The Feminization of Mankind

[artisticsolution]

D: How can I reassure him so that he stops this ridiculous behaviour ?

AS: LOL This is why I love women so much....they will never stop manipulating...this is their true strength....to manipulate the world around them to ensure survival of the species.

[duszek]

But I do not mean manipulation.

Manipulation is when you do not let the other person see the whole picture because you expect to get some advantage from it. I hate it.

You can reassure someone without manipulating him.

[artisticsolution]

But I do not mean manipulation.

Manipulation is when you do not let the other person see the whole picture because you expect to get some advantage from it. I hate it.

You can reassure someone without manipulating him.

I know. I often times have trouble using that word in my discussions because most people have a negative connotation about what it means. As an artist I use the word 'manipulate' to mean, 'to do something artfully and with skill.' The word manipulate doesn't always mean to deceive.

When you talk about reassuring someone without manipulating or deceiving them, I have visions of reassuring them without an agenda in mind. Let's examine your statement again:

"How can I reassure him so that he stops this ridiculous behaviour ?"


You clearly have an agenda. You wish to reassure him so that his "ridiculous' behavior will stop. You expect to get some advantage from making his 'ridiculous' behavior stop.

This is proof that not only men have ridiculous behavior but so do women. We are almost pathological in our attempts to be considered good. We deceive ourselves into thinking our behavior is 'sugar and spice and everything nice,' but then we say something like what you said above and we reveal the truth. We don't even know we are doing it most of the time. It is part of our nature to want others to value us. It is the "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth/I could never manipulate because that is bad and I am good" syndrome. Are you able to see it? Does it hurt you to hear it? If it does then you're doing it.

DB is correct about one thing. Our society today treats women as if they are perfect little angels at the expense of men. However, considering what we had to go through to get here...I'd say it pretty much makes us even. Well...maybe not even but closer than we've ever been to equality. We just need to keep our wits about us and try to be honest about our agenda. I think anything less would be deceitful. Don't you?

[Arising_uk]

It is for exactly the same reason that I read "Thus spoke Zarathustra" every now and then

Braver boy than me then! As I only read him when in 'despair' And even then the 'black-dog' can descend

What language do you read him in?

I doubt any of this is about 'weaker genders', 'innate weakness' or X and Y chromosomes. As how can you have a 'weaker gender' other than by cultural definitions? You mean a 'weaker sex'? How can that be possible other than just strength? And if you include stamina as strength then women are generally stronger, hence the bulk of the hard-work done in the current world is done by Women, whereas in the civilized world its done by machines. Also, fear the cause that makes the women become the 'suicide bomber' as this way they will surely win, and lose, but I'd not not embrace as such.

I agree that 'aggressiveness' is often a sign of 'fear' but what's 'fear'? I doubt that 'fear' is 'cowardness'? More the challenge of the known and unknown. That we, as men, are easily led to feats of brilliance and atrocity is a fact, that it has been by brutality, love and indifference has also also true, but so is that it no more needs to be done through ignorance or stupidity anymore, thus spake Z I reckon...

Too odd?
How about, I'm tired of listening to utopias and distopias as well as watching them through history and philosophy and the TV. What happened to Z's thought about Morals when God Is Dead? In response to the Darwinists "God did not make Us!" Is it all Marx's Historical Materialism? If so then its as Marx and Dawkins proclaim, our morals. So what should they be and how do we proclaim and support them?

[Duncan Butlin]

Good evening Mr. Duszek: You ask me for the rational reasons why men should control women. I believe there are many, but three are very basic. First is the general rule that all of us are better at controlling other people than we are at controlling ourselves -- so all women need to be controlled by other people, to some extent. Second, men understand women’s brains better than they do themselves (because we designed them, as per Darwin’s sexual selection theory), so men rather than other women should control women, just because we are better at it. Third, because it is something we are good at, men should control women purely for the joy of exercising one of our talents skilfully and wisely.
=================


Hello Mr. Arising: I suspect we do NOT agree about the way businesses cope with mothers ... though I am not entirely sure where we part company. I think any woman who undertakes a job that she performs less well if she gets pregnant (or is having to mothering young children) should be punished, unless explicit provision for such was written into her contract. I think they should get paid less than their male colleagues for any job where in fact the men always help them with the heavy manual parts of the job (this has almost always been my experience in manufacturing industries). And I think that a woman applying for any supervisory job should be scrutinised far more closely than the male applicants: they simply make worse bosses, as every survey shows: 5 out 6 men and 5 out of 6 women prefer working for a man ... to the tune of being prepared to suffer a 22% cut in salary for the privilege.

Social Cognition, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2009, pp. 128–137
Using Conjoint Analysis to detect discrimination:
revealing Covert Preferences from overt Choices
Eugene M. Caruso
University of Chicago

Divorce: It is not rich males you should be asking about the effects of divorce, single motherhood, gay and lesbian marriage, and other ways of getting fathers out of families -- it is the children of those families you should be talking to. It actually stunts their physical growth, degrades their performance at school, makes them more prone to criminal behaviour, more teen pregnancies, and far more likely to have failed relationships and dysfunctional families themselves. Who cares about the parents’ whims and fancies?, it is the children we must look after.

Saudi Arabia: You are quite wrong that Saudi women have been put in their place, they are being empowered ever more as we speak. It is an utter disaster. I just met a beautiful young lady Saudi student on the tube (District Line) -- no sign of Muslim dress, unescorted, face make-up, fashionable clothes. I assumed she was the daughter of a well-off family, but no: she told me that any girl (not sure about the boys) who does well in her ‘A’ level equivalent can obtain a government scholarship to study abroad. She was studying micro-biology at Nottingham. I became so engrossed (she was so friendly and alluring) that I missed the stop I was guiding her to! See how dangerous Muslim girls are, when so liberated?

Women’s punishments harsher than men’s: What absolute nonsense -- please tell me where you are obtaining your statistics. But thanks all the same for admiring my style!
=================


Mr. Duszek: I am sad you find what I say atrocious ... perhaps you could mention specifics? Men should control women out of a sense of responsibility, but you are right: it should also give them a sense of power, of which they should be proud, as long as they use it wisely.

Gullible Men or Women?: You are wrong. Astrology, superstition, belief in religion, accepting a subservient role in relationships, vegetarianism ... all these weaknesses are more prevalent in the female of the species. Going to war to defend Queen and country is a strength, not a weakness -- and by stating the opposite you demean all the troops that are fighting, killing and dying on your behalf around the world; right at this very minute. I think you should apologise to them right away. And of course, men making better leaders (see above) makes women more easily led, by definition. Stands to reason.

Male Aggression: In denying our superior ability to be aggressive you deny your own masculinity -- it is the most important male virtue, and it is key to controlling female behaviour. A raised eyebrow, a frown, a raised voice ... all put a woman (when necessary) on notice she should correct her behaviour. But your presentation will be weak and ineffectual, if you do not have (at the minimum) physical restraint at the back of your mind. You must be ready to act if a woman goes berserk -- you must risk yourself and her, for there’s always the slight chance of someone getting seriously hurt -- particularly if she picks up a weapon, as many women are prepared to do.

I agree with you, however, that aggressiveness is often a sign of fear -- I just go on to say that fear evokes EXCESSIVE aggressiveness, not the calm and considered variety I recommend. The trouble is that other men often do not have this insight, and so tend to react aggressively themselves, thus escalating things in a horrible spiral of fear and aggressive display. I saw a lot of this in prison, as you can image, but I managed to intervene quite often to calm things down.

Nietzsche: though I have just quoted him on another forum, I don’t normally recommend him. He betrayed men by not daring to face women directly, and thus built up women’s power rather than combatting it. All those references to ‘slave mentality’, man and supermen etc., were really snide comments about the fairer sex -- but he only spoke openly about women to demean them, thus losing the argument for all men.
=================


Dear Mrs. ArtisticSolution: what an absolute delight to hear your voice once again. I don’t think society needs to evolve, however: the division of roles you appreciate is very ancient wisdom indeed. Currently we have lost that art, and this is the main source of our modern discontent -- so to my mind the solution is to return to the ways of the past ... the very distant past. Men must become strong enough to control women once again, for there is nobody else around. They must de-feminise themselves, re-attach their balls, and stand their ground when faced by a woman.

Sex Differences: Of course you are right: we need to be able to point out the strengths and weaknesses of both sexes. It is, however, men who have fallen silent, as you remark, not women. We broadcast female virtues and male sins for all the world to see ... but we have fallen strangely silent about male virtues and female sins. I am so glad you mentioned Larry Summers, because I am trying to persuade the group of intelligence researchers I have just met in Madrid to revisit that outrageous situation. I believe the women involved should be punished, and Harvard should have to pay punitive compensation. False accusations are a serious affair, and until they are dealt with as strictly as the victim would have been (had the accusations been substantiated) they will grow like a cancer. Larry Summers effectively got the sack, so all those Women’s Studies academics who chimed in with shock and horror statements to the press should also get the sack. Might you help getting such a campaign going?

Meaninglessness of Overall Sex Comparison: You are absolutely spot on here also, about the impossibility of comparing the overall strength of the sexes -- your water/food analogy is the best I’ve seen yet. This is precisely what I was to tell the IQ conference in Madrid: you cannot use the same IQ test for boys and girls, for you can always bias it one way or another, depending on which sex you want to win. It is an utter nonsense, and yet it is done the world over. Here’s a link to download the diatribe I presented to them at the conference:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... ZmE2ZjVkNQ

Finally, thank you again: one of men’s superiorities is our preparedness to take risks, as you say (though in excess or for ignoble motives it is a weakness, as in gambling). And I love your frank admission of women’s superior manipulative skills -- how can that idiot Mr. Duszek try to argue you out of it? You are a perceptive and honest lady, Mrs. Artistic, and you must propagate your views far and wide, for all you are worth!
=================


Mr. Duszek: As you say, everyone knows that women live longer than men ... but this is not so in the natural, tribal state -- nothing like to the same extent, anyway. Very few people, however, understand why this should be. Why should men die earlier in developed societies, relative to women? I believe feminisation is the simple and direct cause: men die off because they feel impotent -- especially after they have retired.

Russian Example: Communism empowered women over men (except at the very top), but rampant, mafia-style capitalism has made the situation far worse. There is little honour for the common man in such a system, and as a consequence women lose respect for him. As a consequence the majority are driven to drink ... they are literally committing suicide in their millions, drinking themselves to death. The figures have been worsening for over 30 years, until now (according to a young Russian lady I met at the airport in Madrid just before Christmas) they are an utter travesty: the average ages at death are as follows:

Russian Women average age at death: 74 years
Russian Men average age at death: 52 years

As far as suicide is concerned, this is true throughout the Western world: men kill themselves 3-4 times as frequently as women. Only in China are the statistics reversed (for ancient cultural reasons) so that women there commit suicide 6 times more frequently than men. That needs fixing, of course, but for the rest of the world it is the sexist killing off of men in their millions that needs urgent attention ... and yet nobody turns a hair.

Scientific Truth: Science is a far more slippery discipline (I use the term loosely) than you think. Take aggression again (one of my favourite subjects!): the social sciences are unbelievably biased on this subject (supporting women), because they always study the negative aspects -- never the many benefits to society, as I describe above. This feminised approach has become so embedded in our society, that no-one notices it anymore. If you look at the US National Institute of Health site, masculinity is defined as a pathology! You can scarcely get more biased than that, and yet each researcher claims they are promoting the truth, only describing the facts, adopting no moral stance, dealing with evidence, not values -- just like your professor Hüther -- while at the same time exclusively focussing on the aspect of behaviour that demean, degrade, vilify men! Ruining our image, running down our characteristics, debasing our achievements. Crazy, crazy, crazy ... and all in the name of scientific objectivity and impartiality. Hard to credit, eh? Yet it is happening right under our very noses.

Reassuring Your Man: I think you are right that women should reassure their men some of the time -- but they also need to challenge them sometimes, just to check that they deserve the reassurance and respect that is being offered. It is no good continuing to encourage a man who is being weak ... which is why my wife gave up on me, as I keep on confessing.

Mr. Duszek, to try to prevent a lady from speaking the truth about sex differences is insufferable! What are you thinking of? Women are far more manipulative than men, just as Mrs. Artistic says -- just as men are far more domineering. You shrink from correcting women when they do wrong, only to contradict them when they speak the truth? Please think carefully about this, and decide to change you approach.
=================


Mr. Arising: You will always get your knickers in a twist over morals until you start sorting out the male ones from the female ones. There are many differences between the way male and female mammals evolved that have deep moral significance. Since the male until recently had no idea who his offspring were (and is still none too sure -- c. 20% cuckolded, I believe), he has had to concern himself far more with communal responsibilities than the female, who was always able to concentrate on her own family. Additionally, in humans it is the female who leaves her family to join that of her husband, meaning she has to be far more sensitive, flexible and tolerant, so she can quickly adapt to the new environment. The male, on the other hand, must specialise in trying to preserve his standards and traditions, to avoid them becoming contaminated and therefore weakened.

This means that on any particular issue or moral decision, men and women will cluster at different points on the spectrum of opinion, and therefore they will be pulling in opposite directions, against each other. In typically pessimistic style, Nietzsche describes this as the “abysmal antagonism and the inevitable nature of the constant strain between the two”, but at least he does not shy away from the confrontational aspect. To me this is the essence of human life: the battle of the sexes on every issue of any substance. Of course we have to come to a compromise each time: a position halfway between the two, when possible, otherwise each one must win half of the time, on binary issues that allow no intermediate solution (e.g. whose turn is it to fetch the water?).

Until we recognise that there are male and female morals (just as there is male and female logic, male and female philosophy, male and female intelligence, etc.), then we will be in a perpetual muddle; for under the surface we will be vying with each other in a sexist manner, without realising what we are up to.

When we start to understand male nature and female nature, as opposed to human nature, then we may well be able to approach one of the utopias you dream of. But remember: it is men who are the authority on female nature, while it is women who are the authority on male nature -- as dictated by Darwin’s sexual selection theory. If we each respect the other’s expertise, I am sure we can work out a pretty robust theory of how we ought to behave with each other. Certainly a better one than the ‘knot of female logic’ that we are currently using.
================


Right, that's it for tonight. Thank you all very much for taking me seriously and being so tolerant. I was banned for RichardDawkins.net (for supporting heterosexuality, fidelity, morality, discipline, male presence and patriarchy), but it looks as if that isn't going to happen here.

[S G R]

Dear Mr Butlin

But remember: it is men who are the authority on female nature, while it is women who are the authority on male nature -- as dictated by Darwin’s sexual selection theory.

So women should do as they are told by men and men should do as they’re told by women?

What happens when they disagree?

[artisticsolution]

Dear Mr Butlin

But remember: it is men who are the authority on female nature, while it is women who are the authority on male nature -- as dictated by Darwin’s sexual selection theory.

So women should do as they are told by men and men should do as they’re told by women?

What happens when they disagree?

The men lose. LOL

It's just like the song by Maine, "Boys do what they can. Girls do what they want."

[duszek]

Do I sound like a man ?

Gosh !

I must be one living proof for the masculinization of mankind.

[duszek]

You cannot control everything.
If men were busy controlling women would they have enough time and energy left to control things in the outside world ?

I am sorry that you have had no luck with women, Mr. Butlin.

[duszek]

Could it be that men who fail in the world turn to controlling women ? Or children ?
A sad last resort ...

[ray]

Could it be that men who fail in the world turn to controlling women ? Or children ?

A sad last resort ...

Its the other way around.

The men who cannot control women, end up losing their grip on reality.

If you cannot keep your chick in check, what are you capable of?


viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3014

[Arising_uk]

If you cannot keep your chick in check, what are you capable of?

Keep your 'chick in check'? You think this is Islam? But lets say it is, it appears that when you can do this you are also capable of strapping bombs on to kill your fellow Moslem women and children. Nice.

[Arising_uk]

Hello Mr. Arising: I suspect we do NOT agree about the way businesses cope with mothers ... though I am not entirely sure where we part company. I think any woman who undertakes a job that she performs less well if she gets pregnant (or is having to mothering young children) should be punished, unless explicit provision for such was written into her contract.

Which it is now.

I think they should get paid less than their male colleagues for any job where in fact the men always help them with the heavy manual parts of the job (this has almost always been my experience in manufacturing industries).

What heavy lifting jobs in manufacturing have been given to women?

And I think that a woman applying for any supervisory job should be scrutinised far more closely than the male applicants: they simply make worse bosses, as every survey shows: 5 out 6 men and 5 out of 6 women prefer working for a man ... to the tune of being prepared to suffer a 22% cut in salary for the privilege.

That right? Maggie would have not approved.
That surveys show that people do not like their female boss makes them 'worse' bosses in what way?

Divorce: It is not rich males you should be asking about the effects of divorce, single motherhood, gay and lesbian marriage, and other ways of getting fathers out of families -- it is the children of those families you should be talking to. It actually stunts their physical growth, degrades their performance at school, makes them more prone to criminal behaviour, more teen pregnancies, and far more likely to have failed relationships and dysfunctional families themselves. Who cares about the parents’ whims and fancies?, it is the children we must look after.

Well, only 50% of them by your standards. However, my experience is that the problem with the male 50% of children that behave as you've pointed out is because of the absence of a father, not the presence of the mother.
Whether you live with the mother does not mean you cannot be a father to the children. Or are you saying all the divorced fathers out there would give-up their careers to care for the kids?

Saudi Arabia: You are quite wrong that Saudi women have been put in their place, they are being empowered ever more as we speak. It is an utter disaster. I just met a beautiful young lady Saudi student on the tube (District Line) -- no sign of Muslim dress, unescorted, face make-up, fashionable clothes. I assumed she was the daughter of a well-off family, but no: she told me that any girl (not sure about the boys) who does well in her ‘A’ level equivalent can obtain a government scholarship to study abroad. She was studying micro-biology at Nottingham. I became so engrossed (she was so friendly and alluring) that I missed the stop I was guiding her to! See how dangerous Muslim girls are, when so liberated?

Why dangerous? Because you're a letch? Why you've decided to use London as an example is beyond me? You think she'll be dressed like that and talking in public to an old white Europeon in Saudi? You think you'd be allowed to even approach her?

What absolute nonsense -- please tell me where you are obtaining your statistics. But thanks all the same for admiring my style!

Compare the equivalent sentences by gender for minor crimes. Judges are still of your ilk and find a women commiting a crime more reprehensible.

Mr. Arising: You will always get your knickers in a twist over morals until you start sorting out the male ones from the female ones. There are many differences between the way male and female mammals evolved that have deep moral significance. Since the male until recently had no idea who his offspring were (and is still none too sure -- c. 20% cuckolded, I believe), he has had to concern himself far more with communal responsibilities than the female, who was always able to concentrate on her own family. ...

Do I have my 'knickers in a twist' about morals? I suppose so, my opinon is simple, morals are the behaviours that demonstrate what ethics you are willing to act for and at bottom are those things you'd die for, the rest is bollocks.
What do you mean "the male until recently had no idea who his offspring were"? How recently? Since we understood that sex produced children? When are you talking about? As just because recent genetic research showed that in a British Town a reasonable percentage of males were not the father of their children means what to the actual relationships? Of course you could tell them to see what happened and I'd guess it would be nasty but I also guess that the males whose children loved them would find solace.
Why do you keep trying to oppose the behaviours of males and females? As if we don't know that we are 'different'? You sneak in things like "he has had to concern himself far more with communal responsibilities than the female", how so? As if your analysis is right then he should only be concerned with male communal responsibilities and as such the females would have been concerned with their communal responsibilities, as I guess that 'communal responsibilities' should be genderless in this instance?
You say "her own family" but you said that it would not be a 'family' in the sense of all the off-spring being understood as belonging exclusively to the couple, or at least one of the partnership not knowing, but those genetic studies did not point out that is was a 'cuckoo' situation as most of those families would have had two or more kids.

...Additionally, in humans it is the female who leaves her family to join that of her husband, meaning she has to be far more sensitive, flexible and tolerant, so she can quickly adapt to the new environment. The male, on the other hand, must specialise in trying to preserve his standards and traditions, to avoid them becoming contaminated and therefore weakened.

I'm always dubious about the idea that a primate can do its own anthropology.

This means that on any particular issue or moral decision, men and women will cluster at different points on the spectrum of opinion, and therefore they will be pulling in opposite directions, against each other. In typically pessimistic style, Nietzsche describes this as the “abysmal antagonism and the inevitable nature of the constant strain between the two”, but at least he does not shy away from the confrontational aspect. To me this is the essence of human life: the battle of the sexes on every issue of any substance. Of course we have to come to a compromise each time: a position halfway between the two, when possible, otherwise each one must win half of the time, on binary issues that allow no intermediate solution (e.g. whose turn is it to fetch the water?).

Where in un-recent history has it been the males job? Unless we're on a hunt then its juniors. What are you talking about? If what you say is true then there is no 'clustering upon a spectrum of opinions', is there? As there are two opinions.
That you are stupid enough to make a 'battle of the sexes' just exposes your responses to your past. That the Human has got where they are because there are two sexes is a fact.

Until we recognise that there are male and female morals (just as there is male and female logic, male and female philosophy, male and female intelligence, etc.), then we will be in a perpetual muddle; for under the surface we will be vying with each other in a sexist manner, without realising what we are up to.

There is only Logic and not many of either gender get it, but that either gender has shown that they get it shows that it is a genderless thought, and this applies to Maths and the Sciences but not to Philosophy so far, is my opinion.

When we start to understand male nature and female nature, as opposed to human nature, then we may well be able to approach one of the utopias you dream of. But remember: it is men who are the authority on female nature, while it is women who are the authority on male nature -- as dictated by Darwin’s sexual selection theory. If we each respect the other’s expertise, I am sure we can work out a pretty robust theory of how we ought to behave with each other. Certainly a better one than the ‘knot of female logic’ that we are currently using.

Okay, I tend to agree with this thought DB, but I think that 'human nature' has not yet been explained, philosophically that is. The ‘knot of female logic’ is actually Capitalism as explained by Marx, rather than some 'feminist' plot. I think it wrong to think that the other watching is the 'authority' upon ones nature as 'ones nature' is up to ones self I'd guess, given the ability of language to overcome genetics.

Right, that's it for tonight. Thank you all very much for taking me seriously and being so tolerant. I was banned for RichardDawkins.net (for supporting heterosexuality, fidelity, morality, discipline, male presence and patriarchy), but it looks as if that isn't going to happen here.

You've been told many times DB, it takes a lot to get banned here so stop bragging, as its a piece of piss to get excluded upon the InterWeb. I remember FPS Clans 'banning' and even 'pigging' at the slightest 'insult'.

[duszek]

Dear Mr. Butlin,

trying to control an adult woman is a violation of her dignity.
It results in embitterment or worse.

Maybe that is why you had no luck with women.
They all wanted to get rid of you because you seemed to be crazy.

You sound like a gentleman though. Maybe if you reconsidered you would still find a nice companion for yourself.

[duszek]

A man who controls a woman wastes his resources.

Imagine a man who wants to achieve something in his life and who buys himself a dog hoping that controlling the dog will make him more successful in his life.
This is ridiculous.
Being able to control one thing does not make you able to control another thing.