A) the feminization (disempowering) of men (or, natural group y) and B) the liberation (empowering) of women (or natural group x) — and C) the reconciling of both/all natural groups, so that x=y, not x=x (losing y) or y=y (losing x).
Discuss possible ways to reconcile toward equitable empowerment for all individuals and groups, or power revaluation.
No equality.
Each gender/sex has their role.
In Timocracy the female was in charge of the home; the male in charge of everything else.
Hestia = goddess of the hearth. Home.
How is that a disempowerment in and of itself?
It’s disempowerment when you emasculate males and try to maculate females.
Satyr.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Males and females don’t have ‘roles’
I seldom see people change, but I know they can.
I’d rather a ‘masculine’ female than a feminine one.
Everyone has to be tough here, whether they want to or not.
Females are tough in their ways.
Men haven’t been humbled enough.
How delusional are you?
The terms female/male refer to reproductive ROLES…
Specialized ROLES…
Male/Female is bilogical…nature…hormonal…determining how much of your inherited potentials you will develop…determining your physical and mental/psychological traits.
Lorikeet.
I’m going to laugh a little bit.
You have no idea how the universe works.
Everytime I refute your arguments…. You ignore it.
Like when I explained that black per capita murders are higher in the US. But per capita globally, whites have the most kills in the Nintendo game.
You ignore it and just keep posting stupid shit.
Dude, stop it already… it’s driving you insane. Let go, give in to your feminine desires… it’s societies fault not yours. Do you want to be another Kazcynski?
Do you think “power at home” [distributed evenly among every home—one per female(s)] is balanced by “power everywhere else” (distributed evenly among males)?
Or do you think within every home, too, there is an (im)balance of powers between x & y?
edited to include “losing y” and “losing x”
Yes…the most vulnerable sex/gender must be protected.
The most emotional sex/gender must be governed by reasoning.
A ship with two captains goes in circles.
In nature groups are dominated by a male or a breeding pair…
Is this fair?
No.
Is it fair that some children die of cancer?
No.
Is it fair that baby gazelles are eaten by lions?
No.
Is it fair that some are attractive and others are not?
No.
Is it fair that some are born stupid and others smart?
No.
:-"
Is it fair that you have an itch you cannot scratch?
Definitely not.
I read your manifesto on your site lorikeet, and I realized I could refute the entire manifesto.
That’s when I decided not to join your site.
The life isn’t fair argument is something I know very well.
You have two choices lorikeet …. Go with the grain and violate consent. Or go against the grain and violate as little as possible.
You chose the wrong side.
What you’re proposing when you say life isn’t fair is that we should all just give up and be maximal consent violators and manipulators.
Long gestations and weening periods impose greater sexual specialization.
These determine both physical and psychological/mental ranges… necessitating different strengths and weaknesses.
Gender is the integration of these natural roles within socioeconomic, cultural contexts.
All this is hormonal…and so hormonal imbalances manifest sexual dysfunctions and mind/body dissonances, especially if environment nurtures them, as do some human socioeconomic systems based on nihilistic ideologies and spiritual dogmas.
Genes to Memes.
When man intervenes upon these natural processes, he inevitably produces more issues.
The degree of the intervention determining the severity of these desirable and undesirable consequences.
As I’ve said…when ideal and real come in conflict the ideal will always be destroyed.
Even a simple intervention like monogamy/marriage - imposing limits on human promiscuity - has produced undesirable side-effects, like compounding unfit mutation, manifesting a variety of psychosomatic dis-eases…another is imposing sexual restrictions on female sexual options - sexual freedom, since options measure power/freedom.
This may seem unfair but without it civilization is impossible, as it returns man to a primordial state where male competition becomes disruptive or even destructive.
Ethics along with laws impose these necessary restrictions…otherwise man can never become civilized.
Civilized means the control, or sublimation of natural impulses.
You call homosexuality a paraphilia.
Who the fuck are you to judge human sexuality?
It’s not a paraphilia.
I’m heterosexual and even I know that.
You’re weird.
I’ll explain this a little further. A real paraphilia is piquerism. That where men get sexually aroused by poking needles in people in the subway.
That’s a real paraphilia.
“[Ischomachus] instructs Socrates on the art of household management. He lectures his wife about her duties and just how to run the household, manage the servants and organize her pots and pans. But in his effort not to offend her, he tells her that she is his queen bee. He is convinced that he is a master of the art of managing his wife. He boasts to Socrates at how well he is able to manage his wife and what a perfect little wife she has become as a result of all his impeccable instruction. […] But Strauss tells us that the dialogue reveals the truth, though only to the few. Isomachus [sic] is his wife’s slave. But that is not a fate peculiar to Isomachus, it is the sine qua non of being a husband. […] The message is clear: to be a husband, father and citizen is to be held captive by the charms that women employ in the service of civilization. (The idea is altogether Freudian.) The despotic charms of women hoodwink men into a life of never-ending servitude. In this way, women assist the city [polis] in transforming natural men into citizens and gentlemen. Perfect gentlemen like Isomachus are so oblivious to their chains that they believe themselves to be masters of their households. This is a form of self-deception native to gentlemen. […] According to Freud, civilization has its origin in the family, which in turn has its source in the union of Eros and Ananke . The former refers to the masculine desire for the security of sex or sexual satisfaction, which can only be guaranteed by keeping the female readily available. Ananke refers to the feminine desire for offspring which by necessity forces her to seek the protection of the stronger male. Sex and necessity are therefore the parents of civilization. But civilization cannot flourish unless men expand their horizons beyond the family and towards the larger community. The task of civilization is therefore to harness man’s libidinal energies for the sake of civilization. As representatives of the family and the claims of sexual love, women soon became the enemies of civilization. The irony is that although Eros is that for which civilization was invented, it is also the greatest enemy of civilized life. For Strauss as for Freud, the city or civilization is a necessary evil. Eros cannot enjoy the most modest degree of satisfaction in the absence of civilization any more than philosophy can in the absence of the city. Here the resemblance between the two thinkers comes to an end. The solutions they propose are different.
Like Strauss, Freud realizes that civilization keeps natural man captive not by threats or force, but by its comforting illusions and seductive charms. For both philosophers [sic], the success of civilization rests in its capacity to enslave men from within and not simply from without by the threat of punishment and death. Unlike Hobbes, they recognize that fear alone is not the most reliable motivation. Society must internalize its authority and rule over men from within. Both philosophers understand morality as the internalized authority of society or as something thoroughly conventional. Freud believes that civilizing man is a process of psychic oppression the violence of which causes illness and neurosis. He therefore sets out to cure the beleaguered psyche by a process of enlightenment. His object is not to overthrow civilization, but to make us accept it by impressing upon us its necessity. In contrast, Strauss believes that the philosopher is a fool if he tampers with the civilizing process. The gentleman is not neurotic. He is so duped by civilization that he delights in his servitude. Strauss finds no reason to liberate or enlighten him.” (Shadia Drury, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, pp. 83-84 and 86-87.)
Please… everyone who thinks the platonic forms (culminating in the Good) are like abstract numbers… read this:
drive.google.com/file/d/1EYO2D2 … p=drivesdk
The dialogues, or the dialectics, are meant to be solved. They intentionally irritate the crap out of you until you naturally produce a pearl. They know exactly what the pearl is.
Protection is the empowerment-of-last-resort when all less invasive methods of empowerment fail. It does not disempower a woman to protect her & offspring from predators when she is defenseless. It empowers her. A strong man would see that as an empowerment, not NEED it to be a disempowerment.
The itch women can’t scratch results from weak men who feel empowered by disempowering others. Women would not liberate themselves if they were protected only as needed, and empowered by men secure enough to be on a level with their women.
It’s about mutual consent respect — empowering each other for mutual enjoyment — yielding to the other without violating consent.
Zeroeth Nature’s bit about the man being the slave of the woman … it has to be both mutually submitting to & empowering the other, without any illusions to the contrary. There’s the pearl.
Otherwise it wobbles off into oblivion.
Can we please get back to this?
