I despise humanity. The majority of it, anyways.
Humanity is not the ‘world’, but mankind has made humanity just that.
Desert of the real.
I think this?
Hmm, fascinating.
Life and you are tautologies.
You can hate yourself and still grasp onto it. Fear.
You are proof of that.
It is indeed possible for one to suffer because “there is no meaning”. But this betrays a moralist perspective: one needs to believe in a meaning that is not hedonist!
To see suffering as meaningful in a world without moral order, one must conceive it as “father of pleasure”, as Nietzsche puts it.
Only if you don’t believe in a shared world. You definitely at least postulate such a world, seeing as you communicate (be it only with projections of yourself).
To me you are tragicomic, Aiden: you arouse my Schadenfreude. And I suspect you are yourself schadenfroh at your burdening of others with your misery.
Haven’t you said before that I am life? Aren’t humanity the world, then?
We all despise humanity, Satyr.
I am of the opinion you hate the world, and try to defeat it by “loving” it.
Fear…of death.
Death is not peace; death is nothing.
It requires a massive dream-world/delusion in order to take your life.
By all means, one can only be hedonistic in life. We only need to be perceptive that “hedonism” is selfishness in any action.
However, it still doesn’t do anything! You still realise the unreality of everything and yourself!
Life is still out to get you…
On the contrary, I do believe in a shared world. Postulating me as a solipsist won’t protect you from reality.
Reading Nietzsche, you should be fully aware that we are subject to this world. We are subject to the same things.
Wirklich?
If you are stronger than me, you would not even suggest that I “burden others with misery”, as you are “beyond that”.
Well Satyr,
I must say… When I first joined ILP, you seemed like an intellectual “pretender” in some of my earlier posts, so I prudently chose to ignore your posts. However, after stumbling across this essay, I can see that your reason is extremely refined–you are not a “pretender”. Like myself, you have been truly blessed in your intellectual, imaginative, and articulation capabilities. You are an equal to me, for now–while I still seek a master (perhaps in vain for eternity). You and I are both “Philosopher Kings”.
As for myself, without knowing your age (you seem older than me), I have recently reached full “manhood”, marked by my 25th birthday. I believe that it has taken me an extraordinarily long time to reach full maturity, because of the combination of my sheltered family, sheltered rural town, and small group of friends who helped protect me and mold/idealize me into the “archetypical male” along my way. Throughout my life, I have been directed to make the same observations that you have already made. I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that your portrayal of humankind is 99.5% (almost absolutely) accurate. I agree with you and your points. However, your conclusions differ from my own…
When the world’s population peeks 7,000,000,000 and more people, it is not a surprise that women’s social skills sustain the human population. Is it a “bad” thing? Take away those social skills and you will probably see massive die-offs. Is it worth risking to you when you could very easily be a casualty? From my point of view, men and women need to work together now to maintain or reduce human populations to reasonable levels. The human specie may have already “passed the point of no return” and sealed our fate with “Global Warming”.
Besides, regardless of things, the epitome of the male archetype never died–the rulers of the world have always been men, despite the delusions that women hold where they believe women have some kind of “final say” in the matters of men’s thoughts. An alpha male does not care for women beyond his own selfish needs to witness the direct continuation of his lineage. The male archetype cannot die. It is invincible. After all, “God” is male. Don’t forget that.
This is true. Males need to be deemed the “right mix”. However, an alpha male, a “Philosopher King” also gets to choose the “right mix” of what female archetype shall be.
I don’t know if this the exact underpinning of Nihilism, but your points are definitely, strongly linked to it.
Wait, hold on a minute! 
Why do you call Socrates a “victim”? He definitely was not a “victim” at all. He is the culmination of the male archetype as selected by both men & women together. Why? It was because Socrates was/is The Master of Reason. He is the absolute, first well-known “Philosopher King” of all time. His declaration of reason was akin to Franklin’s demonstrations for electricity or Einstein’s access to the knowledge for atomic power. In fact, I would go so far as to say Socrates is the one reason, above all else, that the world has become shaped as it is now through his reasoned words alone.
If you want “power”, look to Socrates.
In fact, it is not an irony at all that he is “MALE”! 
Yet, “hot” chicks still go after fat, ugly, hairy, and confident/funny guys… Therefore, your conclusion is mistaken. “Manhood” has not been “diminished”.
The leveling of man does not continue. Males & females together build the archetype. You are deluding yourself if you believe that it is strictly women doing this thing. Men just as well as women understand that we depend on one another to survive. We work together.
I see homosexuality as a product of your descriptions. However, you should not look so deeply into it. Many homosexual men have children (my ex-girlfriend’s father is homosexual). Perhaps it is just men realizing the fact that sex is easier between males. Why deal with women’s shit when you can knock yourself out with another man? While it is not my own personal preference, I see nothing “wrong” with it. If it floats your boat, then go for it. It means there’s less competition for me out there for choosing a female mate…
Satyr, before I end, let me recommend to you something else–I was going to respond with a long essay of my own, but I don’t consider it necessary to invest my time into. You seem like a very intelligent man, a reasonable man.
Since men & women work together to produce archetypes for one another, then why don’t you take a backward perspective? What archetype should we as “Philosopher Kings” give to women? When all women turn to us and lust after our behaviorisms, then who shall we pick to reestablish the archetype.
Think about this, my proposed essay: “The Masculinization of Women”
Do you not wish women to gain in the strengths of men while we gain in the strengths of women???
A poster on ILP named Pandora is wise about this, yet clueless. Only men can teach women how to be strong “like a man” (winning the so-called Game of Life). Only women can teach men how to be strong “like a woman” (winning the so-called Game of Love). I learned their lesson the hard way, yet I am grateful that they chose to teach me. I have been truly blessed.
As I said, you definitely at least postulate a shared world.
Do you know what “believe” means, Aiden? “To hold dear”.
Only if I’d reproach you for it. But to me it is only sad – and sadly amusing.
Oh how dear you hold this shared world! Bless the fact that there are others for you to depress!
I guess amongst the living no higher compliment can be given than to call the other your “equal”.
Our ego can only tolerate a dead man as our superior or teacher.
I know, and the fact that nobody can challenge my thesis unless they resort to name-calling, selective reasoning, and undefined concepts proves just that.
The fact that it has reached this number is where the disease lies.
Tell me, you being my equal and all, why do you posit a personal preference as an adequate rational argument?
Do you suppose that my perspective of the world is clouded by my personal desires and self-interests, as those of others are?
No the archetype didn’t die, it was abstracted, just like personal value was.
God is male and so is the state. It’s subjects, just like God’s remain feminine. No male entity would tolerate another if it did not become a bit effeminate.
All 'Philosopher Kings don’t care about reproducing or even mingling amongst the rabble.
Seclusion is the preferred state for a brilliant intellect. All it requires it has inside of it; it is wealthy and full.
Self is its bounty.
To the weak, where emtiness and stupidity is the norm, the seeking out for external sources to fill their vacuous minds and the desire to escape from this self they grow to abhor, the mixing is their only distraction.
What is often called nihilism, is the natural end in any honest and thorough exploration.
It is the awareness of self as process, rather than thing, and the sudden awakening to the fact that words and concepts are not real absolutes but artificial ones - metaphors.
How one reacts to this realization, is another aspect of nihilism.
Firstly Socrates was a symptom of Athenian decadence.
Secondly that he allowed himself to die, so as to make a point to the unworthy, makes him a noble victim of his own erroneous morality.
No man dies for the undeserving. A man dies for his own kind.
Now, one can speculate and assume that Socrates realizing that he was nearing his natural end, decided to go out with a symbolic effect.
We shall never know.
Socrates was one of many.
you haven’t thoroughly explored the relation of power to weakness.
“Hot chicks” go for what they consider, or have been taught, is an ideal male. That power and self-worth has been abstracted into money, makes even the fat, ugly, hairy and yes, stupid guy, rationally attractive to her. Women are practical, therein lies their genius.
Instinctively they are attracted to the male that displays the primordial markers of genetic quality. But this is a remnant of a previous environment, a natural one, that has not yet evolved out of us.
But through social and cultural indoctrination she’s also attracted, practically, to the male that can provide for her and her potential offspring. The standard of fitness has changed because man’s intervention has altered the environment.
The docile, un-challenging and, perhaps, ugly male, will most likely be succesful within a social environment because that’s his only avenue towards reproduction and self-worth and his weakness makes him easily integrated with the premises of any man-made environment that demands a suppression of self.
His very inferiority makes him more impressionable to an alternative standard where value is abstracted and accessible to all if they display the appropriate amount of deferment and submission.
Who said women are doing anything?
I don’t think you’ve fully comprehended.
Systems are male creations, just as are ideals.
In his attempt to prevent his own disturbing effect on cohesion man invents a system where manhood is abstracted and so can be worn or bought by anyone, including females.
Females are being affected by this, as well.
Women are and forever will be followers or supportive elements. This is not their doing. They simply follow a trend, especially one they’ve been taught is ‘good’ or they beleive is in their personal interests, from a socio-economic perspective, because they to only associate self and self-worth with the systemic symbols and abstractions of power.
They want equal pay because pay is how they find an identity and it is their only source of empowerment.
Of course we depend on one another for survival. Who said anything different?
I see, so homosexuality is a rational choice?
But then why isn’t it for you?
Sexual attraction is a biological mechanism, not a human choice.
That sexual attraction mutates is due to many factors.
Here you are assuming that man ‘invents’ types.
Did man invent species?
A mind is meant to find patterns in existence, which exhibit a predictable consistency.
This for survival reasons.
Categories, although simplified abstractions of a process, are not false.
The #1 is a simplified abstraction and yet it works fine to produce technological marvels. Species categorizations are also generalizations but they do define a particular phenomenon of common ancestry and biological necessity.
The male/female type is not a human invention. It is a simplification of a pattern describing a biological process and necessity.
Once again just the title points to a misunderstanding of what I’m saying and why I’m saying it and a desire to make a point based on this.
My reasons for calling it ‘feminization’ are specific and clear.
Women are not being masculanized but feminized themselves. What small masculine traits they have are weeded out of them.
What you describe is a reaction to the process, a comparison due to the shrinking diversity (the leveling) and an external symbolic effect where women wear the masculine persona, (like a female cop with a gun) because maleness has been abstracted.
Once more you are asking for uniformity.
Well, then male/female types will be lost.
I also wish for all living beings to share in mankind’s privileges. But what will we eat then?
Lessons can be elarned on both sides and both need each other, but what does this have to do with my positions?
I find it odd that you would label apparent success as a “disease”. Humanity has done what came naturally to us–survive. It may have just done us more harm than good in our current position in space & time. There’s nothing stopping us from controlling our fate just yet. (Well, indolence and ignorance may kill us all…)
No, your perspective is not “clouded”, because you have used reason to dissipate that “cloudiness”. However, I’m sure you understand that our animal spirits cannot destroy our human desires–rather they enhance those desires through reason. Desire and self-interests fuel all manners of dialogue, especially intellectual dialogue. I post to you now only because I am curious as to what you would have to say in response–if there is power to be gained by me in this exercise, then I shall find it and take it. Logical premises and conclusions are only marked by/through avenues of reasoned desire.
I understand and agree with this. Language has evolved with humanity, side-by-side, making abstraction literally possible (and 100% probable).
I agree; when I meet an equal–my first compulsion is to beat them (or learn from them, which is also beating them if they cannot learn, “what does not kill me makes me stronger”).
Perhaps you are correct on these points.
However, a Philosopher King understands animalistic desire and uses it as a tool of power. Since I am an animal, I find “meaning” by partaking in “human” events. When reason and desire merge, the imagination and intellect becomes even stronger.
I am not educated enough about Socrates’ personal life to speculate on the exact reasons behind all his actions. In the end, only he-himself was.
Except, women cannot yet afford the value of what the male archetype has to teach. That is what keeps men superior to women from both the male & female perspective. While, on the other hand, men can plentifully afford the value of the female archetype. The male archetype still has access over a woman’s womb, because she will forever desire to give it freely to such a man.
Yes, I see homosexuality as a result of both genetic and experiential factors, which can either be directly uncontrolled or controlled.
Man invented the word and the concept, our relations of ‘species’. So, I do believe man has invented “species”. After all, it is just a word. Man has invented “everything”, thus the male archetype has “everything” to offer women, while women have “nothing” to offer a true male.
I agree, in many ways, the male/female type is literally “beyond” humanity to speak upon–that is until we decide we want to wipe out all forms of life that are not our own in likeness.
I see.
It is not so simple. Reason is where men dominate in history. Society is where women dominate in history.
The masculinization of women will be complete if Hillary Clinton wins the general election this year in the U.S. However, I predict this will not happen. (I can be humbly proven wrong of course… which I currently see as extremely improbable) She will lose, because women haven’t been properly taught by males yet. No Philosopher Queen has left her mark on history yet. There is no “female” Socrates yet. There is no “female” God yet.
We will eat what we have always eaten, everything and nothing.
Personally, I am at a point in my life where I wonder about how much I should “give” of my power to others. Why should I teach other human beings to be powerful when they can use this power to destroy me? So, as far as the masculinization of women goes, I am undecided on why or how I would support that case. I have answers, but they are still incomplete at this time.
I’m not sure–I may have taken one of your statements in the wrong context.
Control is never complete, as control is a product of freedom.
As long as you’re dependant you are not independant. There are only degrees and relationships.
I don’t want to destroy them, I want to focus them.
That’s because all relationships are power relationships.
Desire is need or needs focused upon an object.
The object is non-existent and so never satisfies. It is the towards that matters.
Asceticism can either be akin to ahteticism or it can be used as an attempted escape from existence.
They can’t comprehend it, totally. They feel it more.
The sexual act itself is a submission.
Yes the word symbolizes an abstraction. But this doesn’t mean the abstraction is false.
If it were the organism would perish.
An abstraction simplifies.
To go ‘Beyond’ our own anture is to dream of an absolute, non-existent ideal. It is the final completion.
A self-obliteration.
All social interaction depends on a degree of feminization. This stems from the fact that any group can only toerate one dominating entity. In modern times this entity is the system itself; the institution.
Individuals simply occupy a symbolic position.
Wrong.
We are all in different degree of feminization.
That females can occupy the symbolic role of representation of masculinity, which has been abstracted into an institution, is old news.
Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher have done it already, just to name two Brits.
See, men have been castrated or their full options have been denied them, making them just another kind of female.
Now the comparisons with actual females becomes problematic because we are comparing men in name only, with females and seeing that in many cases, also due to tolerance, and altruism, women can exhibit more masculinity than some men.
Where uniformity is enforced all comparisons fall under the standards imposed by the only masculine entity, the institution.
We have a growing obliteration of natural distinction. Inter-racial marriages, the triviality of the sexual act, the erasing of all foregin sources of values and cultural ideals - look at the current War on Terror.
The very destruction of the family is caused by this necessity for uniformity and cotnrol over sources of cultural ideals.
What power are you thinking of giving?
there is no masculinization. This error is a result of relativity.
Masculinity is prevented from acting out or using all its options and so the growing uniformity may appear like females are acting more like males when it is males that are behaving and thinking more like women. They have to in order to survive.
Even this need to make it the reverse is an attempt to protect the mind from its own embarassment.
It is the submission of a woman to enact “love”. It is the submission of a man to enact “purpose (life)”.
Reasonability and thought depend on a degree of masculinization. There is a flip side to the coin–that is the point I’m trying to make. Women seek the individualistic & nihilistic despair that plagues men. Men seek the social love that compels women to compete against one another through brutal emotional tactics (betrayal in friendships).
I understand why all these things are taking place, but I am curious as to whether you are mainly stating the facts as they are or do you also propose/predict something about it?
I see the same thing that you do, but from a much different perspective. Men & women are both becoming strengthened by the feminization & masculinization of one another. For example, the comradery of men found in war (namely WWII for all nations engaged) comes from a deep sense of connection. On the other hand, for women, more and more women are rejecting the “emotional wars” they play with another and mainly prefer the company of men. (My ex-girlfriend is the archetypical woman; all women were jealous of her status with men/society and all men were envious of her loving capabilities)
I was thinking of teaching the teachers, being a master of masters. I have the ability to empower another individual by setting his/her soul free from snares and especially to teach others how to learn exponentially through nihilistic exercises/practices: (Practically Applied)(Knowledge)=(Power)
The problem with most people is that they don’t really know what ‘knowledge’ is. For example, somebody would call me a “smart man” and others “stupid” in comparison, but this just shows me their flawed thinking. I am actually the “stupid” man, because what I know is truly nothing. I am the “ignorant” one. Therefore, the equation works like this: (Practically Applied)(Ignorance)=(Power)
There is no such thing as “true knowledge” outside of absolution. “Ignorance”, on the other hand, is very real.
I’m not sure about this–I don’t have time to respond further at the moment, but here are my initial thoughts.
You titled your thread The Feminization of Man, but I see The Masculinization of Women occuring in the background. Both sexes had power to give one another–so they go hand-in-hand.
But this sibmission to life is shared. The submission during the sexual act, and the burden upon the female is only her sacrifice.
Think about the sexual act and what it entails.
My definitions of masculine/feminine are about a metaphysical disposition.
The challenging, I want to be God stance, that produces science from its philsoophy, and the I want to surrender and lose myself in the whole, that produces the mystical and religion from tis philosophy.
One surrenders to the inevitable and the other resists.
I’ve said this before.
If the current environment persists, where accesible frontiers are absent to the masses, the trend will result in a single sex society, no different than bees or ants or termites.
The loss of individuality will be almost complete.
The sense of distinction fo resisting assimilation will be lsot.
You haven’t followed my reasoning.
The masculine is domineering. It does not toelrate another male. There is no harmonious coexistence. Harmoniuos coexistence is only possible with a mostly feminine group.
The male is antagonistic and challenging of all authorities. That’s why science could only be produced by a more challenging philosophy and demeanor.
It doesn’t accept the unknown or hypothetical authorities over itself.
There is no absolute ignorance, either.
Ignorance is not power. Where do you get such an absurd idea?
More another time.
Whatever then. Whether shared or not; you’re still doomed.
I don’t hold anything dear, Sauwelios. I simply live to sate my desires. I would like an exit, but there is no exit.
Why? You’re already depressed.
Does pretending that you aren’t accomplish much for yourself?
A follow up…
Your insistence at passing through this ‘masculinization of women’ ideal points to an idealistic agenda or a gross misinterpretation of what is happening and why.
You posit this sexual uniformity as a desirable thing when it’s entire premise is both flawed and naively idealistic.
Firstly, why would a system produce a phenomenon that threatens its own stability?
Producing more challenging, uncompromising, questioning minds creates the opposite to stability.
The very reason feminization is produced you sweep under the table to make your idea work.
In ape or canine social groups the males are emasculated, under the dominion of one alpha. In lion prides the males are either killed off or they are exiled to the periphery, awaiting the opportunity to gain their own pride.
Secondly, the very image of a man and a woman, hand in hand, facing the world, other than its very romantic flavor, goes against the very reality of sex. Monogamy is a creation of culture. In our species there is none of this one man one woman, crap. The sexes exist to harvest the best genes and to pass them on to later generations, not to sooth the aching loneliness of humanity.
Love, like companionship, comradeship is not some magical phenomenon. It has evolved for a reason and due to a weakness.
Thirdly, every interaction, as you’ve also agreed I think, contains a power balance. There is no hand in hand. One submits to the leadership of the other or the unity disintegrates. No ship can go far with two captains at the helm, and the sailors obeying their commands can be made to appear like they, along with their noble captain, sail hand in hand into the sunset, but that’s not what happens in reality. The individual, friend, is primarily alone. Social behavior evolved later.
This is why I mentioned that the sexual act was very stressful and that it demanded much tolerance from the female. Imagine an alien entity, a larger one at that, approaching you, first of all, with questionable motives. The organism has evolved to protect itself. You have to evolve a mechanism to overcome the desire to flee. Then imagine this alien entity placing a part of itself within your body, an affront to the very idea of your physical integrity. Mechanisms had to evolve to deal with that, as well. This is one of the reasons the female type has had to be more docile and practical and tolerating and submissive.
Fourthly, your description of the possible presidency of Hillary Clinton as a form of masculinization, shows me that you haven’t fully comprehended the process.
If anything the electoral process is a very emasculating and humbling process. The candidates must pander and play the less threatening role so that most of the voters accept their ascension. The candidate doesn’t win the presidency (s)he begs for it, and this after (s)he’s gone through an entire process where the undesirable ones are weeded out.
This is how corporations work as well. One must prove to their boss that they are exactly the type desirable and that he mirrors his boss’s values before he can even hope to become a boss himself.
Then the president is not the one who holds power. It is the presidency with the power. the president is the figurehead, the corporeal representative of this abstraction. Anyone can occupy this position if he proves agreeable to the masses and, most of all, if she or he reflects the ideals of the elites. A woman can attain this symbolic position and an imbecile, like George W., also.
You don’t really think that he’s in charge, do you?
Kennedy is an example of what happens when the president tries to actually use what institutional influences he has. It doesn’t go well.
Soldiers are not masculine either. Anyone that submits to the authority of another and goes off to kill or die for reasons he isn’t sure of, is quintessentially feminine. You’ve misconstrued the the tool for the tool holder.
And finally, your conceptions of knowledge/ignorance is based on a form of dualistic reasoning where there exist two mutually excluding absolutes. Like the concepts of nothing/something.
In fact reality is the process, the movement, towards an absolute.
There is no absolute knowledge (omniscience) as there is no absolute ignorance (void).
This notion of ignorance equaling power, coupled with your hermaphroditical Utopian projection is exactly what I define as feminization.
From nature we see that a social system will prefer the female as its main component, for the reasons I’ve state over and over again. There’s a reason for this.
This world you envisage where we are like bees in a hive, mindless, ignorant bugs, specializing in whatever we’ve been trained to do, and simply enjoying the comforting allegiance of the others, is the very description of the obliteration of individuality.
I’ve already explained to you that women are not becomnig more like men. They are now allowed to wear men’s clothing, ascend to once male dominated symbolic positions of power, to earn money as men did, but this is exactly what you would expect in a feminized social structure.
Do they think outside the box? Do they think for themselves?
Do they challenge an authority, if they do not have another authority backing them up? Even female atheists usually fall for some other spiritual dogma to replace the one they lost, due to reason or training.
Do you know of many female revolutionaries?
How many women in jail and for what crimes?
Females are followers. It is rare that you might find an exception…I have found one or two.
They just follow whatever cultural trend dominated their immediate surrounding and then they never challenge it.
Feminism, itself is a male invention founded on the notion of equality, democracy, humanitarianism.
No, no, no; not “whatever”. You misread me. I said you postulated (at least) a shared world. You then confirmed that by saying that you even believed in it. That means you hold dear to this shared world, whether real or imaginary.
If your world is not shared – that is, if solipsism is true --, there is no “you” (me) to be “doomed”. For then the “shared world” you hold so dear is wholly imaginary. Then there are no others for you to depress, or believe (again: hold dear!) are already depressed. For you, le ciel c’est l’autres! The “hell” you imagine these others are in is your Heaven.
Your desires, such as your desire to depress others (or make them “realise” they are “already depressed” – which amounts to the same)… Your joy lies in cruelty, Aiden, as well as in sexuality (Hentai, eh?) and intoxication (probably).
Your desires are your “holdings-dear”, Aiden!
You are arguing with projections of yourself, Aiden.
Super-organism at work.
“Everything looks like it was built by an architect, a single mind.”
“God” is this so-called architect, the “single mind” for humankind.
The sex act is the same throughout the world in that the male attempts to fertilize the female in a natural compulsion of reproduction. The sex act-itself differs to both large and small degrees from culture to culture and from society to society. Rape is universally penalized, but not strictly due to “feminization”. Rape seems to be penalized for “masculine” purposes–male animals attempt to put a final end to competition that intrudes upon their females (by “rape”). Either way, the female must succumb/submit to the male archetype. This submission is deluded into being seen as a “choice” by others, when really it is not. The male archetype has control over the entire duration.
Therefore, everybody always submits to the male archetype, all females and males–it’s just a matter of competition between male archetypes–who will succeed into the male archetype and how individual male archetypes of a given group will compete against other groups.
The archetypical human males who “resist” God, eventually become “Philosopher Kings”. They give the definitions for science to follow.
Perhaps you are correct about your trend. Human males & females and females both are being trended towards extreme individuality (in females, “The Masculinization of Woman”) and extreme submissiveness (in males, “The Feminization of Man”) merged into a single person. What is “God-ordained” leads the trend.
I see your point. There are few areas left for masculine domination, because the human population has grown so large and forced masculinity into submission. The routes to true power are dwindling for the male archetype, because in every direction, there awaits more and more barriers to prevent the male archetype from having/acquiring literally “everything”.
Hitler is a prime example of the death of the male archetype. He (ironically a male?) tried to rule over the world, but the world over ruled him.
I’ll save that topic for another day.
What?
I ask again:
Try to imagine a primitive organism that must have sexual intercourse with another organism.
This preceeds social behavior.
Imagine. Will not the primordial fear, associated with otherness, have to be surpassed so that this egg is fertilized?
Will not a specific psychology evolve from this necessity and emchanisms to facilitate it?
You keep insisting on Plato’s “Philosopher Kings”. His idea of this type is one that does not pursue power or reproduction but has it thrust upon him.
A very unnatural type.
Nieatzcshe had his free-spirits. The wanderers.
No, there is no trend towards individuality. There is a dogma preaching it, an orwellian myth, but the trend is towards no individuality.
The eradication of all natural identifying markers and the obliteration of all competitive cultures (masculine entities) leads to the absence of indivduality.
Sheep are produced.
Sheep who call their indoctrination and choice of products their ‘freedoms’.
There is no extreme individuality amongst females. What you describe is the return of their sexual choice, taken away to create civilization. They are falling, with the help of technologies, back into primordial aptterns of sexual behavior.
Their equality is nothing more than this creation of a uniformity where all become the same. Disticntion is dictated by the system that makes it into production.
Wealth and production/work is what we identify now. Our social participation.
Napolean.
But you assume, once again wrongly, that the masculine will seek domination over others. That that’s its only option: control over other humans.
Define God.
God is man’s projection of self into an ideal self. It is the dominion of a single ideal over man’s Becoming.
It may be idealistic, but I disagree that it’s a “gross misinterpretation” of events. Men are taking from the social power of women in order to enhance their archetype. Women are taking from the individual power of men in order to enhance their archetype.
Sexual uniformity is a progression in the current era of humanity due to the world’s staggering over-population. One male impregnating dozens and dozens of females could very well get everybody killed, even half a world away. Or a woman raising a dozen children of her own could do the same.
What is “unstable” is a population of 7,000,000,000 people on our planet that trends to be approaching 10,000,000,000 soon enough. So, our system already has produced something that threatens its own stability. The sex act, the thing that has kept humanity surviving, could very well be the thing that seals our fate into inevitable doom. Regardless, “stability” can be found between newly molded male & female archetypes that are defined by Philosophy Kings & Queens.
Sexual evolution shows trends that human males are becoming more and more monogamous for a few specific reasons. The main reason is that the male & female archetype together has decided that monogamy shall be more fitting for future archetypes to live with. The male archetype still wants to have sex with many archetypical women. However, due to birth control methods, those women likely will not become pregnant. If they do, children themselves pose a threat to the archetypical male’s social stability. The archetypical female that is married to the man can divorce him and take away from his money/power. The male also faces repercussions from society-at-large for cheating and being publicly exposed.
It is now deemed unfavorable for men (even the archetypical man) to cheat on his wife and kids.
These points I am making from mainly my Western, American perspective.
I see your point more clearly then–it seems to me that extreme individualism still exists, it is just being funneled into different places throughout society. Its place and power is only subjectively relevant though. This is why I proposed to you the topic of “The Masculinization of Woman”, because the archetypical (American) woman is being trended towards the same extreme individuality that males possess. In fact, I may even state that both “Masculinization” and “Feminization” are both being used incorrectly as terms. Individuality has just taken new and evolved forms. Society has as well. There is no “feminization”. There is no “masculinization”.
It depends on how you are linking ‘feminization’ with ‘society’, ‘social groups’, ‘submissiveness’, etc. Also, it depends on how you link ‘masculinization’ with ‘freedom’, ‘individuality’, ‘control’. A merge of these terms seems to bring about a common Western propaganda plastered everywhere you go, “free society”.
Points taken.
I will respond to these statements when I have more time available.