Men and Women, the Social Realm

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

As I see it, there only exist 3 distinct paths for men to choose within the social realm whilst retaining their dignity as, “real men.”

  1. Guardians (ideologues, scientists, technocrats, educators, politics)
  2. Warriors (army, marine, air, civil)
  3. Workers (agricultural, industrial, commercial)

Outside of these predominant paths, men are generally seen as effeminate, without purpose, or without “a life”. Again, this is just my own observation speaking.

Women, on the other hand, embody the social realm, as, they are the ones (objects) to become guarded and/or fought over (through war), and provided for (through work). Now, although it is laughable to me to view women as equals to men, women (for whatever reason) strive to become comparable to men. Women want to act like men. I don’t know why, but, that is beside the point. I only know that they do (act like men), sometimes. Therefore, women fight and struggle for their, “Equality” (to men). By the way, as a side note, this fact admits a predisposition of inferiority (because why would somebody superior seek to equalize themselves with somebody lower???). Therefore, if women attempt to act like men, then they automatically prove their inferiority. But, alas, that is another side issue. The real deal is, that women ARE the social realm itself. They do not NEED to guard anything (as they are the objects being guarded). They do not NEED to war anything (as they have no sexual compulsion to conquest foreign women/resources). And they do not NEED to work (as men already work for them, in their stead). Therefore, women really have no needs comparable to men.

But somethings change, sometimes. This is proven by the Feminist Movement. Women desire to fulfill the roles of men, for whatever reason (or feeling of inferiority) that exists inside of them. Because, imagine for a minute (men), if YOU were the treasure to become guarded. Then, guarding, warring, and working would all cease to make sense. And you would no longer find any purpose or relevancy in those tasks (as women essentially are superficial in this exact way). In other words, men/males derive their very meaning in life, within societies, by fulfilling their predetermined social paths along predictable methods. One man finds worth in working. While another finds worth in warring/killing/policing/physical authority. And yet other men engage ideologies, of science, of rhetoric, of politicking. Men speciealize because we really have no other choice, lest you become kicked OUT of the social sphere, in which case your access to women/females ceases. If this happens, then men turn Nihilistic, and eventually, Anarchic, gathering the nerve to overthrow those (other men) who already exist blocking their access to females. In fact, I bet this is the full extent of Nihilism itself, for the most part, as a generalized concept (which would explain Nihilism’s predominant affect on adolescent to post-adolescent males).

Males, either during or after becoming churned out of the social indoctrination centers (schools/colleges), feel the need to establish a foothold in the world. They do so through women. And if women are restricted, for whatever reason, then young men/males do what they do best. Start trouble. Big trouble. This is the notion of Guardianship. That what a man has to guard in the first place is his women/females, as these (sex) objects are of the utmost value to humanity/Mankind. If he has no women to guard, then his Guardianship becomes meaningless. What is a Man’s worth in a world without women, or where his access to women, and thus replication (through sexual reproduction) becomes revoked? It should become obvious very quickly. He has no worth. His life becomes both MEANINGLESS and PURPOSELESS, as either meaning or purpose essentially become derived THROUGH the social realm in the first place. And this very fact is what makes the human animal social in the first place. And our possible individuation in life, as men, comes not during our birth, nor before our death, but sometime far in between, at our Mid Lives. When man reaches his full potential, and his fullest strength. Because we are born social creatures. Born dependents. Yet, not all eventually become individuated, as many men (can attest), do not care about such strengths in the first place. Perhaps, most men, or the majority of people in life, are simply content with just getting by. As this is the road most traveled. Easy. Comfortable.

Does not require any thinking. The path of least resistance.

Open commentary welcome. This is meant to be open-ended.

2

So basically you claim that without women-resources you as a male have no purpose in life. Now this is a really irrational statement.

Too bad all humans are part of the social sphere, you wonder why men control most of society… the western world seems to compromise with feminism but the rest of the world doesn’t, and if the analysis that the western world will decline we can only admit that feminization of the social sphere can be only a symptom which will revert when this western world might reclaim back it’s place as the leading civilization of earth.

3

Where is it that men abstain from sex completely? Except in the Ascetic and ultra-religious??? Think of monks, for example. Would you call their lives rational? I wouldn’t. It seems most rational to me that men fulfill our needs (for replication). As this exists the ONLY path for continued life. Without sexual reproduction, a man essentially is/becomes nihilistic. He has no future. His genetics are dead, or will die. He will die. And what purpose has he left behind? What memory?

Who even cares???

4

That maybe true, but, feminization is not necessarily any kind of ‘backward’ step, as NEITHER masculinity nor femininity, alone, reflect any kind of ‘progressive’ stance, no matter what ideologue may spout or imply one. Feminization, if you read the article(s), implies a necessary and natural balance, a biological correction. Equilibrium. The scale tips to one side, then the other, and either finds a balance or becomes destroyed through entropy (unbalance).

Is the West feminized or becoming feminized? Perhaps, but not as much as the entire world (through globalization). Why is it that the “West” is so opposed to Muslim “oppression” of their women? Of their veiling? If you consider Western feminization, and this dynamic, then things become to make sense, and become apparent. The West feels a strange “need” to liberate the Muslim women from their so called “oppression” and “backwardness”. But are women oppressed? Ever? Are not feminine virtues (shared amongst women) universal, as women feel no biological compulsion toward war, or aggression, or physical violence, except within the House of Men???

5

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iivf1dN5Xg[/youtube]

For some reason, I found this youtube video suggested on my recommendations list, and I found it fitting for this thread. I don’t know if the video link is working right now, but it is entitled, “Let the Right One In”. And there is a picture of some young girl on it. I don’t know if this is a movie or something. I believe it is, but don’t know. Who do they mean is the “right one” except some man? And who do father’s want their daughters to sleep with except one chosen and approved by the father figure? I think this all correlates nicely with the topic of this thread, and how women are the objects (of value, perhaps only value) that men keep. And father’s want to “let the right one in” to their family, through his daughters/women (or in other words, sexual reproduction).

6

Concerning the so-called Feminist Movement, which often tries very hard to pass itself off as the voice of every woman, of every country, ethnicity, and cultural formation - you only have to make a cursory study of the main figures of this “movement”, to realize that actually there is a single particular ethnicity strangely, very consistently overrepresented in their ruling ranks, and that it’s these particular “ethnic” women who are especially voiciferous in their culture-destroying demands.

And if someone smart recognized for himself that woman qua woman is fortunately not part of any “Feminist Movement”, then its artificial controversies would no longer be able to falsely slander woman-as-such in his discerning eyes.

-WL

7

I don’t know, but is sex the alpha and omega of life?

Your assessment of men becoming nihilists because of lack of sex stems from your understand of rationality, but how do you define rationality?

In my view rationality does not entain power/utility mongering, I think a form of moderation is a sign of rationality.

8

You’ve no doubt heard that "women are from Venus and men are from Mars. What an ill-thought, divisive opinion! If Jung is right, there are anima and animus in every human. It’s just a matter of proportion. Social stigmas rely on division by social requirements, in part. They also rely on the predominantly patriachal bias historically shown in religions and politics. The Hebrew religion, which is mostly patriarchial, probably owes to rejection of former religions that included goddesses such as Isis, Kali, Astarte and Diana. And we are still mostly unquestioning passers on of this bias.

9

I thought I did science because it is interesting and I enjoy it. Now I know that all along it was only for the vag.

Do you think that the female scientists are also under this same delusion, or do they know that they are just aping men? Can women even have interests or feel curiosity? If they make a scientific discovery or get good results from an experiment, can they feel a sense of accomplishment or pride? I hope they can, even if it is just a delusion.

We are so lucky to have you to explain this all to us. I hope women will give up their foolish incursions into the male realm so that the world will conform to the way you know it must be.

But you have to admit these poor delusional creatures can do some remarkable work. Like her en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether way back in the day. Emmy Noether, one of history’s great male impersonators.

10

Warriors are guardians (including police which I assume you are grouping under civil).

I would label #1 as Conceptualists, which would also include artists, writers, and actors. Yes some of those latter are effeminate or outright homosexuals, but they’re also some of the most energetic and creative among us. They would still qualify as having the dignity of “real men”. They can be, and are, also warriors and workers.

The problem is the balance between men and women, masculine traits especially risk taking and freedom seeking are at odds with the more feminine caution and security seeking, not to mention an over emphasis on sensitivity**. Political correctness and worrying about not offending anyone (except its ok if you’re Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi) has very definite feminine roots. As IW points out, the West has become overly feminized, while the rest still cling to their historical over emphasis on masculinity.

**I agree with the proscription on many forums today against name calling and other emotional and insensitive tactics such as sarcasm and irony, but only because they distract us from the issues, not because the aren’t warranted or because we need to protect our less self-assured participants. The Internet should have a notice posted for all who enter: “Users can only be offended if they grant permission for someone to be offensive to them. In which case, you asked for it. In all other cases, consider the source and give it a rest.”

11

An interesting and thoughtful response, TPT. But could you actualy make lists and include under one heading what is masculine and under the other what is feminine? I’d like to see such a list. And, incidentally, I like your takes on things, even when I disagree with them.

12

Half of the OP’s viewpoint is based on a simple error; the thought that women want to be equal to men. Women do not want to be equal to men, they want to have equal rights. A man who is opposed to this can only be so because he lacks the strength to exert his will within an equal rights paradigm. He needs help of a law, of a Patriarch, to posit himself as superior to woman - to guarantee that he is ‘the man’. I’ve seen the reality of this in Arabia, where such men are actually playthings of their wives.

Only where nature is allowed to run it’s course, by giving equal opportunities to all, will strength be able to command.

This is a self-contradicting set of statements.
If man’s meaning and purpose is strictly in reproduction, then the purpose of his life as he experiences it is nil. That means, unfortunately, that his reproduction serves no purpose either, as his offspring will be just as meaningless as he is. It is just another meaningless link in a meaningless chain.

We may recognize in the OP a nihilism which has not yet come to terms with the absence of objective values, even thought it already reasons from this absence. In a valuation beyond nihilism, meaning and purpose are subjective, and only exist in the form of exalted experience. For one type of man, only a wife to take care of and offspring to outlive him can justify his existence, for another type of man, these things are at best additions to his experience, which by it’s exalted nature justifies itself to itself.

13

Jacob, =D> As I see it differently societies have different ideas about what masculine and feminine mean; and, the same society at different times may interpret these ideas differently. I like Jung’s ideas of amimus and anima within all of us–a matter of proportion, not of opposition. I have some traits that could be called “masculine” and some that could be called “feminine”. This does not negate the biological givens that I have a penus and am genetically predispositioned to be heterosexual.

14

No doubt.
Much machissimo rhetoric is a suppressed anima, it is the opposite of commanding one self. Italians and Arabs are mama’s boys, they project their anima on her - not willing to ‘go there’ in themselves. I am not against this. Arab and Italian culture are magnificent. But what California has done for mankind is to finally give in to it, to the feminine trinity (Persephone, Demeter and Hekate - the porn actress, the businesswoman and the new age witch in real life) - and made a complete mess out of morality - which turned out to be successful challenge to patriarchal ‘ethics.’ (Machiavellianism and Christian demoagoguery) and perhaps a space to integrate the best of both worlds. With that the counterparts of these women - the reflections of them in the psyche of man, who now has to endure them, and conceptualize them - can be identified as emerging in the collective western psyche.

With the new perspective, first the vices were brought in - vice is the easy way, the most facile application of a possibility - a method; - in studying the vices the new virtues can be conceived of, as properties of the anima and perhaps as a new cultural ideal.

15

Amen.
“What do women want?” asked exasperated Freud, who would not wait for an answer. Had he asked, “What do humans want?” his limited question may have found reasonable answers.
My son is part of the X generation. He expresses concern that the nuclear family, or even a reasonable substitute of extended family, fails today because of lack of good old-fashioned commitment and loyalty. I think his concern is reasonable and the considerations here could benefit from addressing the moral implications of seeing as separate that which could complement.
I’ve read that right brain is feminine, whereas left brain is masculine. Such nonsense is not even biologically tenable.