The operative word there being “shortâ€.
Is that the new paradigm?
Should I be more laconic?
Human beings are very ‘plastic’ in nature and in will.
A person can change allot, depending on the culture that he grew up in.
People who can’t see and smell, for example, have a larger percent of the brain freed up for other functions, because of the brain processing power being rather ‘plastic’.
But the concepts of “femanine” and “masculine” are just a wide variety of attributes that can be found in a certain area of culture and national average.
I think that all of you are sexist. Every single one of you.
I also think that your culture labeled things sexually, with a stamp, even if they had nothing to do with sex or gender, but YOU did it anyway!
I remember the “seporates the men from the boys” – bulshit comments at the post-picture-of-yourself thread aswel. The definition of “ladies” – it’s all just a stupid roll-playing game. I don’t like the fact that they took their civil methodology and paradigms, then drove them into hormones and sex organs.
}:-[
Gender, like race, are definitions which are certainly imposed upon the being through its relationships with others and its place within a system of Otherness.
In and of themselves these terms have no transcendental meaning, as any human term/word/category has no meaning but represents a recognized pattern of existence, a phenomenon, within a specific context and in relation to the human condition, which might point towards something else as a shadow points to a physical form.
To put it plainly an individual’s sex, racial background, character, physical/mental characteristics, identity and historical (temporal/spatial ) presence are not chosen by the individual but are thrust upon the Being whom is then forced to live within the world as it is produced and defined by them or they are imposed upon the individual through how (s)he comes to know himself/herself in the reflection of Others and Otherness.
In other words, the individual accepts the identity it is given because the alternative is too terrifying.
These labels are not accidental nor illusionary but represent the context within which a consciousness exists and delineates its boundaries within it. It surrenders to the system of identification as they determine its existence.
Since we are products of nature and natural selection these labels of male/female are real within the context of nature, and so they determine a series of possibilities unique to each category.
To become free from them one must nihiliate them – negate them through a force of Will.
When a consciousness is forever fleeing itself (fleeing the Nothingness of itself) it grabs onto any distraction or anything that loses itself in the other (Theyness, Otherness) – it wears any garment that will prevent it from seeing itself in the nude, so to speak.
It then acquires its identity through external sources (external referring to that which consciousness does not recognize as self), whether these be social or natural, and (s)he associates himself/herself with these sources as they are represented by his/her needs and desires – needs and desires determined by the natural/social forces that (s)he depends upon and so is enslaved by.
Within the natural system (that is the unconscious system of living beings, differentiated from the conscious living system of beings: society, culture and civilization, and the latter being an evolution/sophistication of the first) both gender and race most certainly display a pattern – a historical/genetic context - of Being which is actual in that it has physical manifestations and therefore mental ones as well - since the mental/psychological is but a product of the physical (appearance always represents a being, whether complete or incomplete – a being that can only be denied and hidden by consciousness which flees its Being in horror), and a role (genetic or social} played within it and so contributes to the understanding of the individual being and its characteristics as they are defined maintained and determined by the very systems consciousness is lost within.
When a Being finds identity through the other(s) then (s)he takes on the mantles of this identity as they are defined by this other(s) – whether this other(s) be another individual (Being) or a group of conscious individuals (society, culture, group) or a system of unconscious otherness (nature, universe).
As such, when one accepts nature or society or culture as being the source of their identity, that is when one even accepts the labels of male/female as relating to themselves, one places himself/herself within the context that determines these identities and, in essence, escapes the burdens of self-determination and freedom by giving it up to a system with a specific context and with specific rules and regulations.
It is, therefore, ironic when one considers that to escape the determining factors that define masculinity/femininity one must detach himself/herself from the natural context within which these terms have meaning and return to his/her true Being which is Nothingness, awaiting something to fulfill it or something to redefine it as something else.
For this reason, the process of “Feminization†can be thought of as a replacement of context, as nature (gene) is surpassed and replaced by society (meme) and so the “Feminization of Man†can be seen as the domestication of man or the elimination of those attributes that were associated with maleness within a natural context.
In this “Brave new World†all identities associated with nature (sex, race, nation, species) become obsolete and are replaced by new categories of identity as they are determined within the social/cultural context.
My thesis in the “Feminization of Man†is concerned with this subtle, or not so subtle, replacement of context which in its process cannot completely deny sexual identification, since our species is slow to evolve physically, and attempts to redefine these labels within new contexts.
In the process it picks and chooses attributes beneficial to its redefinition and labels the unwanted ones as primitive or immoral or dysfunctional or ill or illusions or meaningless.
The attributes mostly weeded out, not surprisingly, are the ones which were beneficial towards the individual within the natural selection context but that are now detrimental or distracting within this new social selection context.
These attributes I’ve labeled masculine because they represent a spirit of being associated with maleness and a product of the male procreative strategy.
Dan~
Therefore the person does not “change†but his definition of what he perceives and how he explains them “changesâ€.
A person’s Will can either be used to enslave himself to a reflection or to escape it.
But to see and smell is recognized as a “natural†way of being for a human.
The fact that the specific person does not see means that he lacks something which will make him “normal†within the context of his nature.
This blind individual is not abnormal in and of himself, but only in relation to a “norm†as it is defined by a process of natural selection and representing a historical/genetic continuum.
A person is “plastic†only when he manages or is forced to - as in the case of the blind man – to detach himself from a “normâ€.
Since women, as a manifestation of their historical/genetic past, are unable to separate themselves by recognizing themselves behind the masks using consciousness, or are mostly unable to detach themselves from genetic determination using Will (The ancient Greeks rightly considered women a manifestation of man’s nature where as men were the manifestation of man’s reason) then they are unable to escape the very contexts which they consider prejudiced or confining.
In essence they want to be more than women by remaining women.
Males and females are not socially or culturally engineered. They are naturally engineered to serve a specific function.
Society didn’t invent gender roles, these were established through procreative sexual roles, but it did warp and exaggerate them.
So it is the hyper-feminine (prissy) and the hyper-male (macho) which are socially produced phenomenon.
Labels like “sexistâ€, “racistâ€, “fascistâ€, “communist†are what is really socially engineered.
They are labels which threaten, admonish and punish the perpetrator but also warn the rest about crossing a specific line of “acceptabilityâ€, “political-correctnessâ€, “normalcyâ€, “conformity’.
One can most often gage the extent of the others indoctrination by how angry and insulted he is by anything that does not adhere to popular opinion.
Peer pressure is a powerful tool of peace and stability.
Was not Darwin once hated for what he insinuated about the origins of man by a population so indoctrinated within the Christian ethical and world-view and so flattered by it, that it would do anything to deny any other possible explanation for the world and for humanity?
Was not Galileo?
Are not Muslims insulted by the depiction of their Mohammed in a cartoon?
In fact anything that confronts our sense of safety and stability and belonging angers and insults us.
In our current world circumstances the necessity for equality and non-distinction makes any notion of differentiation or separation or inequality abhorrent to us, as we are the products of a system.
And I think that both homosexuals & hetrosexuals should do this.
I think that they should all wake up and realize that labels exist within the mind, not within reality, and were created by the mind, and can be un-created by the mind. What we think is controlling us externally is actually, us controling ourself with a belief that we created because of what we saw and chose to believe in.
Even believing in predeterminism is a form of self-control and free-will.
You are, in fact, proposing the end of sexuality.
As soon as you accept sexuality as being a desirable or undeniable part of the human condition you are placing yourself within the premises which make gender roles meaningful and which categorized homosexuals as genetically unfit and so parasitical and women as having a gender role.
A further thing to consider is this:
Is appearance an illusion, a human abstraction, with no, or an imprecise, reference to a phenomenon or does it represent a sensual interpretation of the phenomenon itself.
If the appearance is incomplete and ambiguous then the phenomenon is this way.
Therefore, do physical differences represent actual differences or are they merely cosmetic?
We could say that sexual differences are produced by natural selection. The male and the female are not illusions they represent actual phenomenon which function specifically within the context of natural selection.
The very existence of sex is a natural product and not a human invention.
Now sexual physical differences expose a different procreative role, which necessitates a different physical form and mental capacity.
Now if we wish to sever consciousness from the physical form and escape the ramification this forces upon us – the imposition of nature upon our being – then we should consider if this is possible.
Hmm , it is a deep read here and interesting as I read fully the delightful insightful disclaimer and paper that was written. i really prefered the disclaimer over all.
Feminizing males. hmm. Well the men I have lived with brothers, father, husband and son could do with a bit a feminizing. I mean really look at it from a woman’s point of view. I live with manly men. If I hand them a toilet brush and say go use this, they will dip it in solvent and clean car parts. Not going any where near the toilet, except to hurridly relieve themselves whilst dripping and shaking.
I am not against homosexuality from my perspective it is a win win situation for all.
It actually cuts down competition for mates.
For some of us women who see handsome men that can cook, clean, dress and decorate better then us and won’t invite us in to share their qualities, that sucks. We are not looking for sex, we are looking for men that are not afraid to do “feminine” things and not only do them excell at them. An ideal situation; I get to be seen with such wonderful eye candy and they do the house work better and more often then me. It could only be better if they financially supported me. Ahhhhh dreams, forget sex, it would just hinder the more important things in life.
Good read Satyr, made sense. and obviously is living up to what you expected.
Thanks…I think 
lady Kriswest,
In all honesty, I can pretty much disagree with your previous post, from a personal perspective, patently.
Firstly, I don’t like homosexuals. They are an annoying lot.
Secondly, the male was built to primal. Sorry if that disturbs your sensibilities, but it is closer to actuality than a non-sexual, housekeeping, flower loving, androgynous being with a flaccid crank. I’ve met too many males that promote that sort of persona.
Personally, I revell in my beast. There are, notably, in the modern society, constant repercussions from exhibiting it, but then, being an anomally, makes it such that one need not care.
For example, the director of my department at Lexis. He’s what I would call a typical modern male: flaccid, bureaucratic, agendised, fearful little trem of a man … even though he’s six foot two inches and a good two hundred forty plus pounds.
The mere sight of him generates physical revulsion. He is the antithesis of everything my mind associates with male or masculine. Unfortunately, the noble Satyr is correct … society is attempting to modify the male, and supplanting male aggression with the political correctness of ingrained pseudo-feminism. It’s utterly repulsive.
It should be allowable that one could usurp a male like this by sheer malignant primalcy … but no, no … not allowable, he earned his right to be there … through diplomacy, unethical tactics, subterfuge, and playing the submissive role as required by the environment and sociality.
LOL Guys, I would not ever ever ever give up my manly men I love and adore their primal side and the rest of them. A dream as I described is just a pretend, a jest not for real consumption. It would be nice for all of a few days after that it would be taxing.
Homosexuals come in all varieties shapes sizes and colors. I know a couple, both men are manly men, and yet, are homosexual. LOL most of the males in our group have no clue and only some of us females. You all probably have friends or family that are and you don’t even know it.
To me they no different then any hetrosexuals. I find all this interest in this subject rather humorous. I mean no insult to any but, really, it is kind of a schoolyard subject to me.
Feminizing men though is interesting it is not making them Homosexuals but ,Metrosexual, which is a whole different thing. Metros are creepy. but, maybe that is because I have had little exposure to them. The ones I have met are a real turn off. I would rather fling myself at a flaming homosexual then a metro, any day any time…
join them in their burning as opposed to throwing yourself in front of a train? I guess that’s cool but I can think of easier ways to commit suicide…
-Imp
LMAO 
Imp you know what I mean by flaming. UH Don’t you? Is it possible you have not heard that expression before?
I’m familiar with flamming … but what the hell is a metrosexual and where does that come from … and what does it have to do with feminizing men?
A metrosexual is a male that is fully Hetrosexual but, very concerned with their image and tend to claim that they accept their feminine side, they are very confident, the word prissy comes to mind. Plastic, Egotists and narccisstic also come to mind. A metro will spend as much time or more then a women would primping and will spend as much money or more then a woman would on clothes. They are almost femine in their attitude and manners. this is of course just a generalization , each is different with different ways. To me the one word that really pops out to describe them is, plastic.
To me they are irritating little specimens of humanity. They are what feminizing males has done. Trust me, I think if you put a metrosexual and a homosexual side by side, the homosexual would possibly flinch.
Masculine and feminine, in the context in which I use it here, is more a state of being, a psychological worldview, rather than a sexual orientation.
Metrosexuals are a symptom of the ‘feminization of man’. They adopt feminize strategies of belonging and of assimilating within groups.
Homosexuals are a natural deviation, a genetic mutation or a hormonal imbalance, with no purpose (genetically unfit and therefore parasitical), seeking alternative meanings for their sexual orientation.
The acceptance of homosexuality as a viable alternative life-style is also a symptom of the ‘feminization of man’.
When sex loses its original purpose, the mind grasps onto its alternate purposes – which originally were in support of the original purpose (procreation) – and they are pushed in the forefront as new purposes for sex: entertainment, bonding, pleasure etc.
The rational mind, in its attempt to reinvent itself and trying to break away from the limitations of its own nature, destroys all concepts of natural determination - sex being one very important aspect of this natural identity.
In its place it creates new sources of identity and shows a preference for what harmonizes it with its environment or for what leads to stability within it.
Man no longer lives in natural environments but now lives in artificial (manmade) environments and so he eradicates all connections to his past so as to reinvent himself within this new environment.
Gender roles are remnants of the past which are quickly becoming obsolete.
Humanity’s genetic success has made procreation destructive, rather than constructive, and so sex becomes something other than a natural means of continuing our species.
I chose the term ‘feminization’ because female procreative strategies, especially for a species which requires a long gestation and weaning period to reach maturity, creates a psychological type conducive to social and cultural indoctrination and submission and tolerance.
A female has evolved to be more dependant and dependable. It’s a reciprocal strategy made necessary by a females need for support during those years she is raising young ones.
The term ‘domestication’, which is another way of labeling the ‘feminization’ trend, implies a controlling mind doing the domesticating and does not fully capture the underlying biological mechanics involved.
We call animals domesticated when man intervenes and breeds out of them certain unwanted characteristics which would make them unusable to him.
But in nature there is no controlling mind, consciously selecting and deciding.
The process is one based on necessity. As groups grow individuality is diminished as a matter of course and all characteristics which lead to instability are selected out and replaced by those which enhance group cohesion and mass-identification.
Masculinity is a challenging, aggressive, unforgiving worldview.
This is so due to its procreative role in evolution.
Within large groups and in contained environments it can be disruptive and dangerous and so it is slowly eradicated in a process of harmonization.
Do you lament that or see it as a natural progress inline with thechological evolution?
[/quote]
I “lament†the characteristics which have participated in man’s ascension.
The spirit of facing up to reality – behind philosophy – of facing up to the unknown – behind science - and of wanting to become master of one’s own destiny – behind exploration and individuality - are all tied to this masculine procreative strategy and to the general masculine trait of non-capitulation and aggression.
In a sense technology is an evolutionary adaptation which makes the body’s characteristics insignificant and which renders all distinguishing physical traits inconsequential.
Technology has made sex irrelevant and so the choice of the female type, as the psychological type which is more docile and tolerant and un-individual and so easily harmonized within group dynamics, is understandable.
But technology is also making all distinguishing cultural traits insignificant.
It makes cultural diversity, just like racial diversity, quaint yet inconsequential in self-identity.
It severs all connections to the past by correcting its inadequacies.
The levelling of man includes a cultural levelling and it is behind the current “war on terrorismâ€.
American “culture†is one characterized by its superficiality, in that it replaces traditions with ambitions and customs with wealth.
What sells is produced.
So, yes it is a natural progression from simple to complicated unities.
When I read this thread, it reminded me of an article I just read today at the FHU website. You’ll see how it ties in with the subject of this thread.
Satyr, you’re my hero.
One day, I hope to think as clearly as you do.
==>Mankind is dynamic<==