's my impression: Until you/we agree that ONLY SEEING THINGS ONE WAY is extraordinarily limited and controlled, as well as NOT truthful... then there can be no honest discussion/exchange. Because everything becomes an exercise in trying to prove oneself right (in that one way)... or preventing oneself from being proven wrong (of that one way)... and there's just no real value in that ego dance (other than entertainment). I feel compelled to challenge people who seem unrealistically tightly bound to specific platforms and nonsensical claims. There's an urge to want to release the ties that bind, interrupt "the spin", and point to broader truths -- but then typically (at least online) people often tighten the bindings even more and spin faster... sometimes to a manic degree. Must.. maintain.. self-serving delusion/identity.. at all costs! :) The entire interaction is an interesting and humorous look at ourselves.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- Wonderful! We agree about the importance of community. I enjoyed your characterisation of the intimate social nature of life in a tribe. Sad you don’t have much time for the family, since I see that as a female speciality.

You say that my, “ONLY SEEING THINGS ONE WAY is extraordinarily limited and controlled as well as NOT truthful”. You forget that until 1993 I was a male feminist, seeing everything from your point-of-view. I was championing women and wrote a special thesis saying men should listen to women about intimate relationships (I was 47 at the time). I tried to convert close friends, and even enlisted the assistance of professor Robert Hogan at Tulsa university. So you see I see both sides quite clearly. Have you ever been a male champion? Dorothy Dinnerstein’s ‘The Rocking of the Cradle and the Ruling of the World’ was the book that turned me around in Singapore, though it took almost a year, in 1992-3.

You heap ridicule on my unusual, evidence-free methods of research. It is not evidence-free for me: I experiment with my own brain and social interactions, and this is proof enough for me. But this is all anecdotal, and therefore almost invalid to anyone else. Hence my unconventional approach. Here’s how I explain it in my essay:
I try to speak truthfully in this essay, rather than trying to speak the truth. It sounds like a play on words, but it is far more serious than that. Speaking the truth is a treacherous guide — all you have to do is avoid explicit lying. It allows irrelevant truths to distract or mislead, and by omitting truth you can in effect lie. Speaking truthfully, on the other hand, focusses on the reader, and finds the most relevant truth for him. It prevents you from leaving out something which would annoy him, if he knew you had left it out. So, contrary to scientific tradition, I hope you will start to trust me as you read on. My arguments will go down much more smoothly if you are not questioning me all of the time.

I rely on my own experiences and intuition to supply me with data, plus information related to me by others. Rather than presenting and referencing evidence, I leave it to the reader to establish his own, by trying out the phenomena I describe. This is easy to do because the behaviour is common to all cultures. In this way the reader can prove my propositions for himself (if they are right) -- far better than any scientific evidence. He can adopt my ideas as his own. The whole world is my peer reviewer and critical colleague.
Your, “urge to want to release the ties that bind, interrupt "the spin", and point to broader truths,” sounds very much like my description of the female strength to, “find flaws in ideas”, so it does not surprise me in the least that you are experiencing it. I don’t see our exchange as funny, though it does give me a lot of pleasure. I asked you for some differences between the sexes that you believe in so we could continue discussing. Are you telling me you believe there are no differences, other than single-mindedness versus multi-tasking?

You should not reject my “sweet talking” advances. We have lots to teach each other, you and me, if we lower our defences. I will continue to lower mine -- perhaps you could consider opening up a little more yourself? As you say, I know almost nothing about you.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

WD40

Post by henry quirk »

Yeah, that's good stuff too.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:34 am Sad you don’t have much time for the family, since I see that as a female speciality.
There is so much more than what you are choosing to see. That's what I've been trying to point out to you.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:34 amyou forget that until 1993 I was a male feminist, seeing everything from your point-of-view.
You don't know my point of view, you only think you do. You're too busy labeling and compartmentalizing it on a shallow level.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:34 amHave you ever been a male champion?
It's an ongoing state of mind to champion everyone and anyone, when and where the times and energies are right. I am a very caring person. I want the best for everyone... whether that involves a loving, gentle embrace or a good, hard shake. My interaction online is only one of the outlets/stages for expressing and exploring my capabilities, which (here) involves riding my dragon and swinging my sword of truth in a realm of many online game-players with all kinds of stories. :D
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:34 am Your, “urge to want to release the ties that bind, interrupt "the spin", and point to broader truths,” sounds very much like my description of the female strength to, “find flaws in ideas”, so it does not surprise me in the least that you are experiencing it.
That's your limited spin, Duncan. You're missing (and denying) a lot more, which is why talking with you becomes very boring. Rather than embracing broader truths and vast potential with an attitude of non-ownership, you keep manifesting contrived ideas of limited scope and self-serving agenda, which you then become thoroughly intoxicated with. You know, like religion... and like you become the god of your own creations. It's pretty clear to see. Otherwise, why would you reject and deny and ignore so much?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:34 amI asked you for some differences between the sexes that you believe in so we could continue discussing.
And as I said to you: Why are you putting this to me instead of addressing the skewed representations you've made? I'm not making your argument of differences... you are.

You have not answered many of the thoughtful questions I have put to you, which were in direct response to what you said. You just spin away from them, to stroke yourself in some other way or to try to engage me on something else. I'm not interested in dancing around any more with you when the music only consists of a few repetitive notes. Have fun.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- Sorry to say goodbye. I did not intentionally miss answering your questions -- I just ignored the many bits where you were insulting me. Sorry also to have bored you -- you did not bore me. Live long and prosper. One thought: might our relationship be healed by a phone call? Any time, day or night, I’d be delighted to hear your voice: + [44] (124) 352-7975.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:24 am Lacewing --- Sorry to say goodbye. I did not intentionally miss answering your questions -- I just ignored the many bits where you were insulting me.
Evidently you are willfully unaware of how insulting your philosophy is, so then you can act surprised by the responses you get. Based on your limited experience and uniquely distorted mentality (as well as your apparent obsession to stroke yourself), you have concocted a philosophy that you want to hawk like a religion. This world is full of such foolish men who have crafted religions to elevate the roles of men. It is disgusting and idiotic. These religions are full of harm and justification, administered by those who claim to have everyone's best interest at heart. But such foolish people serve hidden masters that they, themselves, are unable to recognize and acknowledge in their ignorant and dishonest intoxication. Lots of snakes in the garden! :)

Your refusal to answer thoughtful questions (because you feel insulted) shows how resistant you are to acknowledging any truth beyond what you want to see, and that which serves you. That reveals as much as anyone needs to understand about you and anything you claim. Your cover is transparent. You keep getting a similar reaction from people. But you'll keep stroking yourself because you can't stop.

Insults? Truth? Applicable, yes?
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- Stop feeling victimised.

I am not trying to harm you -- all I’m trying to do is to persuade you that my way of thinking is reasonable. If you calm down you will see that nothing I have said shows disrespect to women. I believe the task you women are the most superior at -- the early upbringing of children -- is the most important in the world. It is probably the most complex task in the galaxy: the initial programming of the most complicated computer in the galaxy.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Better watch yourself, Duncan: Lace has a bad habit of chasin' after unavailable men (then gettin' drunk and postin' about it).

She might be targetin' you.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

henry quirk --- Lacewing chasing after me? At 71-years-old i am truly honoured. Did you get a chance to look at the pledge for my Suffrageur Society yet?


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Did you get a chance to look at the pledge for my Suffrageur Society yet?"

Post by henry quirk »

Nah...I got no real interest...I was married to a good (sane) woman, and my relations with women have, for the most part, been good (sane).

And since my main job these days is raising my nephew, I have little truck with the the ladies (sane or crazy), so it's all kinda moot for me.

I think a goodly part of the problem you're tryin' to address can be solved by simply avoidin' the crazy ones (no matter how comely or [apparently] inviting they may be).
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

henry quirk --- My ambition is to control all women (with the help of all men) so your suggestion that I should avoid the crazy ones won’t work: they are just the ones I have to deal with, if I am to succeed. Come on now, Henry, this is important to me. Won’t you at least cast your eye over the terms of my pledge? I really am desperate for some other perspectives because only around ten people in the whole world have seen it (before I posted it here), and I’ve only had critical feedback from four of them. I would appreciate it deeply.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:11 pm Lacewing --- Stop feeling victimised.
Notice how you completely ignore the truth in what I've pointed out and asked you, and instead you project onto me to "stop feeling victimized and to calm down". You have complained about women picking on men and being in charge for ages. I'm simply pointing to the signs of your small-minded and dishonest reasoning and claims. If I was mistaken in my assessments, you would have been able to discuss and resolve such things -- instead of ignoring what you don't want to answer to.

Your own involvement here clearly shows that your platform is a sham that you are tightly controlling in a very limited way, and you are a cheap and slimy salesman. You're not the first who has come through here... but like all of them, you think your platform is uniquely profound. It's not.
Post Reply