RedWorker
24th September 2015, 18:58
The crime of the philistine is claiming that all the social constructs of the past about gender identity and gender roles ultimately fell and rightly so because they were not actual representations -- but it is his arrogance that allows him to claim that the current ones, somehow, represent the results of eternal rules of reason and biology, in contradiction to all past historical experiences.
The philistines will easily find an "eternal law" for every social construct: if women are unempowered in society, it is because they are slightly physically weaker on average; if their sexual gender role is one of passiveness, submisiveness and "faking enjoying having sex sex only for the man's enjoyment"; then this must be because men's sexual drive can be proven to be slightly higher, while women's is the opposite. But what would the philistine say when he informs himself, than in past eras it was precisely believed, and with exactly the same reason, that it was WOMEN who had too high of a sexual drive and this is why THEY had to be sexually repressed? Every reactionary line of thought ends up contradicting itself in several fashions. What will philistines say when they are faced with studies of women's pussies getting wet as easily as men's cocks getting hard when faced with visual stimuli, or, when these same studies prove that "sexual drive" is no ahistorical category - it is created merely by the environment alone, which has already been proven, and that is also the reason for the "differing" sexual drive of men and women (which at its RAW level, without the interference of culture, is equal).
The philistines will easily find an "eternal law" for every social construct: if women are unempowered in society, it is because they are slightly physically weaker on average; if their sexual gender role is one of passiveness, submisiveness and "faking enjoying having sex sex only for the man's enjoyment"; then this must be because men's sexual drive can be proven to be slightly higher, while women's is the opposite. But what would the philistine say when he informs himself, than in past eras it was precisely believed, and with exactly the same reason, that it was WOMEN who had too high of a sexual drive and this is why THEY had to be sexually repressed? Every reactionary line of thought ends up contradicting itself in several fashions. What will philistines say when they are faced with studies of women's pussies getting wet as easily as men's cocks getting hard when faced with visual stimuli, or, when these same studies prove that "sexual drive" is no ahistorical category - it is created merely by the environment alone, which has already been proven, and that is also the reason for the "differing" sexual drive of men and women (which at its RAW level, without the interference of culture, is equal).