A woman, much like a man, can be redesigned into anything you want. It is just a question of programming and biochemistry/physiology. She can be redesigned to be stronger, more intelligent, uglier, and/or faster than the man. Or one could simply redesigned the male into being weaker, less intelligent, prettier, and/or slower than the female. And of course, best to do a little of both. Obviously both are going on. Either can be redesigned into a dog, cat, silicone based android, whatever. It is merely a matter of how much trouble you want to go to in order to accomplish your purpose.
Of course the real question is, “Who’s Purpose is being satisfied by all of these alterations of homosapian?”
Or “To whom are homosapians merely a objects and a resource?”
That’s what I was trying to say in the ‘black man’-thread, but as my posts are still delayed (I didn’t reach the ‘magic five’ yet), probably nobody is reading them.
That ‘fight’ between genders and races is constructed and a useful tool for those who have a special interest in it. Or say it ‘oversimplified’: Capitalism (or socialistic capitalism) needs cheap workers. That’s why feminism gets supported and was made to a political correctness.
I only see one post by you in “Black Man”, and that’s been approved
Humans need cheap work, human or otherwise. Because you can get more done as a society that way; capitalism is also a major driver of technology and industrialisation for the same reason. I’m not aware of a political system that requires needlessly expensive production. As a counterweight, humans also need to be paid, to support a lifestyle expectation.
Is a medieval European setup of submissive women and dominant men not also a constructed and useful tool? The Central Asian strict segregation of men and women too? Of course - any social arrangement is a construct; it can be assessed by how many people it is useful for, and in what context. In the context of having a self-determined life relatively free from violent coercion, the modern liberal view of equal society (as opposed to most other arrangements) is useful for women, and also for the men who care about them as more than possessions - fathers, sons, maybe brothers and male friends, even if the husband doesn’t care. From the point of view of a man who wants his laundry doing and his dinner on the table when he gets home, it’s less useful.
Look at it from my perspective, if you can come close.
In the 1990’s, I took it upon myself to help out a few socially rejected people. I found a few people who were obviously in need (literally on the street in some cases) and appropriate for my “little experiment” in “redesigning outcasts”. I gave them a new perspective, attitudes, education, clothing, jobs, shelter, transportation, and physiology (to a degree). My aim was simply to make them capable of surviving their society while being more amenable to it. I changed them. And in some cases very sharply. They were all strictly volunteers and I was extremely careful to not cause more harm than good. All of them became more capable and easier for people to get along with (The AA had nothing compared to me).
Although I can claim some serious successes and no notable damages, I discovered that I was “stepping on the Devil’s toes, The Social Architect”. And He/They promptly showed me their appreciation.
Now the question is, “Did I have the ‘right’ to do that?” Well, from someone’s perspective, certainly not. And at the time, I didn’t see how it should offend anyone other than an enemy to the country/society. So who is it that gets to decide who shall live or die, who shall be altered to what degree and in what direction, and who shall have the right to make such adjustments?
People can be “made into” literally anything or simply done away with. But who actually has the right to do it, especially without their permission? It is going on right at this moment in very broad, inconsiderate sweeping ways that leave many people in misery and/or dead.
Should women (and children) be made into anything without their express permission? And who should have that right?
Two things Naturalistic Fallacy.
Even if you pseudo-naturalistic reflections are true, which they are not. It is no cause to follow nature as if that were a replacement for human culture. Is/ought Problem.
Even if what is say IS the case, which it is not, it does not follow that you ought to change cultural norms to impose your sexism.
Oh three things…
Whilst a man’s power might be in his physical strength a woman’s power lies in her sexuality, her ability to co-operate, and her willingness to form groups which care for one another. All of this trumps a man’s ability to hit things, and most men gain their power not through the fist but in the same way as these qualities I have outlived.
When faced with a group of co-operating people a man with muscles is no match.
Liberalism and egalitarism are antagonists, extreme enemies. Each of both leads to its contrary. Each struggle (against the other and against itself) leads to anarchy, very much anarchy, which can only be stopped temporariliy (!) by another modern totalitarianism, another dictatorship: the synthesis of liberalism and egalitarism. But this another dictatorship leads also to anarchy - merely just later. At last only monarchy is able to end the anarchy, otherwise there is no survival because at last anarchy only means death, and thus leads to death. This shows us the history, especially the history of the Imperium Romanum.
So far, so Hegel… Why is monarchy a logically stable dictatorship, and others not? And if it is stable, why has it had such a bad run in the last 200 years? Why has anarchy failed to evolve inevitably out of the inherent contradictions in the majority of nations that have left sovereign monarchy as a system? Why have anarchies (which are indeed unstable) generally not been replaced by monarchies?
I’m all for logical arguments, but when they contradict the evidence before one, there’s a problem with the logic.
Others are also a logically stable dictatorship, but not in this case! Monarchy has not had a bad run in the last 200 years, and the most governments which called themselves monarchies, were not really monarchies. Is the British monarchy really a monarchy? No!
It is a question of time (age, epoch, zeitgeist etc.), space (landscape, region etc.), and people of this time and space, whether anarchies can be replaced by monarchies or not. Anarchy can also be replaced by oligarchy or democracy, but in almost the best case it is replaced by monarchy because anarchy is - as well as chaos - the opposite to order, and after many, many years of chaos the people want order.
The “best” for the actual rulers is to wait until the western world and probably even the whole world will be absolutely delivered to anarchy.
There is no problem with the logic, and many philosophers have written about the forms of government and their historical return, e.g.: Aristoteles, Polybios, Poseidonios, Ibn Chaldun, G. Vico, Karl Friedrich Vollgraff, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald A. G. Spengler, to name only the most important.
In this case the term “to wait” includes the term “to stage” because the rulers can stage and wait whatever and whenever they want. They can play God. There is no “better way”, James, isn’t it?
What utter rot. Liberalism and egalitarianism stem from the same political roots. It was the the enlightenment thinkers who, seeking to smash the Ancient Regime, promoted both values simultaneously.
The pursuit of liberal values relies on an assumption of egalitarianism, in that to be free of class and duties of class one has to be equal under the law and equal access to rights, and for that you need egalitarianism to guarantee free thinking and evenly prosecuted laws without exceptionalism.
When the day comes that liberal values means the freedom to exploit whomsoever you like, how you like then you will be correct. However, I do not think that even in the USA, any fool is dumb enough to associate liberalism with THAT.
I have no idea what twisted sense of history leads to to mention the Roman Empire, perhaps it would be better we did not dwell on that.
“Doing it right” or “living right” on even a small group scale causes the play to begin. Reality writes the script and no one needs to memorize any lines. Once a small group actually does it right, nature takes over and the game is won.
If you are going to redesign women, that is the way to do it. Then you can can just do your thing and not worry about the world. The very foundation of nature will take care of the rest.
