The End of Equality, Feminism, and Humanism

[size=120]Foreword:[/size] Before I begin this essay, you-the-reader should acknowledge that the concepts of Equality, Feminism, and Christian-Secular-Humanism (i.e. Atheism) are all very closely aligned and interrelated. Because of this fact, I will most likely define one concept upon another concept. – strictly relative to my core definitions given for each concept. This essay is an attack on all three concepts at the same time in order to destroy their commonality and rebuild them as they stand. This assault is necessary due to the hypocrisy suffered amongst-and-outlying all real occurrences of said-concepts and their subsequent subject matters. After reading this essay, I implore you to seriously reconsider your prior notions of these concepts, so that you may come to a better understanding of your ‘self’.

(I invoke all responses otherwise I will assume that all of my premises, arguments, and conclusions represent Absolute Truth throughout my own life.)

[size=120]Equality:[/size] is a universal/physical force that attempts to dissipate concentrations of energy by negating or positing matters of importance. Socially speaking, Equality is a popular concept integral to the survival of Human Civilization as we know it. What the notion says to the common human animal is this, “Person-{X} has power. You do not have power. In order for you to have power, you must either posit your own energies or negate the energy of person-{X}. Upon the successful completion of either of these actions, you may then equate yourself with person-{X} as an Equal.” And due to the overpopulation of the human animal specie on planet Earth, it becomes socially acceptable and easy to negate the power of another rather than positing your own power, because rising to power involves Pain. Inflicting Pain upon another while rising to Power is Injustice.

[size=150]T[/size]he photo that I have chosen for this section of the essay symbolizes the human animal with regard to one another in a power-relationship. You see that the line of people (men, not women) are mostly gray and dull. However, one man stands apart from the crowd. He is colorful. He has dimension. He is different. He is unequal compared to all the others! The reason for this is: he is colored. He is significant, while the others are not. Because he is different, we may assume that he has an advantage. Though, this is not always the case, because humans are social animals. He may very easily be segregated from the crowd and killed, directly because he is different. If he exposes himself as an apparent threat to the group or society, then the group will become prejudiced to that difference whether the harm he incurs is actual or not. It may be only superficial (judged between men). Intelligence is one such difference amongst men. The colored man in the photo personally symbolizes and represents ‘intelligence’ to me-myself. He is intelligent, while all others are not.

[size=150]I[/size] will speak a lot about Man throughout the entire essay, because of how I see Man & Woman with relation to one another, and especially because I am a Man myself. The entity or Spirit of Man is a fundamentally unequal creature/thing. The entity or Spirit of Woman is a fundamentally equal creature/thing. The reason that I posit these assertions stems from how I conceptualize the respective (social) ideals of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. I see and say that Man is masculine and Woman is feminine. I have authority over these statements, because I have authority over my own observations of Life. I define Man as an {XY}-entity, Woman as an {XX}-entity. The ‘X’ symbolizes equality in these specific circumstances (but are not limited to them); the ‘Y’ symbolizes inequality. The results of these assertions is that Man will be capable of cognizing both equality & inequality, together or apart, while a woman’s mind is only capable of cognizing equality itself, not the difference(s) of inequality. Where a woman lays claim to ‘inequality’ is through her association with particular men (and their claims). She does not claim ‘equality’ of her own accord or volition.

[size=150]T[/size]he most common and universal notion of Equality that I can recall (at the moment) is Mathematics, which is not coincidentally a scientific field of study that women on average pale-in-comparison to men. “1+1=2”. The {=} symbolizes Equality. The mathematical equation is an abstraction within this particular example of Equality. What the equation intends to say (to me) is: one whole entity plus one whole entity equals two whole entities. However, mathematics fails when it attempts to describe a “whole entity” or unit. The unit-itself is a ‘number’ symbol, usually in a base-10 series, due to how (Western) mathematics has evolved empirically. Anyway, my “point” here is to state that the mind of Man, using male-logic, uniquely differentiates the symbology of Form within the language of mathematics to derive abstract answers. In other words: 1+1=2 because 2=1+1. This inflection of thought and Reason is what I deem: Unreason. It is a notion that I shall not fully explain here. Another way to think about this is to apply it outside of mathematical language: you hit {the wall} because {the wall} hit you. This mode of thinking activates and actualizes Reason in the mind of a Man. A woman is physically unable to mimic this process of the brain, because of the male-female genetic divergence.

[size=150]F[/size]or as long as I can remember, while I have participated in this forum and elsewhere throughout my entire life, so-called women/female “philosophers” have claimed that they are: “equal to men”. This is utter nonsense, except for one extreme case/scenario. What I have noticed that (apparently) no other person before me has noticed, or at least vocalized on a popular scale, is that when a woman asserts the statement, she does not say: “I am equal to men.” She does not say “I” because women are not Individuals. Only Man can be an individual. Women merely act individual and independent, like a man, in order to emulate his individuality. Just as a particular Man may act like God (or a god), he is not actually God. In terms of Essence, a man can become an Individual according to his Manhood, or, post-adolescent transition into a Man. A woman, on the other hand, can never be an Individual by definition. The reason that she cannot do so is because her Spirit is fundamentally tied into the collective-we, a Sociality. She does not speak on behalf of “I”. Rather, she speaks on behalf of “we” or “they”. This is why a woman never (truly) asserts the claim of: “I am equal to men.”, because she is not actually equal to men.

[size=150]B[/size]efore I finish this section of the essay, I must state that a particular Woman represents “women”. One woman literally & metaphorically speaks on behalf of all other women. One woman speaks on behalf of Nature as if she-herself were a goddess. The reason that women do this is because women are connected to all living beings/entities/creatures/etc. through their emotions & feelings. If you cause her injustice or harm, then you are creating an Injustice within Nature herself. Hence, a woman has E.Q., not I.Q., because she has no ‘intelligence’ or ‘thought’ of her own. The concept of Ownership is reserved for Man only. Woman lays claim to Nothing. The ‘self’ of woman is a collective-we (or they), not an individual-I (or me). This is the epitomizing difference between Man & Woman that has gone uncovered for Ages, only to be rediscovered again-and-again by fellow philosophers, wise men, sages, and their oracles. This the True Nature of Justice & Equality. Necessarily, it skews all prior notions and concepts of ‘equality’. A woman never speaks upon her “own” behalf. She is not an Individual nor can she ever be, except by her emulation of a Man.

[size=120]Feminism:[/size] is the Western ideology, created by thoughts of particular men, that women deserve to be seen as Individuals by all of Mankind. It is a blind-assertion, because it disregards Truth. It is mostly a device of propaganda and rhetoric designed to fool particular sets of men into being restrained to act upon their male-compulsions to dominate all other individuals (fellow men). In other words, it is an ideology that promises women fabricated rewards of security & success, in exchange for procreation rites and passages with feminized men. Thus, Feminism is a propaganda tool used to protect female human animals from ‘rape’, ‘pedophilia’, and/or just general ‘inequality’. However, it is an empty promise proposed on behalf of feminized men who must band together to signify a dominance (or dominant ideology). If the Truth is exposed, then Reality can be seen for what it is: women are actually not made safe from ‘rape’, ‘pedophilia’, and/or any kind of ‘inequality’. The Truth is this: women are actually made more vulnerable to such harms, because of how the flawed premises for Feminism create Hypocrisy and Injustice within previously-dominant codes of Moral Conduct through Spiritual Authority.

[size=150]T[/size]he photo that I have chosen for this section of the essay symbolizes the oppression of Man upon Woman. Woman is Nature. She is Justice. She does not kill unless it is absolutely necessary for her to do so. Her weapon is Quantity over Quality (qua-energy). As you can see from the picture, there are two women rising to power against only one man (in his sleep might I add). She dispatches her enemy while his guard is down, a tactic that all women excel at by the way. Her device is cunning, cool, and quick. It appears as ‘intelligent’. If she fails, then Man will kill her without question, cause, or remorse. Failure is not an option indeed. Feminism is the banding-together of women to overcome Man. However, the ideology that gives Feminism its name, “feminism”, was/is defined by Man. Therefore, it should be known here & now that I am speaking of Feminism in two parts: 1) the intuited, reactive direction of women amongst women, and 2) the ideology, philosophy-proper that describes & defines Feminism as an ideology for (feminized) Man to manipulate according to his favor. Therefore, The Feminization of Man rolls on, leveling and equalizing Everything.

[size=150]T[/size]he predominant logical flaw of Feminism is its dependence on the concept of ‘femininity’ as its premise for all possible assertions & statements. In other words, Man is obviously different from Woman, but they are “equal” nonetheless and deserve “equal” opportunities. How is this conclusion reached amongst the premises? It is logically inconsistent. It is logically inconsistent, because Woman cannot utilize Reason. – ever! Woman, Nature, the essence of ‘femininity’, whatever you want to associate with these concepts, cannot associate with Reason by definition. Reason is Man. Reason is God. Reason is absolutely devoid of emotion & feeling. Contrarily speaking, Woman is the entity of Pure Emotion & Feeling. She has no choice but to subscribe to these terms, because Reason cannot define her within herself, within Nature. Thus, Woman as a Feminist is described by her femininity, but this creates a logical fallacy within every argument for the ideology of Feminism. Feminism should not be considered ideal under any circumstance.

[size=150]F[/size]eminism seeks Power from the classical dynamic of Patriarchy throughout human history and civilization. Man has dominated the world and Woman has patiently abided her time, waiting for her time to strike. Now that God has fled the Western World, Nature has her opportunity. However, Nature is just as cruel a Mother to all of her children as God is just as cruel a Father to all of his children. God is cruel, because he plays favorites with his children (Inequality). Nature is cruel, because she does not play favorites with her children (Equality). The difference between these concepts is the common measure of Morality. Feminism is a predominantly moral issue. It is no coincidence that female animals are not allowed to be priests or popes. – why?? The answer to this question hangs on the differences and inequalities between Man & Woman. It is because we are different that things can begin to make sense. But because women physically cannot differentiate things in this manner, they cannot begin to make sense of anything with logical coherency. Thus, they are left with memorization of pre-established, common facts.

[size=150]F[/size]eminism is primarily based on socio-sexual mating rituals within the human animal specie. Because a singular male is capable of impregnating a whole caste of females, Nature must deviate and direct Man’s natural inclinations towards power (his Sex Drive and Will to Power) in a way that is most helpful to herself. This results in the emotional manipulation of women over men. Women react to Man’s action. When it is Just, it becomes allowed. When it is Unjust, it becomes disallowed, directed away from Sociality. This is where feminized Man comes into the picture. Rather than mating with only God, Nature will betray Him and mate with lesser gods in order to usurp his throne. If she is successful, a new Man succeeds the throne. She intentionally aggravates (although unknowingly, because she cannot abstract thought) lesser men to rise up and challenge the King until her goal is realized. The lesser men are by definition feminine. – any man who is lesser than God (which is actually all men). This way, Nature maintains her control over sexual rites. She has the final say on which men penetrate her innocence (even in extreme examples of rape).

[size=150]P[/size]ractically speaking, feminism has another very explicit reproductive role. Due to its naturally equalizing predisposition upon all men and women on Earth, it seeks to define the “ugly” as “beautiful” and the “beautiful” as “ugly”. Not coincidentally, most self-proclaimed feminists are not physically attractive. – why? The reason for this is only jealousy. As with men, women compete against one another for sexual rites. Beauty is her marker. A woman who is not beautiful is much more likely to label herself as a “feminist” and coincide with the ideological practices (promoting a kind of self-righteousness). She does so, because she seeks to convince (feminized) men that looks are not: “only skin deep”. But, this is not true when it comes to women and their subconscious actions/instincts. Beauty is actually only skin deep, because of its definition. The concept of ‘femininity’ is superimposed to its own superficiality for many significant reasons. Remember, a woman cannot “think” by definition, due to her incapability to abstract male-logic. The result of this is an act of intelligence. She must merely pretend to be intelligent in order to make up for her explicit ugliness. Sadly, Beauty is only skin-deep.

[size=150]I[/size] want to discuss ‘rape’ a little bit before ending this section. I feel that I have much more to discuss regarding feminism, but there is no way I can accomplish this all in one sitting/night. The essence of Feminism is to protect Nature from being raped by God. Woman tells Man: “You must complete the mating ritual before you gain entrance rites.” When a particular man skips this ritual and refuses to play “The Game”, then he is labeled a “rapist” by Society. He is also commonly-known as the Pedophile. Unless Man does the proper dance with Woman, she will tell him “no”. This is the game. The reason for this game is to necessitate usefulness and practicality in Man until his accomplishments successfully coincide with Nature’s favor. In other words, just because you are a man, this fact alone does not give you mating rites. For a woman, it does. But, the advantage that men have over women in general is that Man has unlimited access to both Power and Freedom while a woman never does. He owns his destiny. She is made to be a slave to Will. Though, Justice is her saving-grace. Philosophy is then possible, and becomes probable, to be the first “art” or mating rite through which man must entice woman. – with his abstract Intellect, Imagination, and Reason.

[size=120]Humanism:[/size] The Humanist Doctrine is based absolutely upon secular, Christian principles. In this sense, I state/posit that Humanism is simply a disguise for the (a)morality of Atheistic cults/religions in our contemporary times. As such, I equate Atheism to mean: Secular-Christian-Humanism. There is no difference between these two terms or concepts. When a person claims himself to be an Atheist, what he means to say is that he is a Humanist who has divorced himself from the church/religion that he originated from. However, this does not necessarily exclude him from his inherent moral responsibilities and obligations! The common mind may notice about Atheism that it steals almost all of its moral practices from other moralities/religions and then Atheists have the audacity to claim that they do not believe in God! This is a hypocrisy worse than Christianity itself! To negate your past, your heritage, and the family from whence your ancestors arose is the true heresy committed by Atheists. – to claim that they arose ex nihlio. Nothing is more self-righteous, pitiful, and shallow for a Man to associate himself with. The gods are within us all; this is the reason why Humanism is the sham of our century.

[size=150]T[/size]he photo that I have chosen for this section of the essay symbolizes the strictly Human Form. As you may notice, it is Man and not Woman. – why is this? Man precluded Woman, as Adam precluded Eve, because the female animal has evolved to designate a special & significant purpose to the human specie. Rather than Man remaining as a hermaphroditic creature, at some point in evolutionary history, the “human” body mutated to diverge into two sexes. This is the event that tells us that the trunk of our genetic tree split into two forms: Adam and Eve. These two forms eventually became Man and Woman, which the Greeks were peculiarly conscious of. Through spoken and recorded history, the Greeks manifest the knowledge of the past, Human History, into mythologies regarding their gods. From these gods arose God in the Roman Empire, whom defeated & assimilated Greek Philosophy and culture into themselves. The Roman Empire then became the holy Roman Empire. The end of this story is this: the human form is strictly derived from Woman branching away from Man as the “lesser” of the two sexes (marginally speaking). As with all tree trunks, the base trunk does not split equally, although both derivatives may be strong in their own regard.

[size=150]T[/size]he split of Mankind into two sexes or genders was the pivotal moment in human history that goes largely forgotten and unsaid throughout common science and Evolution Theory, because no theories can currently and/or fully explain the process, nor will they ever do so sufficiently. The reason for this is due to the fact that the male-female genetic deviation is the most critical separation of genetic codes. It is the first derivation from Originality, like Philosophy is the first derivation of the Arts & Sciences. All other lifeforms – in the ENTIRE universe – deviate by sex first! That is why gender is so important to the human specie, as well as all species that seem to self-replicate. This is all about progeny, procreation, self-replication, and the eventual-inevitable annihilation of ourselves as mortal entities. The Human Form, Man, represents Man & Woman, but why?

[size=150]D[/size]oes Man or Woman equate to “human”? – yes and no. Man equates to a Human only as an Individual (the singular-I). Woman only equates to a Human only as a Society (the collective-we). Grammatically speaking, when a man talks on behalf of others, stating “we” or “they” in any sentence/statement/proclamation/etc., he is committing a critical/logical error in his male-logic. Similarly, when a woman ever states “I” in a sentence, then she too is committing a critical/logical error in her female-logic. A man can never speak on behalf of a social other while a woman can never speak on behalf of an individual self. This is because the male/female mind physically disallows for such possibilities to be recognized. Therefore, as men and women, we understand our selves, but what are the ‘selves’ that we speak about? For Man, it is I (or they). For Woman, it is we (or they). The “they” concept is the exception to this rule, because “they” represents the Other. It is where all persons/people come to mutual understandings or actual misunderstandings.

[size=150]R[/size]eligions are very knowledgeable about all of these differences between Man & Woman, but not entirely so when it comes to the sense of Philosophy, the First Art of Man. As everybody should know, Philosophy and Religion are fundamentally opposed to one another by Question and Answer, Skepticism versus Servitude. One makes us a Master; the other makes us a Slave. – in God’s eyes. One may escape Rules & Laws while the other is inextricably bound to them. – Chaos versus Order. – Reason versus Unreason. Since this is the case and fact of life, Philosophy and Religion are best served together in a single meal, with Lightness on one hand and Darkness on the other. So, we must come to Humanism, which you should refer to as Secular-Christian-Humanism. As we can all see, Atheists are quickly associating themselves to Humanism in an attempt to return to Moral Faith and Value. The masses of men & women on the planet do so, because human animals fundamentally realize and actualize the moral principles and lessons from which they are raised, from whence they came, not ex nihilio. – null! The reason for this is because in our globalized world, moral decadence and hedonism, the Power of a Woman’s Pleasure, cannot go unchecked for long. The Human Animal is forced to return to his Faith.

[size=150]G[/size]od has truly flown from the hearts of Man, but this does not imply that He is Dead. After all, the gods that brought us here are immortal just as He is. This is about Faith, Morality, and the absolute Rule of Law that guides all of our fates and collective destinies. Humanism brings to us an equalizing, feminizing force. It is no coincidence. When Man has no room to progress, Woman takes reign of the Cottage & Carriage. She does this, because she is better at it than Man. She is the Gate-Keeper while Man is the Key. Thus, the Feminization of Man utilizes Humanism to carry out its deed. It makes Man into Woman and the soul of Man is made to suffer around the world. As Death becomes farther and farther removed, men seek to bring it closer & closer to ourselves. Death was the eternal companion of Man’s power; this is his true loss and casualty. When death flees from the hearts of men, we enter into an age of repression, depression, and spiritual disease. A cancer grows inside us: Death from the Inside.

[size=150]H[/size]umanism and Transhumanism are both human religions that seek to destroy all differences between people. Its premise is a fundamental flaw, when considered by Reason, but it is an absolutely effective Unreason regardless. It is a regression that disseminates all prior progressions of Mankind. It makes one man fundamentally equal with one another, and with women (Equality & Feminism). When this is successfully achieved, the human male becomes assimilated back into Earth and Nature, into the ground so-to-speak. He becomes feminized. His mind becomes womanized. He becomes no different than a “woman” by appearance or whatever is more-or-less. This overwhelming force pressurizes Man into Nihilism, propelling him to collapse within himself to flee from a fate worse-than-death: non-life. You see a great rise in depression and suicide amongst the masses. It will only get worse as time rolls on, rolling over us all.

[size=150]M[/size]an needs his Freedom. We do not have this on Earth. We do not have a frontier nor boundary to propel ourselves into. Until that time comes for Man again (which it will eventually), we are destined and determined to wait. Men block all others out, becoming introverted and self-acoustic, in order to save their spirit from the world around them. – seemingly detached and unobservable to their surroundings. Look deeper. Some men still cling to Hope, a faith in a Future far removed. Futurism is the antithesis to Humanism. While one offers hope to mankind and his individual self, the other offers unrelenting, hedonistic pleasure-upon-pleasure. Heaven on Earth was not built for Man. It was built for Woman. The Spirit of Man is not suitable for such a paradise. He represents dead warriors, warmongers, and kings. – destructionists of the Old World. Every man, woman, and child today represents the success of our past and our race away from sin. It is a past that we can never escape.

[size=150]H[/size]umanism is necessary. It is Eden for Womankind. It is a godless religion, full of hedonistic self-expression and feminine dominance. It is not necessarily bad. It is not necessarily good. It simply is or is not. Nature is reverting the Human animal, Man & Woman, back to a hermaphroditic existence in order to save our species, not destroy it. The masses become unthinking creatures/animals, no different than any other mammal, monkey, lion, or tiger. Those that “transcend” this fate will escape Earth one way or another. Suicide will become a growing trend over the upcoming decades where faith & hope are not restored to the hearts of despairing men. Sex, love, money, etc. all become commodified, made unsacred and shameful, because there is no more purpose for them in the spiritual sense. The Individual becomes lost for the sake of Society, infinitely so. There is no reason for a Man to seduce, to engage in sex, to acquire money, to acquire power, or to socialize. Society offers the Individual Nothing. While, on the other hand, the Individual offers Society Everything. Is the trade fair? No, it is not. Though, it was not made to be fair.

[size=150]A[/size]theists should no longer be able to hide under their flag & banner of Humanism. This is a hypocrisy that must not and cannot stand in the future. Everybody arose and rises through the gods, or the Christian God here in the West. As men, we cannot avoid this fact of life. To displace God, even though He is gone from our hearts (collectively), is to commit the greatest self-disservice or Injustice. He, the Alpha Male, the Monarch, the King & Emperor, the ideal mate, brought us all the successes that we now gorge ourselves upon. Now that we have come this far, we say that we do not need Him. That is both true and false. Atheists are both honest and hypocritical, but their hypocrisy does not suffice them or act as a balance. We needed Him. Whether we no longer need God or not is irrelevant to the points at hand. We needed him before. Now that the wheel is thrust upon us, to drive our own fates into the future, we find ourselves on a downward slope and driving a runaway train that we were unprepared for. We have no choice but to take the wheel. Are we God’s children no more? Is the Fate of Man determined to rise as God’s Adults? – perhaps. How self-determined am I? How self-determined are we? How self-determined are all of us to do what we all shall will?

Then all women must wish to emulate man’s individuality simultaneously, lest we must say they have independent wills. Is a woman BORN wanting to emulate man’s individuality, or must she grow as an individual to begin wanting the “male version” of individuality? A non-independent, non autonomous being cannot experience the “want” of emulation. So you must agree that either women have some tincture of man’s individuality, or that you simply have not observed the individuality of women properly.

Perhaps man’s “tension” and use of reason that is found in his “inequality” is a drive to become complacent like the female. Lao Tsu said that the female conquers the male through her stillness.

I think feminism is a pile of dog crap, I really do. The genders may be unequal in their own ways, but it is a mistake to say that the fairer sex only “acts” independent.

The only way to test if women have no “real individuality” would be to place a woman in an environment with no men (from birth) and see if concepts of “individuality” rise within her. Due to the currently impossible nature of conducting such an experiment, I feel you have made an over-arching assertion.

That seems probable to me. All women are lacking a penis by definition.

She is born emulating a man’s individuality, because the play is already in motion a priori. The baby girl observes her mother and her father. She looks to her father as a source of masculine conception, which he presents to her necessarily. He is the individual. The mother is not. The reasoning for this remains in how the father came to be called “man” and how the mother came to be called “woman”, already. Then, a process of identification occurs to the baby girl so that she grows up as an “independent individual”. The problem is; she is not a “man”, nor will she ever be, lest she perform a miracle. This implies that she can never actually-be an individual, but she can still act like one.

She goes on to emulate her father-figure directly as a result of this. If she is a bastard (her biological father is absent as she is raised), then she becomes susceptible to male domination early on and severely lacks any sense of individuality in her later-life.

I disagree; a non-autonomous can experience “want”.

A rock wants to be a rock. This can be definitively true by definition, regardless of the metaphysical implications.

(i.e. what is a “want”?)

No, I would definitely not say that. I say that it is more of an “overcoming” than a complacency.

Man desires to conquer, procreate, rest, and then die. If he is still, then he is useless and can easily become emasculated.

Why?

Are you not content with your own half already? – you need more?

You sound like AnitaS…

That is baseless anyway. Individuality is rooted in Sociality. An overarching, general, and average similarity that dominates emasculated males only serves to further differentiate a male that kept his balls intact. Mediocrity serves excellence, and not even the other way around! This is true, because people don’t care about the failures and the have-nots. People want to be beautiful, rich, successful. – they want to have rather than have-not. And this makes everybody who is not excellent predictable within their mediocrity, exactly what (does not) define them.

I guess this depends on what you mean by excellence.

Also, it seems implausible to say that females notice their father and wish to emulate him. Do males do this too? Or are they “already individuals” at birth? How can you know?

If the male sees the father and wishes to emulate his independence (rather than possessing it a priori, which is impossible to prove), then nobody is an individual.

I’m not sure what people are trying to get at here. Satyr has left a portion of this board with the notion that being a man means “craftily screwing other people over, having lots of sex and children, becoming indifferent, and dying.” This romantic idea has been played out by nearly every atheistic, “will-to-power”-ish philosopher for the last 150 years. What is so great about this man? His existence seems to be short, brutish, and without examination of the self.

Too easily do you throw the term “mediocre” at the square, the reliable, the temperate. For what reason are you putting on a mask? A “mediocre” male such as myself can detect the “asshole behind the mask” when dealing with what you perceive as a “real man.” Are you going to argue that my lack of independence “sees” your independence and wishes to emulate it? Please. Philosophers often err when they try to become psychologists (who aren’t even real people). :stuck_out_tongue:

I predict that, after a mass eradication due to the excesses of male-dominated society, what you define as “true” masculinity will become all the more unacceptable. It will be attributed as the direct cause of all human woes.

Your definition of masculinity is no different from Thrasymacus’ argument in Book I of Plato’s Republic in which he said, “Justice is the advantage of the stronger.” This has been playing out for thousands of years. Who is ahead?

Or course, I get the notion that nobody reads the classics around here anymore.

You are correct in this assumption.

Yes, males emulate too, but they are also already individuals at birth, due to the genetic & biological differences innate between the ‘male’ and ‘female’ genders. The genders split genetically, because of a specific reason & purpose. And I know because I am ‘male’ and not ‘female’. If I was ‘female’, then I would not know any of this at all. I would probably just feel it. The difference is between “qualitation” and “quantitation”, or, “intellect” and “emotion”.

That is not necessarily true or even connoted by any line of reasoning. Males also have the option of failing to become “independent individuals”, whereas females never get the choice in the first place. Now, there can be a lot of ‘acting’ involved from both sides, but that is purely-mimicry and implication. There is a definitive difference between what people label as ‘smart’ and what they label as ‘stupid’.

No, you see, you are incorrect. This is the case for all men. All men are essentially the same, just like all women are essentially the same as well. This is what it means to be ‘male’ or ‘female’, ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. You also must keep-in-mind that Man, the male human animal, is both male & female in its genetic predisposition (the “XY”-combination). A Woman is only female (the “XX”-combination). Therefore, by definition, she is only capable of acting the part/role of society that she wishes to play. It is utter pretense. It is also why the feminine-disposition is favored as ‘duplicitous’. It is how gay men act like fags or “girlish”. What men particularly despise about this is precisely the “acting” involved. An (intelligent) man can see right through ‘acts’, because a man is more observant about behavior patterns in a strict sense of how these patterns predicate immediate life & death. This also predisposes the ‘male’ phenotype to violence, war, and ‘masculine’-types of pain.

What is so great about Satyr? – I say “nothing anymore”. He was once great, because he was willing to expose himself. He is not willing to do this anymore, so he is no longer great. It is my personal opinion that he receded too far within himself and lost touch with reality, too much into Individuality without recognizing his clear dependency on Sociality. In other words, “when you bite the hand that feeds…”

This is blatant-rhetoric and I do not see a need to answer it.

Human History and Civilization has always longed for a scapegoat. The West chose to castrate God. Now that this catharsis is gone, and the Judeo-Christians are all emasculated, the West goes straight through the façade of Christianity to Mankind. Now, the globalized Amerikan world needs to cut off something more substantial. – all penises, until just a few are left. In its fervor, it will attempt to cut those appendages away from the beasts as well. This is the “Death of Man”. If you want to survive it, then learn how to bow to the institution and state, of women. Disguise yourself as a house pet and be quick about it.

And some of this blame is well-placed. If the global world wants to rid itself of crime, war, and violence, then it does well to castrate men. It does well to turn the wolves into dogs and the sheep into gluttons. The flock size increases; the wild decreases.

The game continues; neither side ever wins. Justice wins in the end, but the end does not exist, so it is a moot point.

Good v Evil.

Perhaps.

The definition of superiority, as with “excellence”, rests on our definition of an ideal.

This, alone, defines us.

This, alone, distinguishes us.

Don’t get me wrong, Real. I know what you mean to a point. A man cannot even scratch his balls (metaphorically speaking) without getting social looks of disapproval.

The true male has greater powers of intellect (in terms of reason and logic) than the female. What is to be said when his logic leads him to ideas about justice and equality? Are they bad ideas?

Did a man first think of these ideas? And by that I mean a “real man?” Or were they implanted into him because he was deceived by feminine thinking?

A real man dominates nature and those around him, according to you (at least I think). If his dominion stretches far enough, he will be able to relax at least a bit, and will have time to think and practice philosophy. Will he independently come to ideas of justice and equality and see these ideas as “good” things, or is the realization of such ideas merely the feminine side creeping in and attempting to establish itself, drag down the male, and mimic him? If the latter is the case, then it follows that ideas of justice and equality are detrimental to masculinity. (I do not mean that the masculine cannot use these ideas to his advantage, I merely mean that these ideas are opposed to masculinity).

If feminine ideas are detrimental to masculinity, and the existence of femininity (the X) is a prerequisite for masculinity, then a problem occurs. The very thing that attempts to water down and mimic the masculine must exist in order for the masculine to exist at all. What the heck does this mean?

Are we going down the right path of thinking here? The masculine hates and despises that from which it came?

Keep in mind this analogy is contingent upon the idea that lack of an X chromosome is fatal, from a biological standpoint.

That is precisely-correct.

Many things can be said about ‘justice’ and ‘equality’, but I do not relate the two here.

No idea is “good” or “bad” as I see it; that would require an emotive moral judgment.

It would be more accurate to say that an idea is either a success or a failure, depending on how they cohere with reality.

The first ideas were created by men strictly for survival purposes. Early mankind lived in small tribes, with say, 11 men and 10 women.

The women were not supposed to think abstractly like men, because it would serve them no purpose. Their ‘thoughts’ were strictly social.

I would call this feminine-thinking more of an collective-‘intuition’ than an individual-‘intellect’.

Intellectualism involves tactical planning, hunting & gaming, something that men excel over women at by the way.

Any man attempts to dominate nature and those around him; a “real man” is merely-successful where others fail.

That is a loaded phrase though.

I cannot say one way or another about your reasoning when you connect the notion of ‘justice’ with ‘equality’…

As I see it, justice is definitely-not a form of equality. In fact, I would say justice is only made possible directly-through inequality.

Under a context of equality, of any kind, I do not see how a person could make sense out of the notion of ‘justice’.

That is not necessarily-true. A master can come to depend on his slaves as his slaves come to depend on being passively-mastered.

You seem to be restating the case that the “lessers” exist to justify a discrepancy of strength.

Man can become strong or weak of his own volition and “free will”.

I do not know how you jumped to this line of thinking, but I agree with it!

Yes! – the masculine hates and despises that (thing) from where & whence he came, because it seems to be a mockery at first. It is being cast out of the Garden of Eden, lost & clueless, and then when you are drawn back to the gates, God spits in your face. It doesn’t make any sense! Once you grow older though, the hate & despise wear away when you realize what happened and why. Boys are fed to lions so that a few may survive and grow to become men. That is the only reason men even live, to be tested in this way. And then you can realize and see that the only reason Eden existed in the first place was to house women and children. The Spirit of Man is designed to extend past this border toward bigger & greater things.

The masculine hate & despise eventually turns into indifference with age & maturity. Hate is a weakness after all, an emotion.

I see that the masculine phenotype is very fatalistic, but women die too of course.

Women are much more sheltered from death though then men will ever be. Man lives to die. Woman just lives; she lacks the concept.

If any human were to gain immortality, then it would probably be a female-hermaphroditic creature, because a woman has no reason to die.

Well said. I did not mean to make it appear as though one who thinks of justice will also think of equality. In fact, Platonic justice is based in inequality, knowing one’s place, and remaining in it.

I agree; but you can only know your place after you totally-know your own self.

Most people are not genetically-predetermined to engage in self-introspection.

Is there any other kind? :wink:

Oops - sorry, forgot my place for a second there. :-"

Yes.

There is selfless-introspection, which you women engage in. You tell me about it?

(Oh wait, you never did before, so why would you now all-of-a-sudden… :-k )

That’s okay…

Where is your place by-the-way? I am curious to know.

IOW selfless-introspection is an oxymoron and self-introspection is redundant.
A woman, who in your theories cannot think, pointed this out to you, and rather gently, given the context.

What have you found out about yourself via introspection?
I must say that it seems you have found out about women via introspection. But they are not in there.

  1. their thoughts were not simply social. Apart from the incredible reduction of all early cultures into one culture, you are not noticing, as one example, that women, even those who did not also hunt, were gatherers - iow not merely focused on the social. Apart from any tool making, fixing, building, etc. they engaged in. 2) it seems implicit in the above that the social does not involve tactical planning. The social realm is filled with constant tactical planning and strategic planning - the latter odd by its absence in your theory since strategic planning tends to be more abstract. 3) Social action requires language fluency. One must put into words processes and ‘things’ that are more abstract than the nouns involved in a hunt. One must be extremely versatile with language to handle social problems and create solutions, especially in collective ways - ways you attribute to women. Needless to say thought and language go hand in hand, so I find your conclusions about thinking being men’s thing rather odd ESPECIALLY given the skill areas you allot each sex. Compare the kinds of nouns and verbs needed in a hunt - hell you can probably simply use hand signals - to those needs to get a family to get along in a tight space, in a food shortage, to reconcile conflicts between families, to reconcile a brother with his father. In social action one must notice patterns that are far less tangible, vastly more complicated, not merely Newtonian but yes Newtonian also - think daycare issues - and requiring, therefore, subtle and blunt, nuanced language use and the manipulation of abstract ideas. The women further have to communicate these things to non-female adults - children and men - whom the women are well aware of have different cultures than themselves.

You own schema, idealized without support, actually makes it much more likely that women would be the masters of thinking, rather than the men. Which activity - the hunt or working through social problems - would lead more quickly to the kind of thinking needed in philosophy? the latter leads naturally to ethics, questions of the nature of the self, abstract processes, the issue of internal relations, issues related to perception versus reality, and a much, much wider set of causation issues.

If I have two candidates for a position as a philosophy teacher - or writer -…

  1. has only been a hunter (in a group)
  2. has only worked in a daycare (with other daycare workers)

No question I take the latter if I must choose blindly in all other respects.

How odd the way she reacts to threats to the lives of her children, for example, her mate, for example and of course herself.

As far as Man living to die…speak for yourself. Your generalization about your own sex is as inaccurate as that about the sex you re not.

On the contrary, I noticed exactly-that. Women are primarily-social.

I can move straight into further assertions from there…

I agree.

You contradict yourself?

Men were the innovators, creators, and architects. They taught the women how to work and what to do.

Who created language, man or woman?

I disagree with your linguistic-assertion. Early tribal language was not verb/noun-based.

There was no such thing as a linguistic-difference between ‘individuality’ and ‘sociality’ back then.

Their concept of ‘self’ was severely-skewed; they thought themselves to be animals. – and they were right.

(at ‘one’ with nature)

I disagree with that implication. That does not sound like something I would say. How do you mean it?

It depends on the context.

And again, who created language, man or woman?

I have plenty of “support”. You have no grounds to assert that women would be the “masters of thinking”.

If they were, then Einstein, the master thinker, would have been a woman by implication; he was not.

Both lead to the same end. The First Philosopher, the Shaman, constantly-existed on the border of the tribe, between men & women:

Your analogy is groundless.

What are you aiming to be taught or write about?

If you want to raise a child, then ask a woman. If you want to think, then ask a man.

She will die for her young; that does not contradict anything I have said/stated.

Men exist to prevent that from happening (her needing to defend herself).

I do speak for myself.

I know what I am and how to define myself.

The real question is: who or what are you and how do you define your “self”?

=;

RU, every time I’ve tried to tell you anything, your mind has been closed. Why would this time be any different? I believe we have already debated, probably more than once, just about every point you brought up in the OP. Maybe moresillystuff will have better luck…if you open your eyes and pay attention. :-k

moresillystuff, thank you for your astute and insightful response above.

Blatantly-false!

If anything, you have single-handedly contributed & added to the points I present here more than everybody else. (btw, thanks!) =D>

Your problem is that you can’t get around being wrong … or right … but you aren’t going to know either way, in the end.

:unamused:

Whoops, I did not see this post before now, so I will go ahead and answer…

No, that accusation is baseless.

No, she did not point-out anything in particular. She linguistically-insinuated it.

I already knew where she was going with it. She feels where I may or may not be correct.

There is more to Nothing than there is to Something.

That is not correct.

I know!

I only learn about myself, nobody else. So I can only define myself.

However, when women have no Individual-self, how do they become defined … by whose authority?

I agree.

No, you misunderstand, perhaps I did not explain clearly enough. 1) I question the clean split you make between the lives of men and women. Then 2) I argue that even if you are correct your hypothesis supports the opposite conlusion. Women would be better thinkers if men’s problem solving was primarily hunting and women’s was primarily social. The latter requires much more abstract thought, is much more nuanced, etc.

Can you back that up?

If you have an answer, back it up. IN any case the issue is not important in the context. We are talking about what activities these hypothetical early humans engaged in and how this would affect their thinking skills.

Can you back this up? And how do you organize a hunt without nouns and verbs. One could do it with sign language as I suggested - though this would have implicit nouns and verbs - but this would only further support my idea that men would be MORE limited thinkers if your gender role limitations are correct.

This seems to contradict your assertions about men and women.

Soskewed was right then, I guess, according to you. Note also that animals is a noun, a plural one. As were all the things they hunted and gathered and they had words for these things. And then they had words for the processes of interaction with these things.

(at ‘one’ with nature)

It is not an implication, it is an assertion.

And again, even if, as I assume you believe, men - off in a men’s gathering in the woods separate from women, I suppose, created language - my point is that even if you are correct about what problems men and women dealt with, the women would be getting better training in thinking dealing with social issues which are much more complex, nuanced and there is a greater need for subtle problem solving and communication skills.

I notice you do not offer the support. I am not asserting that women are the masters of thinking. I am saying that your own hypotheses about what men and women focused on supports women being better thinkers. I actually think your ideas are idealized and lack support. I have listed my grounds for asserting that your hypothesis does not support your conclusions. You have to deal with my arguments. Simply saying I have no grounds is not an adequate response.

Again, you do not seem to understand the problem with your hypothesis, aside from the new issue you are dropping in. You define what thinking is - oddly, in fact, since in Einstein’s case much of his thinking was intuitive, image based, came in a flash and in fact he often felt, felt I said, he was correct because of the elegance of an idea.

And, of course, there were women shamans. And shamanism is extremely different from hunting, further it was an activity engaged in by a very small % of the people in general. Last it was a holistic, intuitive kind of thinking - try to get into a physics program by emphasizing your abilities as a shaman ( I use this as an example because you seem to think Physics is the ultimate form of thinking) - it was very right brain and still is. Of course it involved both hemispheres, but compared to most of the skills that men tend to test higher on than women it has much less left brain, logical linear emphasis.

This is not an argument. It is merely a judgment. What I notice here and on the other forum is that you confuse making judgments and simply making assertions with logical argument. That’s fine. Ironically though, it places you on the intuitive side rather than on what you seem to think is the male side of the thinking world.

Obviously you believe this. You are simply reasserting your thesis.

IOW she has an awareness of what death is and makes a conscious choice, just as a man would.

Irrelevent. We are talking about what they are aware of. Women are aware of death, often more so than men are.

NO, you spoke for men. YOu said what men live for. That is speaking for all men.

[/quote]
And that is great, but once you assume all men are like you and all women are not like you, you are likely to miss the mark.

I actually think your more pessimistic response, which I am quoting here, is vastly more astute. Stating this judgment is implicitly me making an ad hom directed at realoriginal. Which in turn means I need to disengage.