The Feminization of Man

[Lollipop_King]

@Cezar

A mother will bring up a homosexual or metrosexual if she has no daughters and probably if she has no husband.

We learn all our drives, starting from the primary, sexual to the secondary - passions. They form our body and race as we grow.

What a stupid standpoint.
Do we also learn our species behavior?
If all is a product of nurturing then how do species come about, how to sexual types evolve, what makes one species splinter off from another?

@Cezar

As embryos we go through stages from the bacteria over fishes until the mammal. I suppose to this stages correspond to different appetites of the pregnant women.

Each parent can leave a visible mark in the child so visible that the looks of the child can change - the shape of the head - if the child was born with similar looks to the father and if he dies, the child can change it’s looks into his mother’s, I think

Your inherited nurturing, the sum of all previous nurturing (your nature) determines the peer and lower limits of your possibilities. Nurturing determines where within these limits you will fall.

The idea of a tabula rasa is absurd…and a liberal pacifier.

• The theory of self-deception was foreshadowed by the sociologist Erving Goffman in his 1959 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, which disputed the romantic notion that behind the masks we show other people in the one true self. No, said Goffman; its masks all the way down. Many discoveries in the ensuing decades have born him out.

• Though modern psychologists and psychiatrists tend to reject orthodox Freudian theory, many acknowledge that Freud was right about the defence mechanisms of the ego. Any therapist will tell you that people protest too much, deny or repress unpleasant facts, project their flaws unto others, turn their discomfort into abstract intellectual problems, distract themselves with time-consuming activities, and rationalize away motives. The psychiatrists Randolph Nesse and Alan Lloyd have argued that these habits do not safeguard against bizarre sexual wishes and fears (like having sex with one’s mother) but are tactics of self-deception: they suppress evidence that we are not beneficent as we would like to think.

@Pinker

• The Blank Slate had, and has, a dark side. The vacuum that it posited in human nature was eagerly filled by totalitarian regimes, and it did nothing to prevent their genocides.

• I suspect that few people really believe, deep down, that boys and girls are interchangeable, that all differences in intelligence come from the environment…

• [The Blank Slate doctrine] implies that [people] could be conditioned to enjoy servitude or degradation.

• The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups…

• The revulsion we feel toward discrimination and slavery comes from a conviction that however much people vary on some traits, they do not vary on these [innate traits].

• Human nature is the reason we do not surrender our freedom to behavioural engineers.

@Cezar

What are your intentions?

My “intentions”?
Why, are we dating?
I assure you dear girl my intentions are noble.
I seek personal growth, pleasure and to commune with those of my kind.

@Cezar

The Greeks were the human racial archetype. I take Thucydides and Plato as examples.

My positions on race go beyond mere genetics.
Genes are inherited possibilities. Memes are far more important, particularly in a globalizing world where race mixing has made the lines blurry.

But memes, the spirit if you will, is grounded in genes, or on the past.
To know your past and to accept all of it as necessary is to know yourself…it is to be self-conscious. To be self-conscious increases the possibility that you can direct your energies more effectively. Not squandering them away by pursuing goals that will not satisfy the essence of the man.

[Cezar]

I’m not quite sure we are programmed to understand each other by default, but I would be aware of throwing an encyclopedia at someone who appears to me as “stupid”.

So, you are a genealogist and “understanding your past” is of more importance than culture in general?

You would not agree that a child belongs more to those who have brought it up than to those who are the biological parents? (the Code law of Manu agrees)

I am not saying that an upbringing can modify the genes. But I say that the upbringing can change the choice of the available genes in an offspring.

Also, the upbringing/culture can decide will an individual survive in a different culture.

Here, bite this:

“Who thinks and feels very divergently, he perishes, he can not reproduce. Thus, there could be a degree for the limit of individuation. In times when it is felt embarrassing, as in our (and as in all previous moral history of mankind) the drive for it is badly inherited. In times when it is felt pleasurable, it exaggerates itself easily and makes the extreme isolation (and thereby prevents the general fertility of mankind) The more similar, the more increases fertility, everybody meets a sufficient female: hence overpopulation in the wake of morality. The more dissimilar, the more —”
Nietzsche, Autumn 1880

[Lollipop_King]

@Cezar

I’m not quite sure we are programmed to understand each other by default, but I would be aware of throwing an encyclopedia at someone who appears to me as “stupid”.

So, you are a genealogist and “understanding your past” is of more importance than culture in general?

Culture is also a product of a past.

Self-consciousness is about knowing and understanding your past.

@Cezar

You would not agree that a child belongs more to those who have brought it up than to those who are the biological parents? (the Code law of Manu agrees)

I would agree that such a child would be torn.

@Cezar

I am not saying that an upbringing can modify the genes. But I say that the upbringing can change the choice of the available genes in an offspring.

'Choice" implies a will.
Memes versus Genes.
If I train a baby monkey to smoke and eat with a fork and sit on a couch, is it human? Culture trains you to behave in a certain way, does this mean your primal self is lost?
Genes are allowed to atrophy or are enhanced with nurturing…they are not eliminated. The past cannot be undone; it can be denied and ignored but it cannot be escaped.
Genetic code is cellular memory.

Sex is not invented by man.
Man does not choose to be attracted to this or that…no more than he chooses to want to eat fats and sugars.

Are you a “Spartan” because you sound like a pussy Athenian.

@Cezar

Also, the upbringing/culture can decide will an individual survive in a different culture.

Culture is a product of human interventions…it is a meme that attempts to usurp and sublimate and redirect and control genetic predisposition.
When I select a cow for its milk production and breed it I am memetically intervening upon genetics…the end result is not natural selection but of social or human selection. Here man’s will usurps the cow’s.
So when they train you to believe in this bullshit they are really dominating you.
This intervention, when it begins affecting the one intervening in a proportion greater than the processes which are not in his willful control, I call “artificial”. Amass enough of these interventions and you’ve got a simulation.

When man dams a river, to use it, he is not changing what a river is, because if he stops maintaining his intervention the river, in time, will return back to its natural course.

@Nietzsche

“Who thinks and feels very divergently, he perishes, he can not reproduce. Thus, there could be a degree for the limit of individuation. In times when it is felt embarrassing, as in our (and as in all previous moral history of mankind) the drive for it is badly inherited. In times when it is felt pleasurable, it exaggerates itself easily and makes the extreme isolation (and thereby prevents the general fertility of mankind) The more similar, the more increases fertility, everybody meets a sufficient female: hence overpopulation in the wake of morality. The more dissimilar, the more —”
Nietzsche, Autumn 1880

[/quote]
Yes…and?
Culture is a human imposition upon human behavior.

What is naturally selected turns to what is socially selected.
This thesis, which I am currently expanding upon, is about the consequences, the collateral effects, of this intervention.
The basic one is pollution…both material and genetic.

The feminine is preferred because of its demeanor as this has evolved through time to meet a particular sexual function.
Gender roles are sexual roles applied within social contexts or natural roles adapted to manmade environments.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Feminism has made progress.
Finally, females can compete with males.

And they said male/female distinctions were unsurpassable.
All it took was a linguistic shift.

the magical power of words is amazing.
It can nullify free-will, achieving will parity, and it can nullify sexes and genders, achieving human parity.

I’m looking forward to the redefinition of life to achieve parity between the living and the non-living.
Life is an illusion, people!!
Let’s make it happen by popularizing the “proper definition of life”…give it that Platonic booster shot.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Lorikeet

Life is an illusion, people!!

¿creation, you mean?

Toward the eternal.

(Necessary choice in every possible world.)

Love (end) is not love (be) without demonstration (do).

value - fact - ought

essence/quality - being/substance - action/praxis

How’s that for love ontology?

@ecmandu, babe, energetic imploder, will you please check my work here?

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

Feminization = Hyper-Sexualization

Over-Sexualization is the result of many factors, such as:

→increased nutrition accelerates sexual maturation.

→technologies reducing the risks & costs of sexual intercourse.

→sheltering and propagation of unfit mutations.

→exaggerated sexual behaviours, compensating for declining sexuality.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Lollipop_King

The levelling of man continues.

Centuries of social engineering and “civilization” have led to a type of human being unlike our ancestor and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter out all the “unwanted” human characteristics, altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.

How do we know what is voluntary alignment with human nature/spirit, and what is a divergence from it, unless we can define that nature/spirit/capacity/function/essence?

Take elephants, for example. When the males are poached, do the young males become more male-elephant like, or less? What does feminization mean in that context?

Related:

@Ichthus77

Creatively recognizing consent in every context is our essence that requires choice. It’s an interesting juxtaposition because it pigeonholes us … into choosing. Choice is baked in to personhood. That’s not a Catch-22 like Sartre made it sound when he said we are condemned (it is our essence) to be free… so either way, it’s bad faith if we choose (because it implies we are punting back to our essence). He was as confused as Ayn Rand when she called selfishness a virtue and said it was selfish to find joy in mutually making the other greater and ourselves less in mutual consent recognition (altruism).

And yet, instead of exponentially multiplying or iterating that value, we try to capitalize on the human to the point we feel comfortable, zero unease, talking about human resources and human capital. And that is the swamp we fester in if we even make it out of the womb without our parts being auctioned off to the highest bidder…for science.

Only losers “have to” cheat.

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

I’m sorry you’re unable to comprehend.

Not really my fault. Your inherited constitution, and IQ, is to blame…..fate.

There’s nothing I can say or do, that can overcome genetics.

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

All they do is lie…..promoting ideals that degrade the hosts they infest…making them safe for their parasitism.

Liberate women from paternalism and you’ve destroyed a culture.

Consequences….incels……demographic winter…increasing sexual degeneracy….lack of cohesiveness…degradation of culture….

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

Helen Andrews | Overcoming the Feminization of Culture | NatCon 5

I wrote and posted a draft of Feminization of Man over 20 years ago, in a forum called SciForums…
I was, of course, ridiculed and mocked, transforming the Wanderer - as I was called then - into Satyr. – as I am known now.

Now…it is becoming obvious.
But they do not even delve into the worse aspects of feminization.

[futureone]

Did watch.

I still vote for feminization, kinda, but not strongly. I give feminization 1 thumbs up and 1 thumbs down.

Reasoning being is the alternative is being blown up by a T-90 as cannon fodder for EU Elites. With feminization all that happens is some underdeveloped manlet with a microdick and raisinballs bans you because of his egotrip.

The lady says that females are both anarchists and also tyrants. Well if they are both then the most they can hand out is softbans for wrong speech. Say the wrong thing around a male dictator and you are sent to a gulag or death squads. Thus I think feminization is less horrible than that*.

.

*I put an asterisk because too much feminization is boring and retarded, and spiritually suffocating.

*Masculinity is excitement, while too much feminization is melancholy, lethargy, complacency etc.

*I put another asterisk because masculinity can be boring and retarded as well, like playing the 10th installment of Call of Duty for the 10,000th time, or every action movie having the same predictable plot, etc. Overall I think people should be half male and half female

Not important, but she also blames males lack of reading novels because of too many women authors, I think she is wrong, males gave up on novels long ago, males have given up on life and society in general long ago, and its not specifically because of too many books for chicks.

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

Control a female’s judgments, through dogma/ideology, and you control her choices.

Another example of free-will and how it must be directed. If it were not free it would not be a problem at all.Free = options. More optinos, more freedom.

Power multiplies options.

The issue is choice.

Females are nature’s filtering agencies. Natural selection made conscious - more efficient.

Nihilism can turn female’s against their own genetic impulses, adjusting their filters, so to speak…making them contrary to their original intent.

Natural selection becomes social selection.

Indoctrinating females adjusts their judgments to ideological conventions.

The more nihilistic the ideology the greater the degree of mind/body dissonance…neurosis, schizophrenia. A woman does not know what to follow, her physical impulses (genetically determined) or her ideals (memetically determined).