Feminism: Ultimately hatred of nature?

[Carpophorus]

@Artimas

@Carpophorus

@Artimas

Knowledge is power. A small man or woman that knows the mechanics and geometry of the body can easily defeat a muscled man/woman who doesn’t.

Fantasy. The top 1% of women are as physically strong as the lower average male and have less stamina, aerobic capacity, tolerance of pain, spatial awareness, upper body strength. A small woman cannot defend herself against almost any male intent on actually doing her harm and saying it would be a task ‘easily’ achieved is delusional.

Not delusional at all, any being who knows the human body and is knowledgeable of it can defeat a muscle man. Intellect/knowledge is more powerful than brawn. Nothing fantasy about it.

How? With technologies like guns yes. But I don’t think that is what you are implying.

[Artimas]

How? With technologies like guns yes. But I don’t think that is what you are implying.

It has it’s own weaknesses that can/may be exploited.

[Carpophorus]

@Artimas

How? With technologies like guns yes. But I don’t think that is what you are implying.

It has it’s own weaknesses that can/may be exploited.

Not by a ‘small woman’ who could not generate enough bodily force to cause any meaningful damage. Not in the real world.

[Artimas]

@Carpophorus

@Artimas

How? With technologies like guns yes. But I don’t think that is what you are implying.

It has it’s own weaknesses that can/may be exploited.

Not by a ‘small woman’ who could not generate enough bodily force to cause any meaningful damage. Not in the real world.

Really? Yip man was 5’4. Bruce Lee was 5’7. Women can just as well train their bodies as men can, if not then why would they be allowed in military if they weren’t able to train their bodies.

[phoneutria]

@Sauwelios

@phoneutria

Yes, for society, but even in a very elementary level, they’re needed for the family.
If a man cares at all for his legacy, or for what happens to the world after he is dead, he must subject himself to a family.

Why should he care about his legacy, or about what happens to the world after he’s dead? This is not a rhetorical question.

Because he loves his legacy and he loves himself as the carrier of it. He sees himself as a continuation of something great. He represents a moment in the continuous history of the knowledge and culture transmission of his ancestry. He loves his children for that same reason, and because they are him, as he is his parents.
If not for that, he may as well set the world on fire to watch it burn before his death.

A man who is bound to a family is not one who is free to wholeheartedly exercise his will.
Likewise it is for the benefit of all that a man who is bound to a society not be free to wholeheartedly exercise his will.

But what are these “all” for the benefit of? Why is society, or the family, or whoever these “all” may be, good?

Primarily your blood relatives, secondarily the people who are near you and share in your way of life. Indirectly, people who are not at all related to you, but that you would like them to leave you alone and so you live them alone, in other words the people who observe the same laws as you.
They are good because of the above, because they enable an unbroken line of transmission of knowledge from the elder to the children.

If a man kills your family and you have the power to do so, you can bash his head open, but that does not make your family any less dead.
How many bash skulls did it take us to where we are now… do we want to devolve to bashing skulls, because it was the original, the more natural way of things, and that means that somehow it is the better way?

You’re definitely misrepresenting my position on purpose now. Then again, my position is precisely that such mendacity is necessary for feminism to triumph!

You proposed that something that is counter or limiting to nature is a hatred of nature, and not an evolution of nature. If I am misinterpreting you, it is because this is the logical conclusion that your reasoning allows. Perhaps you would like to add to the argument in order to avoid misinterpretations of this kind.

[Carpophorus]

@Artimas

Really? Yip man was 5’4. Bruce Lee was 5’7. Women can just as well train their bodies as men can, if not then why would they be allowed in military if they weren’t able to train their bodies.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Women are never asked to meet the same physical standards as men in the military and much of the time they don’t even have to fully complete the inferior female standards, there was a recent controversy. Comparing male and female strength and potential is a key indicator that you are not involved or interested in anything physically challenging. No women cannot train their bodies like men can you clown.

[phoneutria]

@Artimas

Just waiting for the day science triumphs as it has already proven credible. An artificial/synthetic egg or sac being created to hold the males seed. Interesting to think about huh Wizard?

Eggs have already been fertilized in lab using genetic material other than the male seed.
You have some catching up to do

[gib]

@Sauwelios

Is there free agency?

I don’t know if there is or isn’t, but remember we’re not talk about what you or I think, we’re talking about what feminists think when they blame men for dominating the world for the past 5000 years or so. We’re debating whether this blame entails that they hate nature. If they think everyone is a free agent, I don’t think we can draw that conclusion. If they don’t think that, then it still limits to what extent we can draw the conclusion that they hate nature–first, they’d have to think of men’s domineering over the world as “natural”, and second, they’d have to resent it because it was natural (otherwise, they just happen to hate something that turns out to be natural).

@Sauwelios

And regardless, is there a given–that is, not posited–good and evil? Why should men use their greater muscular strength and aggression to protect and defend women and children rather than to rape and dominate over them? The question is always quid sit deus, “what shall be god”–that is, what shall be our highest good, our ultimate end.

I don’t know, but again, we’re talking about whether hatred of men’s dominance on the part of feminists equates to hatred of nature. Does it make a difference what morality they choose? What god they decide to make their highest good?

[Artimas]

@Carpophorus

@Artimas

Really? Yip man was 5’4. Bruce Lee was 5’7. Women can just as well train their bodies as men can, if not then why would they be allowed in military if they weren’t able to train their bodies.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Women are never asked to meet the same physical standards as men in the military and much of the time they don’t even have to fully complete the inferior female standards, there was a recent controversy. Comparing male and female strength and potential is a key indicator that you are not involved or interested in anything physically challenging. No women cannot train their bodies like men can you clown.

They can train just as men do, what are you on about? Just because one has more muscle does not mean they can win a fight. The only reason a man can gain more muscle is from testosterone and other hormones that increase muscle mass and what not. Does this mean that this male knows how to fight or use his muscle? No.

While the Pentagon brass and U.S. military leaders are struggling over how to bring women into ground combat training, two young female soldiers have already proven they’ve got what it takes to join their male counterparts on the battlefield.

1st Lt. Audrey Moton and 2nd Lt. Carley Turnnidge, both West Point graduates, took on the Army’s Sapper Leader Training course for combat engineers at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. It’s one of the toughest combat training courses in the entire U.S. military and the only course of its kind that accepts women. Since 1999, nearly 60 women have made the grade

Plenty of women train just as hard and well as men do.

[Artimas]

@phoneutria

@Artimas

Just waiting for the day science triumphs as it has already proven credible. An artificial/synthetic egg or sac being created to hold the males seed. Interesting to think about huh Wizard?

Eggs have already been fertilized in lab using genetic material other than the male seed.
You have some catching up to do

I have not found anything except

Artificial reproduction is the creation of new life by other than the natural means available to an organism. Examples include artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning and embryonic splitting, or cleavage.

Where did you find that out?

[Carpophorus]

@Artimas

They can train just as men do, what are you on about? Just because one has more muscle does not mean they can win a fight. The only reason a man can gain more muscle is from testosterone and other hormones that increase muscle mass and what not. Does this mean that this male knows how to fight or use his muscle? No.

They train at a much lower level in terms of speed, strength, power, stamina. So how is it just as hard in REALITY?

While the Pentagon brass and U.S. military leaders are struggling over how to bring women into ground combat training, two young female soldiers have already proven they’ve got what it takes to join their male counterparts on the battlefield.

1st Lt. Audrey Moton and 2nd Lt. Carley Turnnidge, both West Point graduates, took on the Army’s Sapper Leader Training course for combat engineers at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. It’s one of the toughest combat training courses in the entire U.S. military and the only course of its kind that accepts women. Since 1999, nearly 60 women have made the grade

Plenty of women train just as hard and well as men do.
[/quote]
No, they don’t. They might put in relatively comparable effort, but they cannot do or achieve what men can. Grow up.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/corps-delays-pull-up-requirements-for-female-marines/

See the suspension of standards to contrive politically desirable ends?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw[/youtube]

Reality.

[Artimas]

@Carpophorus

@Artimas

They can train just as men do, what are you on about? Just because one has more muscle does not mean they can win a fight. The only reason a man can gain more muscle is from testosterone and other hormones that increase muscle mass and what not. Does this mean that this male knows how to fight or use his muscle? No.

They train at a much lower level in terms of speed, strength, power, stamina. So how is it just as hard in REALITY?

While the Pentagon brass and U.S. military leaders are struggling over how to bring women into ground combat training, two young female soldiers have already proven they’ve got what it takes to join their male counterparts on the battlefield.

1st Lt. Audrey Moton and 2nd Lt. Carley Turnnidge, both West Point graduates, took on the Army’s Sapper Leader Training course for combat engineers at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. It’s one of the toughest combat training courses in the entire U.S. military and the only course of its kind that accepts women. Since 1999, nearly 60 women have made the grade

Plenty of women train just as hard and well as men do.

What is your point exactly, it says in the article YOU posted that they are doing the pull ups just as well as men. Some men can, some men can’t, same as women.

“About a year ago, I was only doing two pull-ups,” added Corporal Ada Canizaleztejada. “I began weightlifting and targeting specific muscles beneficial for doing pull-ups, and now I can do nine.” YouTube features female Marines showing their sisters that pull-ups are possible.

The delay has focused attention, once again, on the proper physical standards that should be required for combat. Some, in fact, may be dated and irrelevant on today’s battlefield. But whenever a snag like this happens, it polarizes those involved.

“Some women will be able to do the pull-ups, some will not,” a former Marine said in response to the corps’ Facebook post. “There was plenty of guys that couldn’t when I was in. Still trusted them.”

Not everyone agreed. “If you can’t lift your own body weight,” a second poster said, “you have no business trying to lift mine.”

[Wizard]

The biological fact and obvious nature of sexual dimorphism separates scientists from humanists. A humanist cannot believe in “human evolution” without referring to the gender roles, namely of sexual selection and screening accomplished by women, upon which evolutionary theory rests.

So humanists need to choose between “Science” and humanity on this topic.

I expect they’ll choose humanity, and then claim the name of science whenever they can, even though they contradict science blatantly.

It gets even worse, the further they push feminist agendas.

[phoneutria]

@Carpophorus

The ‘truth’ as it sits plainly before you is that women have contributed practically nothing to the entirety of civilization apart from the necessary feminine aspects - reproduction, community, child-rearing.

Your entire post is absolutely ludicrous and I can’t think of any reason someone would post such an absurdity if not with the purpose to get a rise out of people … in other words a troll, which you are.

Nonetheless I will humor you in the good spirit of the holidays.

Why should there be an expectation that women should contribute to civilization more than “the necessary female aspects”.
The necessary female aspects are in themselves essential enough, as they are the very foundation of civilization. No man can accomplish anything without first being birthed, fed, changed, and educated for at least 10 years.
It is a key element of knowledge development that the newer generations be taught what the previous has done, so that it can be built upon.
Not to mention the fact that all the great men in history have been able to lock themselves into a study to do all that hard thinking, while someone was on the other side of the door bringing food to him, clean clothes and linens, taking his dirty dishes away, raising his kids, preparing his bath… essentially handling all of the menial drudgery of life so that he was free to think.
The foundation of a building does sit underground and is never seen, but without it there can be no building.

If you want to point at a reason for our civilization decline, do point at yourself for writing such boneheaded and demeaning sentences as this. An element as essential to civilization as the role of the woman, to be written down as close to nothing.
You are the reason feminists exist.

The strength of European culture in times past conferred dignity upon this essential role, even under the inorganic Judeo-Christian monotheism by which it was conquered. Now women are loathed to think of themselves as ‘walking incubators’ and ‘wet nurses’ believing, in tragic and naive fashion, that social parity was denied them on vulgar or primitive grounds and that women are equally capable.

This is very obviously not the case.

Oh I wonder why, why would women loathe to think of themselves as women?

You fucking dickhead.

Only about 150 years after the Industrial Revolution was there any sensible talk of women contributing in productive terms to the wealth of nations and the GDP and the economy. This reveals the superfluous nature of female intelligence and creativity.

Google up any economic indicator chart for the last 150 years. Those are called exponentials. I learned that in school

It is noticeable that women had no meaningful part in any aspect of the entire civilizational process and have yet to contribute anything revolutionary in any field. Not in Mathematics, Science, Politics, Architecture, The Arts, Philosophy, Psychology or any other category of human insight have women done anything more than contribute by synthesizing and regurgitate the pre-existing mores and codes inherited from previous males.

I’ve probably already made my point about how dickheaded it is in one breath to say that the woman’s role is essential, and in another to say that women had no meaningful part in any aspect of civilization. How women that are intelligent and self-respecting might want to put a finger in your face and prove you wrong, and thus create a whole movement about how women can be equal to man on everything. But then, you are a dickhead, and dickheads say dickheaded things.

There would be no feminist movement if women had been given their well earned and dignified place in history instead of being thought of as little more than white slaves.

There is not a road you have traveled or building you have entered not erected by men. To a mind not hellbent on contriving a mythical narrative of comparable male and female intelligence and equality of perception it is telling that even feminism is not something which sprang from the minds of women, rather, from Gloria Steinem, funded by the CIA, to FEMEN, who are trained and directed by males, feminists are a simulation of rebellion which in fact is totally conformist.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton

The Women’s ‘Revolution’ and the Sexual ‘Revolution’ are a mockery of the term given that they were desirable behaviours for the existing status quo and involved no violence - the by product of radical change and the friction involved in the process of changing.

Who cares?

And anyone with a basic appreciation of what biology, history, hypocrisy, statistical analysis or debating in good faith are, will at some point in their life come to realize that feminism is perhaps the most illogical, fraudulent and corrupt discipline in the entirety of academia. The absurdity of third wave feminism, now a total capitulation to subjective emotionality, with a very blatant socialist undertone on its media/political level, is plainly evident to anyone who prioritizes objectivity and coherence in their understanding of the world. It is an ideology for stunted narcissists and women, natures eternal followers.

I don’t care much for feminism either, as you may have noticed I do think women belong warming their guts by the oven and cooling them down by the sink… but I understand why it exists… dickheads.

The idea that women are doing, or even can do, anything which disrupts the politics and ordering that emerges from the male mind, is a rejection of ‘human being’ as a sexual classification. Humans are sexually dimorphic and biologically inclined to produce patriarchal cultures and all other models of social ordering are provably inferior by comparison if civilization is best described as a stable state that reproduces itself. The need to curtail the birth-rate of our (mostly) greedy and short-sighted species is likely the major reason why feminism is infiltrating every social, occupational and legal institution given that it is provably not meritocratic. The need to drug, poison and indoctrinate males, so as to create a more docile, weak and overall feminine male population is a very close second.

So how exactly did it come to this? Given women’s obvious inferiority in politics and disruption and etc?
How did it happen that men, being the stronger and superior sex allow for this to happen?
Did man yield power, and now can’t seem to be able to get it back?
You poor little things.

The technological revolution, which created an environment where women could, sometimes, exhibit the same average productivity as men, in certain fields, is, in my opinion a distant third given the level of contrivance and political involvement that is necessary to disguise obvious disparities in quality, quantity and creativity. Brilliant women are statistically insignificant and never as brilliant as brilliant men.

Say what you will, but I’ll code your ass under the table, bitch.

I like how it is ‘we’ who should protect the women, the children and the elderly when in reality you are a woman and it is men who you burden with the task.

The “burden” of a family is for both man and woman to carry together in the role that they are fit to perform. I do not expect a man to breastfeed my kid.

Furthermore, at what point does cumulative weakness come to topple strength and inhibit the essential functions of a civilization? - when the birth rate is so low that it requires unsustainable immigration perhaps? - when man becomes totally domesticated and institutionalized? - when humans become entirely eusocial with political and technological interventions? What happens when civilization no longer produces resilient or desirable populations and conformist mediocrity is rewarded as readily as excellence and when baseness, stupidity and criminality is sheltered rather than extirpated and nullified?

None of this stems from society as an institution for the protection of family.

Protecting the weak for the sake of it and without thought as to what this propagates now and in the future is, dare I say, incredibly feminine of you. It also reveals your reliance upon Judeo-Christian slave ethics where the importance of weeding out weaker and less intelligent organisms is ‘immoral’. Could this be a subconscious appreciation that your own contribution is superfluous and decadent? Trust me on this, I have read number of your posts, and your every word betrays your own intoxication with sweet mind-numbing lies that women are rebellious and capable whereas the proof that you are just about intelligent enough to behave like a petulant little contrarian, and no more, is in abundant supply.

This whole sentence coming from a strawman. I did not propose that the weak should be protected for the sake of it and without a thought.
The context of all my posts is society as an institution for the protection of family.
Equality to me does not mean that all should have the same and be the same. It merely means that all should have the same rights and be under the same law. All are as free to thrive as they are to perish.

As to the rest, suck my dick.

Your remarks: ‘And what is the truth? That men can carry bigger rocks than women can? Whoopity fucking doo’ and ‘If muscles were the natural measure of power, we should all yield to be dominated by the Africans, as they are on average the strongest race’ reveals this underlying resentment and denouncement of what you think you understand but self-evidently do not. And strength as defined how please? Go ahead, make a fool of yourself and answer as arrogantly as usual.

Hmm… no.

If man cares about what society looks like then family, as you seems to conceptualize it, is one of the ways which would further his interests. But without a stake in his own defence and a measure of autonomy, the family becomes a slavish vehicle of productivity which exists only to be consumed or eradicated by whatever social formation comes next. This is why law and order is really war and order, because without the means to defend your people and bring life to your values via imposition, upon those that threaten it, you can only be a follower of whatever order exists or manifests. A slave. And is bashing open the head of the man who killed your family more or less moronic and productive than taxing citizens for his indefinite incarceration and maintenance?

Agreed.
I like law as a deterrent. It is inefficient as a form of punishment and completely ineffective as a for of correction.
I’m a big fan of honor duels.

Cunning can only exist when strength establishes a degree order and manipulation/deception becomes profitable as risk decreases. Strength always comes before cunning because cunning relies upon predictable responses and the submission to established codes of conduct that can only be created by the strongest of men in a given era.

So?

[phoneutria]

@Carpophorus

@Artimas

How? With technologies like guns yes. But I don’t think that is what you are implying.

It has it’s own weaknesses that can/may be exploited.

Not by a ‘small woman’ who could not generate enough bodily force to cause any meaningful damage. Not in the real world.

Pressure points don’t require force.

[phoneutria]

@Artimas

@phoneutria

@Artimas

Just waiting for the day science triumphs as it has already proven credible. An artificial/synthetic egg or sac being created to hold the males seed. Interesting to think about huh Wizard?

Eggs have already been fertilized in lab using genetic material other than the male seed.
You have some catching up to do

I have not found anything except

Artificial reproduction is the creation of new life by other than the natural means available to an organism. Examples include artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning and embryonic splitting, or cleavage.

Where did you find that out?

This was a long time ago. I remember reading about it when I was still in college.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Yes I was in college in 2001 I’m old fuck you

[Artimas]

This was a long time ago. I remember reading about it when I was still in college.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Yes I was in college in 2001 I’m old fuck you

That’s pretty interesting. I wonder where they are with it all now honestly, if they even continued with it anyways.

Lol, i’m not physically old but I feel old.

[Carpophorus]

@phoneutria

Pressure points don’t require force.

Yes they do sweetheart. So does getting in range to hit a pressure point. But you believe many delusional things and who am I to stop you?

[youtube]/watch?v=O72USfuGjCY[/youtube]

Men produced civilization and women reproduced to maintain it. Women had no direct impact on the productive development of civilization. Get over it.

[Carpophorus]

@Artimas

What is your point exactly, it says in the article YOU posted that they are doing the pull ups just as well as men. Some men can, some men can’t, same as women.

Okay I understand, you are a retard. ‘Women can do it if men can’ is your response to everything regardless of the facts involved. Even in terms of physical strength.

[Artimas]

@Carpophorus

@Artimas

What is your point exactly, it says in the article YOU posted that they are doing the pull ups just as well as men. Some men can, some men can’t, same as women.

Okay I understand, you are a retard. ‘Women can do it if men can’ is your response to everything regardless of the facts involved. Even in terms of physical strength.

Your own article posted even said some women can and some can’t, some men can and some men can’t. Learn to read.