This is a hot topic and I want to capitalize on your focus and emotional investment to direct the conversation to practical understanding.
Women are mostly social beings and contrary wise Men are mostly rational beings
Social beings are submissive to and preserve externally established norms
Rational beings establish and question all norms
Human social order is a necessity (a family is an example of a social order)
Most humans are both social and rational beings
The more pervasive a social order is perceived, the more pressure beings have to socialize within that order
If a social order has monopoly on all means and production, humans are forced to socialize within that order
As a child, social order is perceived as completely pervasive and to hold absolute monopoly on all means
As one grows and becomes more physically capable and rational the perception of any one human social order is perceived as less pervasive and in conflict with other social orders
Further, it is realized that social orders cannot hold all monopolies on means and production against a rational being
As one becomes more rational, one also becomes less socialized to any externally established norms
That is, a rational being follows internal norms even though some of those norms may have been externally established
If a rational being feels an externally established norm is not rational he will not follow it and may seek to destroy or weak the social order that enforces it with respects to any monopolies of means and production relative and enforceable to that norm
Smaller social orders have less monopolistic pressure over means and production
Smaller social orders give men more monopolistic power over means and production because individualized men are stronger and more rationally capable of securing means and production than women within said small social orders
That is, the differences of men and women in small social orders becomes an important issue as there abilities to secure means and production cannot be easily equalized; as the man is stronger and more rational, the woman is weaker and more emotional. This fact can be more ignored in larger social orders because a womans performance will not effect the overall means and productions of the entire group except in specific functions… which also highlights the idea that in larger social groups ones capabilities are more specialized which makes the overall abilities of a man meaningless in comparison to a woman…
women have an inherent dependency on the means and production of individual men in small social orders
Men in small social orders create the norms of the social order and have the ability to enforce them with respects to their monopoly on their own means and production
Population density is proportional to the pervasiveness of any social order, and it’s monopoly on means and production, and it’s enforceability to it’s established norms
Men have more pressure to be social and less rational in dense populations
Women’s social nature is not effected by dense populations. They are still subject to externally established norms… they just aren’t subject to the externally established norms of their own mate (unless that is the populations social norm), as the man cannot hold a monopoly on means and production, as his unique abilities are not only suppressed they are made meaningless.
Suppression of men over time in extremely dense populations results in a man that from selective breeding pressure is inherently less rational
The irony though is that rational beings are the source of innovation, invention being the primary and underlying mode which secures means and production
Another irony is that when after centuries of selectively breeding out rational men the social order of dense populations ends up enforcing the established norms of a woman’s mate! That is when the men loose most of their rational abilities it is then that the women are subjected to them in their own house.
So another irony is that only in highly dense populations with rational men can women have any power in a society. And yet this very things is the object of the destruction of rational men, and yet when they are destroyed the women loose all of their power.
We can safely say that women do not naturally have power in any society over a long time. Whether in rural areas the women are inherently subjected to men, or in highly dense areas where it may take centuries to kill off the real men the women then end up being fully subjected again.
Hence, only at the expense of men do women have any power in this world.
The last irony we will add is that once the rational men are done away with any society will become like a third world nation over time. Remember that is because it is the rational men who are the source of innovation and therefore the REAL source of means and production.
Arguing in the eyes of a woman proves that you need her APPROVAL and are therefore weak!!!
Truth can be socially expensive. As social beings, women never argue to find the truth.
Lets take this further, Arguing in the eyes of a social order (or it’s agents, or enforcers) proves that you need that social orders APPROVAL and are therefore weak.
REAL arguments can only occur between rational beings who are not dependent on each other; TRUTH can only be found through the dialogue of free rational beings!!!
The internet is a place of dialogue where people can communication who have no means and production dependencies on each other.
Pumping women with the phobia of loosing APPROVAL makes them feel safe, protected, and secure!!! In this way you can create the norms of your own social order.
Women need the security of knowing they can loose approval if they disregard core values. This is a natural instinct they have. If you cannot prove that they can loose your approval than you are not a man. This is the primary issue facing Caucasians today.
Caucasians are where the most rational men exist, and yet each day city states become larger and larger and more dense where people are leaving the rural areas. Only to destroy rational man!
Women may think they have benefits not being under a man’s dominion but deep down in their instinct it is want they truly desire. And further their freedom will only last until the last rational man is dead.
You could establish your own social order by promoting the idea to others that they requires your approval in one way or another; whether you have any ability to enforce through means and production or not! For example religion establishes norms by projecting phobias of loosing paradise or in some religions burning forever.
There is no way a woman or man can test such a teaching and therefore verify such an social order is enforceable. Usually such social orders become enforceable as their numbers increase and therefore start to monopolize the means and production.
Why am I a Christian than? Well I have seen Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah’s Ark, and the evidence of the flood which killed many… enforcing the social order of the heavens, shall we.
I can prove that God can kill, But I cannot prove that God can resurrect (nor punish forever; which I don’t even believe).
So, God’s social order is enforceable and I could also prove the benefits of following his norms, as a rational internal knowing. Where I have agreed with God’s plan and social order rationally his norms become mine (spirit of the law), and then when I do not understand a norm God want’s I have the fear of his enforcement. But it is preferred that I become more rational to be able to understand and prove where God’s laws are correct.
The social order only needs to be perceived as pervasively controlling benefits to the members or else have enforceable means.
@ Ingenium