A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

[Eodnhoj7]

...

As high-maintenance as I think you are, I do have compassion for your delusional states... so I'll answer a few questions to set you straight in regard to me...

For someone who is claims to the importance of the "universe" you do seem a little picky and choosy about what right and wrong is rather than accepting things for what they are.

So you sleep with who you want...

Yes, those are men I entered into relationships with (aside from the wild years of my late teens and early twenties).

And how did that work out? Or do you just use men for sex? The logic seems to have a double standard.

and the men who sleep around on you do the same...

In each case, neither of us slept around while we shared a relationship. Yes, I was married once -- and I see no need to do that sort of thing again. I'm able to love and be committed without a marriage.

So you never slept around while in a relationship, but when the relationship ended then the next person you slept with you were in a relationship with?

Actually you can't love or be committed without a marriage...you can't even keep a relationship according to your history.

If they really adored and apprecaited you they would not be your ex.

Are you unaware that relationships end for all kinds of reasons, and people can still love and appreciate each other? My partners would probably be happy to get back together. I had my reasons. There are lots of chapters in life. I wish them well.

Actually if you loved eachother you would still be together. Above you say you are able to keep a committed relationship but here you claim you left for personal reasons (which goes back to the "I sleep with who I want")...so which one is it?

Despite your many absurd conclusions and accusations: I do not sleep around. I am simply a joyful and spirited person. Yes, I am open to finding a soulful, wise man with the qualities I treasure. There appear to be a lot of numb and stunned men out there -- totally self-absorbed/consumed with their "stuff" -- perhaps traumatized by this shift we're going through. My heart goes out to them, but I'm not interested in trudging along on some unconscious path with them. I want to go forward, not backwards.

Actually you are a hypocrite and have no heart...half the "fuck you's" only prove how miserable you are when put to question. You are a fake, nothing more... Your logic is merely hyper-relativism.

If you said: "

My male friends (who are in relationships, themselves) enjoy and support my authentic and passionate spirit. Perhaps I'm able to explore this as I do, because I am single right now. It's very freeing -- and it inspires the people around me. You do not appreciate me because I'm busy hurling profanities at you. I do that because you twist things into ugly lies and/or you say absurd things that take too much effort to straighten out. It's really unfortunate. I wish you happiness... and I'm sorry I said you probably don't deserve a good relationship. I hope you find one that can show you how awesome real love and connection are, and how sweet and wonderful a woman can be when you're not grating on her.

Of course they enjoy your free spirit...you are a whore they don't have to pay. The men view you as a sex-object and nothing more. You have no self-respect and became a people pleaser along time ago if any of what you say if half true. You do what you want...well so do I...how can you call me a liar when you yourself are one? Too who? Yourself.

You don't love anything...an orgasm is the deepest thing you can feel and that is not "connection"...anyone can have them...the animal kingdom proves this. Love is being committed to a person through the best and the worst...and whatever "personal reasons" you leave only proves how self-ish you are. Now if the man was hitting you or some serious form of abuse...that is one thing, but not all men are abusive and the high rate of "failures" you have in your relationships only proves something does not add up.

"Free spirited" means to you:

1) Fucking who I want, so you can't blame men for doing the same.

2) Having the world form who you are, so you can't blame the men for their cruelty to you.

3) Being a victim, so you can't blame men for making you feel like one if they feel the same.

You are a victim, and instead of showing yourself respect you gave up along time ago. The simple truth is you are shallow, not because of a series of messes ups...but because love is real sacrifice, regardless of personal cost, and from what is appears to me men are just sex-objects to you because a few made you feel like a sex-object.

It is a circular regress.


Now you would say "fuck you john", but then you would realize it makes you look like the bad guy...so you have to say "I wish the best and I forgive you"....fickle.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is because the men will not stick around because of your behavior. And your behavior? Besides the false "I am open to everything" deep down you project a deeply rooted disdain for men you are trying to hold in. Now is the disdain justified? Probably...considering the type of men you seem to be implying about, I know, exist as common place.

If you want the truth, men don't have any respect for women who sleep around because it shows the woman has no respect for herself. Deep down, I believe (and am open to being wrong about this point) you and your female friends feel a level of guilt and abandonment over the inability to please or keep a man in the long term.

You are not innocent lacewing...all the men who used you are not innocent either but don't pretend you are higher and more righteous than all the other's around you? Do you think you are more moral than all the men hear? Somehow you are better than us? Because that is what it always seems.

You sleep with whatever man you like which throws you a cheap compliment...a guess based on an outside perspective. Whatever abuse happened to you years ago, not just broke your mind but probably broke whatever sense of dignity and innocence you felt as a woman a long time ago...I doubt you remember who you even are.

Women do not run off of logic but emotion only, a woman of logic is a woman of no emotion and are generally cold as ice (while only being smarter than the dumb men around her).

Women have no accountability for their emotions in western culture, as this emotional nature (premised highly in a relativistic thinking) fuels the consumer base.

Women are just the extensions of the environments in which they are raised and reflect the moral and cultural attributes of the men they are around. The weakness of western men can be observed in the whoring nature of their women. The men have no self-control, hence the women have no-self control.

Ahhh...I see the "men who love you"...so why no steady relationships? Why no husband? Or is it just the sex? You say, I am shallow...okay...but you are the one saying "fuck you" half of the time. Okay, I get it...I am shallow...so what...does that make you better than me? And if so how open minded are you really if you are so anxious to lay judgement?

Oh Eodnhoj. Eodnhoj, Eodnhoj, Eodnhoj. What are we going to do with you? Some great phycho-analyse from the guy who has had minimal interaction with actual people.

Really, though, if you wanted to make yourself look as if you've been mistreated by women your whole life for some of those good, old oppression points, you'd be better finding yourself a psychologist who can sign off on whatever learning disability is clearly going undiagnosed, here.

Mistreated? I look around me and the simple truth is the mankind strictly uses eachother as a means. The men use women and the women use men. Love? I have seen no real long term sacrifice where a man loved a woman or woman loved a man regardless of the cost. Lacewing, and you act like selfish-children.

Your twisted toxicity is off the charts... and you don't understand why women repel you?

He's part of a category that is unfortunately much more encompassing than a single gender - it's called being an 'idiot'. His grammar seems to be improving, though, which I do applaud him for. He got through that flurry of posts without making up any words. Unfortunately, he had to make up this idea that he's not just a virginal, forum dwelling loser with chunky, lactating man-boobs who has very limited experience with any girls in the real world. So I am disappointed in him that he has not yet diverged from this mythology.

So that is what you think of when you fantasize about me? That warms my heart...it would be best to leave the conversation between me and lacewing considering your repressed desire to "fuck me".

[Skip]

Yeah, I think too Skip's comments were all about Trump (had nuthin' to do with Duncan's conundrum).

Now that you mention it - I didn't - Donald Trump and Duncan Butlin do have a lot in common.
I can see where you might get confused by my comments.

[Duncan Butlin]

Skip, I disapprove of Trump’s behaviour -- to ‘grab’ a woman’s pussy is advancing a sexual encounter at far too fast a pace -- but the general point he was making so crudely is true: a powerful man can have his way with a high percentage of the women he meets.

Here’s Observer correspondent Nina Burleigh describing her experience with Bill Clinton:

I described how surprised I was to find that power is seductive, even for a feminist like me. I said I thought that the President had looked at my legs a little longer than was perfectly normal, and I described how that felt (quite flattering, actually).

Another happily married correspondent from England confessed that after Bill Clinton played cards with her on Air Force One she would have gone to bed with him like a shot, if he had asked. Men like sexy women, women like powerful men to look after them and the children. There is a biological urge because power equates well with good genes, and this can easily override the urge to be faithful.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I've never claimed to have either activism or friends.

So, why did you think I called you a loser?

Yes

You mean, there is not a single situation where someone needed to be saved at the expense of someone else?

Then that's just you being intellectually dishonest. You can almost certainly conceive of a situation like that in reality. I deny the accusation that I'm asserting a bunch of things about you, but right now I am going to say this is just dishonesty from you.

What? Why would anyone (and who are my 'peers' anyway?) need to teach me to redefine what I know?

I wasn't talking about you specifically, but someone who might obviously have peers. If you're taught new things about men and women, you may find yourself wanting to apply this to your spouse or something, and that's what I disagree with.

Where do get this psychocrap?
All I said was that healthy men and women can co-operate and respect one another.

This was a response to a very specific statement that you made. I don't feel like re-explaining why I brought this crap up when you can literally just look at what I was replying to.

I may have suggested that it's possible to be consistent in what one believes is right, on the personal as well as the societal level, even when it's not in one's immediate self-interest.
Why is this such a problem for you?

I've been trying to explain this to you; If you don't agree with me on anything else, you should agree with me that you don't treat people who are close to you as you would a total stranger. This is in pretty direct contradiction with almost any form of political activism, because a political ideology like that wouldn't consider personal attachment.

Why do you keep making these bizarre assertions about me?

I'm not exactly sure what assertions you're talking about. At times, I'm talking more broadly about other people who live like this.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck, you seem to being saying to Skip that one should not generalise about groups of people -- in particular about men’s and women’s different characteristics of behaviour. You think that such group generalities should not be born in mind when dealing with one’s close friends. Have I got you right?

No, it's perfectly fine to make generalizations on some level. I just don't want you to actively use political information gained via your activism to make those generalizations, or attempt to integrate your activism into your personal life.

If so, to me that’s another knot of female logic, designed to disarm men

It's objectively not; It's an idea that we all implement in some way, including you, unless you treat those who are close to you exactly as those who are complete strangers. Because your activism probably doesn't tell you to discriminate against those who aren't your friends.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Mistreated? I look around me and the simple truth is the mankind strictly uses eachother as a means.

Sort of like how you're using Lacewing as a means of an emotional punching bag to vent the frustration of knowing the reality that you have never, and will never get to taste pussy in your entire life. By attacking her with very loose, pre-concieved phycho-analyzations which aren't being shown to be valid, in any objective way.

So sort of like what I'm doing, right now.

So that is what you think of when you fantasize about me? That warms my heart...it would be best to leave the conversation between me and lacewing considering your repressed desire to "fuck me".

I mean, I have this repressed desire to shove a foot up your butt, if you consider that the same thing.

If you're open to being vomited on, there's always plenty of opportunity for that, too.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

That's another thing about playing 'armchair phychologist.' You actually have to have a decent social life in order to do it.

[Skip]

That's another thing about playing 'armchair phychologist.' You actually have to have a decent social life in order to do it.

Your social life must be spectacular!

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Your social life must be spectacular!

No, I neither claim or need to because I haven't largely been playing 'armchair psychologist' in this thread. I have specifically been warning against that. You just continue to misunderstand my intentions for the exact opposite of what I'm actually trying to do, here, and frankly that's pretty irritating. Especially when I deny that I've been making sweeping generalization about you.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see this whole thing as being intellectually ignorant, instead emotionally loaded.

Fact: men and women are two parts of a whole, without either there would be neither. Each one of us is half a human. There are differences between us, first physical, and then as a result psychological. It's the games people play in the middle of the night, that's causing all the hoopla. One must understand the roles of the chemicals between us, before they even have a clue. Once one understands testosterone and estrogen, they're on the right track. Then there's psychology, all those things, mostly fears and expectations, denials as a result, and the, so called, social animal, that lends to the true argument.

In essence your arguments are ill informed, based purely on a sense of right and wrong as you each currently see it. Human conceptualism! The facts, nothing but the facts my friends, matter. Unfortunately the brain still seems a mystery. Once fully understood your arguments might contain real substance. Emotional, until such a time!

Peace, People!

[Duncan Butlin]

SpheresOfBalance, you are right that much of the conflict revolves around “the games people play in the middle of the night”, and, yes, we need more peace between each of us on this forum. But peace between the sexes is the last thing we need. The sex war is good, the sex war is healthy, the sex war is inevitable -- the only trouble is that only women understand this (subconsciously) nowadays. Just look at the feminists, just look at Women’s Studies: now they have the bit between their teeth they are never going to slow down of their own accord. Men must lift their heads from beneath the sand, before it’s too late, and engage them in battle again. I estimate we are 250 years behind them in the sex war, and have 50 times less fire power. Here’s the calculation:

Misogynist and misandrist.  In the 1600s women invented the word ‘misogynist’ to be nasty to men in a sexist way.  They could do this because they are more linguistically agile than men.  They have made good use of the word ever since, thus keeping men firmly in their place.  (The only other explanation is that men were much more sexist than women in those days, and so women had to invent the term in self defence.  This does not really hold water, considering men’s desperate preoccupation with sex).

So, in retaliation, 250 years later, men invented the  word ‘misandrist’.  It was a flop.  Even after 100 years its usage is still only a 50th of misogynist’s -- men simply do not dare to use it.  Thus women are 250 years ahead of men in the sex war, and their fire-power is 50 times as great.

Time for a confession: I actually believe that things have gone so far that men are now too frightened to band together like they used to, to face women down. Enlightened women are going to have to show us the way. The ignominy! These female saviours of mankind are going to have to establish Men’s Studies at campuses around the world (a non-feminist version, in total opposition to Women’s Studies) and they are going to have to build up student troop strength to around a million on active duty -- hopefully by then mainly men --before a proper challenge can be mounted. This is a long term project, granted, but the consequences will be beyond compare. With men back in the business of controlling women again, we will occasionally put women firmly in their place, and then we all will be able to sleep peacefully at night.

[Greta]

I estimate we are 250 years behind them in the sex war, and have 50 times less fire power.

Maybe so, as long as you ignore millennia of abject oppression of women down through history, continued oppression of women around most of the world, and continued under-representation of women in all positions of power in even the most "enlightened" countries.

How far under the thumb do you need women to be before you are satisfied?? Just when I was starting to be hopeful that we'd be treated as equals the seemingly insatiable male hunger for power and domination over women rises again.

[Duncan Butlin]

Sir-Sister-of-Suck, this dichotomy between how to treat strangers versus people close to you is interesting. I definitely treat strangers and friends differently. I think talking to strangers, particularly of the opposite sex, is the epitome of human behaviour -- even out-classing conversations with the spouse. But I think I am the opposite way round from you: I only espouse in my political theorising that which I have already tried out with my wife. Admittedly I had rather a bumpy 22 years of marriage, ending in divorce, yet right up to the end my wife (and my mother) helped me out with my research.

I still don’t understand why you think I should not use “information gained through my political activism” to inform my generalisations and my private life. Am I not simply wasting my time researching, if I don’t make use of knowledge gained? Or do you consider that ‘knowledge gained’ to be of such low quality that it should not be used in real life? Only suitable for academia?

My activism tells me to treat both adult strangers and friends as if we were equal, but to take into account as many differences as possible in achieving this. None of us are really equal on many measures, and if possible one takes turns in being the expert in one field and then another. But it is essential to discriminate between man and woman, and adult and child -- otherwise the occasion will go off badly. Mansplaining is of the essence!

[Duncan Butlin]

Greta, a valiant salvo in the sex war. You say:

Maybe so, as long as you ignore millennia of abject oppression of women down through history, continued oppression of women around most of the world, and continued under-representation of women in all positions of power in even the most "enlightened" countries.

How far under the thumb do you need women to be before you are satisfied?? Just when I was starting to be hopeful that we'd be treated as equals the seemingly insatiable male hunger for power and domination over women rises again.

But why the bitterness? We’ve been at it for millions of years (not just millennia), so why not enjoy the fight? Neither of us is ever going to win. That male hunger for power and domination over women is no more insatiable than women’s determination to undermine men. If you and I met face-to-face I’m sure we’d be able to get along. Here’s what I say to women who want more positions of power in society:
* * *
Forgive me for being blunt, but your enthusiasm for women in positions of power is based on a contradiction.  By implication you argue that men and women are equal and therefore women deserve 50% of powerful positions. You then argue, again by implication, that women are not equal (better at networking, multi-tasking, less confrontational) so that 50% female participation will deliver improved governance, improved corporate performance and improved business operations.

Despite its wide acceptance, this self-contradicting argument is deeply flawed. Either we are the same and adding women makes no difference, or we are different and there is no justification for the 50% quota. Nevertheless, so many women have made use of this faulty argument to gain undeserved power (women-only lists, pressure groups such as your own) that the suitability of the average female candidate is called into question.

In truth, we differ in a myriad of ways, so the chances of us making equally good engineers, members of parliament or members of corporate boards are vanishingly small. Accordingly, the 50% targets are a myth — we have no idea what the ratios should be. Positions of power should be selected on merit alone -- including women’s and men’s special abilities -- and you, the feminists and governments around the world should abandon your false logic forthwith.
* * *
Ok, I’m trying to put women in their place, true, but there is still room for loving them too. I just don’t want them to get away with any tricky logic, undermining the whole of society along with the target men.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Attn: Dunkan Butlin

I'm not a sexist per se, at least not in the discrimination or devaluation of anyone based upon their gender, and I certainly have no prejudice or hatred of women, but I do see at least some gender roles as set in stone. So I guess I'm slightly a sexist in some peoples minds. I see that lesbians and gays are gender deficient, at various stages of being a hermaphrodite. Though I have nothing against them, they are innocents. Unfortunately birth defects happen. FYI, I was born pigeon toed, with flat feet and with a TMJ (malocclusion).

I agree with you that women are better at some things, just like men are. But I've always been angry that on average women get paid less than men, all qualifications and abilities being equal, of course. And even more angry that, so called, less visibly desirable women get paid even less. I'm all about equality across the board, no exceptions, at least with respect to job opportunities. But in truth, I'm not so sure about the fighter pilot issue. I believe that on average men can take more physical and psychological punishment than women. That being tortured once caught behind enemy lines women would break quicker. Though it's true that historically they have taken a lot of crap from men. Such is the reason that they have the mental strength that they have.

Which brings me to your choice of the word "war." I would agree that it's always good for 'everyone' to "argue" their points on issues, and that everyone should be allowed to have a voice on any topic. To me your choice of 'war' rather than 'argument' is a bit strong and unnecessary. I don't see the situation you've outlined as really that bad, maybe only to your aged eyes. To be honest with you, I really don't have much faith in any labels as being necessarily definitive of any particular situation, that in fact they are more loaded based on a particular perspective of any particular individuals bias. Often people talk of things really to do with individuals as if they are universal, and I don't see that it's necessarily true at all.

And I don't see that our civilization is in peril because men are not as in charge as they used to be. It's more the population, 'the sardine can syndrome,' that has much to do with it. Education, or lack thereof is also a part of it. I have no problem with women in the driver seat. For instance, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election. And I'm still sure that she would have done a better job than the obviously brain dead Trump boy is doing. My biggest concern is his stance on global warming, and environmental issues. Which is clear evidence that women can have a better scientific understanding than men. As far as I'm concerned the only thing that should be steering the human ship is Science! Definitely not a capitalist!

Nope sorry, job wise I see that women can be just as equal as men, I don't feel threatened at all by women in control, as a matter of fact I see that in some respects they'll do a better job than us men.

She can be on top any time, unless of course I hadn't been working out recently. But then we try and understand one another's needs.