Log in

View Full Version : Feminism is not an feminine paradigm.



Count Von Eurotrash.
18th August 2006, 14:16
Indeed, my manifold experience demonstrates the inate phsychology of women is fundumentally anti-feminist.

It is imporant to recognise that our phsychology evolved NOT in the context of the 20th century female liberation movement, but rather the paleolithic situation of our ancestors which is highly alien to today's consumer sentiment.

I found out recently that one of my close aquaintences has killed himself over a love which was not returned simply because he was treating his woman with TOO MUCH respect. BIG MISTAKE!

In short, although women appreciate gentleman-like behaviour from their friends and partners, in the subconscious female mind the preferable partner is NOT a nice guy. On the contrary, he is assertive and unyielding to his lady's desires whilst maintaining his confident cool. Although he must not be mean, it is acceptable, nay, preferable that he treat her as though he were superior. Why? Becuase this is a factor involved in our evolution in times where the nice guy was seen as nothing more than an unmanly weakling. I have been testing this constantly for years and it is undeniably true. If you give your girl presents, she will see you as a weakling as it implies masculine inferiority. If you do give her presents, it is demonstrating that you simply don't have the power to woo other women, and are not the dominant male. In fact, you will have infinitely lot more success with her if you don't even smile to her whilst flirting/teasing. Should we blame consumer capitalism for this development? No, I prefer to lay the blame on the feminists who have falsely brainwashed society into the idea of treating women as definitive equals rather than natural complements to masculinity.

And yet you women all know this don't you? You can't deny it for I know its true. So whence the feminism? Don't you see it's nullifying effect upon the masculinity you innately desire?

Black Dagger
18th August 2006, 18:23
Wow, that is some of the most moronic, misogynist crap i've ever read.


Originally posted by you+--> (you)Although he must not be mean, it is acceptable, nay, preferable that he treat her as though he were superior[/b]

It's 'preferable' for men to treat wom*n as if they are inferior?


Originally posted by you+--> (you)If you give your girl presents, she will see you as a weakling as it implies masculine inferiority.[/b]

You really should try coming back down to earth.

When i give people presents they're normally grateful, not disappointed.

Maybe you just give shit presents?



Originally posted by you
If you do give her presents, it is demonstrating that you simply don't have the power to woo other women, and are not the dominant male.

I'm sorry, but people don't actually think like this, the world is not a cardboard anthropological script.

What the fuck is a 'dominant male'?

We live in 'mating groups' now?

Human society does not fit this outmoded social structure you are trying to impose on it.



[email protected]
No, I prefer to lay the blame on the feminists who have falsely brainwashed society into the idea of treating women as definitive equals rather than natural complements to masculinity.

No, we have absurd notions like 'gender', and 'gender' binaries, sexual binares etc. because of dinosaurs like you.

Wom*n do not exist to 'complement' masculinity', that is absolute male fantasy - misogyny.

Why shouldn't wom*n be treated equally?



you
Don't you see it's nullifying effect upon the masculinity you innately desire?

First, not all wom*n are heterosexual.

And second, not all heterosexual wom*n are attracted to popular notions of 'masculinity'. 'Masculinity' is a social construction, not a natural constant.

Dr. Rosenpenis
18th August 2006, 18:37
People also used to be loyal and loving to their lords and kings. But things change.

And regardless, this is simply a very superficial analysis. Both genders can be attracted to those who treat them coldly and arrogantly. Not just women.

The Sloth
18th August 2006, 18:50
Originally posted by Count Von [email protected] 18 2006, 11:17 AM
Indeed, my manifold experience demonstrates the inate phsychology of women is fundumentally anti-feminist.


that may or may not be true. test your hypothesis outside of a social context, and then get back to us.


In short, although women appreciate gentleman-like behaviour from their friends and partners, in the subconscious female mind the preferable partner is NOT a nice guy.

is your assertion falsifiable? of course. why do such exceptions exist, then?


Becuase this is a factor involved in our evolution in times where the nice guy was seen as nothing more than an unmanly weakling.

please explain, with detailed and meticulous scientific sources, the evolution of socio-sexual relationships as they relate to our genetic disposition.


If you give your girl presents, she will see you as a weakling as it implies masculine inferiority.

yeah? been put down by girls for giving presents, have you? oh well. hope you find somebody that treats you better.


In fact, you will have infinitely lot more success with her if you don't even smile to her whilst flirting/teasing.

it is natural to smile while flirting/teasing, especially if this flirting/teasing is being reciprocated in an entertaining way.

actually, the "success" you speak of has nothing to do with happy, egalitarian-minded relationships, does it? it's mostly a power game, where males compete for dominance, all for a rather unjustifiable and unnecessary ego-trip, eh?

and i already know your objection: "but i'm not egalitarian-minded..."

indeed, which implies that you're the one with the particular handicap, not anyone else.


natural complements to masculinity.

rape is a classic way of expressing masculinity.

shall you support rape? if not, offer your objections clearly, within the context of that "natural superiority" you discussed, and how rape does or does not relate to it, and, if it does, why it would not be a legitimate expression of this superiority, while other expressions are somehow justifiable.

and be able to elaborate on this "somehow," as it's a point of real interest.. and transparency.

adenoid hynkel
18th August 2006, 19:39
Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 18 2006, 03:24 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 18 2006, 03:24 PM) Wow, that is some of the most moronic, misogynist crap i've ever read.


Originally posted by you+--> (you)Although he must not be mean, it is acceptable, nay, preferable that he treat her as though he were superior[/b]

It's 'preferable' for men to treat wom*n as if they are inferior?


Originally posted by you
If you give your girl presents, she will see you as a weakling as it implies masculine inferiority.

You really should try coming back down to earth.

When i give people presents they're normally grateful, not disappointed.

Maybe you just give shit presents?



Originally posted by you
If you do give her presents, it is demonstrating that you simply don't have the power to woo other women, and are not the dominant male.

I'm sorry, but people don't actually think like this, the world is not a cardboard anthropological script.

What the fuck is a 'dominant male'?

We live in 'mating groups' now?

Human society does not fit this outmoded social structure you are trying to impose on it.



[email protected]
No, I prefer to lay the blame on the feminists who have falsely brainwashed society into the idea of treating women as definitive equals rather than natural complements to masculinity.

No, we have absurd notions like 'gender', and 'gender' binaries, sexual binares etc. because of dinosaurs like you.

Wom*n do not exist to 'complement' masculinity', that is absolute male fantasy - misogyny.

Why shouldn't wom*n be treated equally?



you
Don't you see it's nullifying effect upon the masculinity you innately desire?

First, not all wom*n are heterosexual.

And second, not all heterosexual wom*n are attracted to popular notions of 'masculinity'. 'Masculinity' is a social construction, not a natural constant. [/b]
Why wom*n and not women?

theraven
18th August 2006, 19:45
Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 18 2006, 03:24 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 18 2006, 03:24 PM) Wow, that is some of the most moronic, misogynist crap i've ever read.


Originally posted by you+--> (you)Although he must not be mean, it is acceptable, nay, preferable that he treat her as though he were superior[/b]

It's 'preferable' for men to treat wom*n as if they are inferior?


Originally posted by you
If you give your girl presents, she will see you as a weakling as it implies masculine inferiority.

You really should try coming back down to earth.

When i give people presents they're normally grateful, not disappointed.

Maybe you just give shit presents?



Originally posted by you
If you do give her presents, it is demonstrating that you simply don't have the power to woo other women, and are not the dominant male.

I'm sorry, but people don't actually think like this, the world is not a cardboard anthropological script.

What the fuck is a 'dominant male'?

We live in 'mating groups' now?

Human society does not fit this outmoded social structure you are trying to impose on it.



[email protected]
No, I prefer to lay the blame on the feminists who have falsely brainwashed society into the idea of treating women as definitive equals rather than natural complements to masculinity.

No, we have absurd notions like 'gender', and 'gender' binaries, sexual binares etc. because of dinosaurs like you.

Wom*n do not exist to 'complement' masculinity', that is absolute male fantasy - misogyny.

Why shouldn't wom*n be treated equally?



you
Don't you see it's nullifying effect upon the masculinity you innately desire?

First, not all wom*n are heterosexual.

And second, not all heterosexual wom*n are attracted to popular notions of 'masculinity'. 'Masculinity' is a social construction, not a natural constant. [/b]
women and mine complietn each other. both have strong and weak points that the other should counter balance. generally this couner balance is that of the male being the phsyicaly stronger an dlarge, generally more outwardly focused on buisness and such while the women is more inwardly focused more concerned with whether children, family and so on. this does not mean that men dont' care about family or women dont' care about thei outside world, just the genrlly the womesn going ot be more concned about the kids or how the house looks and the guy will be more cncned about the stock market or that new drill type he'll have to sell.

rouchambeau
18th August 2006, 19:53
Maybe you're already aware of this but, not all women desire masculinity.

theraven
18th August 2006, 20:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:54 PM
Maybe you're already aware of this but, not all women desire masculinity.
hah anot al-but its a fair generlizaion.

Comrade Phil
18th August 2006, 20:47
Originally posted by Count Von [email protected] 18 2006, 11:17 AM
Indeed, my manifold experience demonstrates the inate phsychology of women is fundumentally anti-feminist.

It is imporant to recognise that our phsychology evolved NOT in the context of the 20th century female liberation movement, but rather the paleolithic situation of our ancestors which is highly alien to today's consumer sentiment.

I found out recently that one of my close aquaintences has killed himself over a love which was not returned simply because he was treating his woman with TOO MUCH respect. BIG MISTAKE!

In short, although women appreciate gentleman-like behaviour from their friends and partners, in the subconscious female mind the preferable partner is NOT a nice guy. On the contrary, he is assertive and unyielding to his lady's desires whilst maintaining his confident cool. Although he must not be mean, it is acceptable, nay, preferable that he treat her as though he were superior. Why? Becuase this is a factor involved in our evolution in times where the nice guy was seen as nothing more than an unmanly weakling. I have been testing this constantly for years and it is undeniably true. If you give your girl presents, she will see you as a weakling as it implies masculine inferiority. If you do give her presents, it is demonstrating that you simply don't have the power to woo other women, and are not the dominant male. In fact, you will have infinitely lot more success with her if you don't even smile to her whilst flirting/teasing. Should we blame consumer capitalism for this development? No, I prefer to lay the blame on the feminists who have falsely brainwashed society into the idea of treating women as definitive equals rather than natural complements to masculinity.

And yet you women all know this don't you? You can't deny it for I know its true. So whence the feminism? Don't you see it's nullifying effect upon the masculinity you innately desire?
The phsychology of people cannot be so rigidly generalized. I do believe that our current phsychology has evolved by the context of the 20th century. Individuals can easily defy such generalizations through environmental/cultural conditioning. It is environmental/cultural conditioning which has created such generalizations (the Church and our culture before Womens' emancipation).

I do agree with you to some extent that there is a cultural/social bias against "nice guys", but there are many women who do not conform to such bias (many of whom are comrades). You do not have to be egotistical or chauvinistic to meet women, comrade. On the contrary, I would say from my experience (perhaps limited) that men who show that they appreciate their girlfriend/wife have far closer relationships with their partner.

Feminism is a key part to the Communist movement. If any form of discrimination (racial, gender, sexuality, etc) exists after the revolution then the egalitarian society which communists envision will never be created.

Don't Change Your Name
18th August 2006, 20:47
Originally posted by Count Von [email protected] 18 2006, 08:17 AM
No, I prefer to lay the blame on the feminists who have falsely brainwashed society into the idea of treating women as definitive equals rather than natural complements to masculinity.
In other words, feminists somehow managed to brainwash your "aquaintence" into being a loser because they are very evil :lol:

Black Dagger
19th August 2006, 15:16
Originally posted by theraven
women and mine complietn each other. both have strong and weak points that the other should counter balance. generally this couner balance is that of the male being the phsyicaly stronger an dlarge, generally more outwardly focused on buisness and such while the women is more inwardly focused more concerned with whether children, family and so on. this does not mean that men dont' care about family or women dont' care about thei outside world, just the genrlly the womesn going ot be more concned about the kids or how the house looks and the guy will be more cncned about the stock market or that new drill type he'll have to sell.

What you are putting forth as the 'nature' of men & wom*n is merely the social conditioning of hetero-patriarchal society - 'gender roles' are not 'natural', they are socially constructed. And they change over time (because they are socially constructed), they're not static - and for this reason 'gender', and 'gender roles' can be changed, and abolished.

theraven
19th August 2006, 16:12
Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 19 2006, 12:17 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 19 2006, 12:17 PM)
theraven
women and mine complietn each other. both have strong and weak points that the other should counter balance. generally this couner balance is that of the male being the phsyicaly stronger an dlarge, generally more outwardly focused on buisness and such while the women is more inwardly focused more concerned with whether children, family and so on. this does not mean that men dont' care about family or women dont' care about thei outside world, just the genrlly the womesn going ot be more concned about the kids or how the house looks and the guy will be more cncned about the stock market or that new drill type he'll have to sell.

What you are putting forth as the 'nature' of men & wom*n is merely the social conditioning of hetero-patriarchal society - 'gender roles' are not 'natural', they are socially constructed. And they change over time (because they are socially constructed), they're not static - and for this reason 'gender', and 'gender roles' can be changed, and abolished. [/b]
1) its spelled women

2) its social ocndiotong beucase humans are social creatures. theres no way to really avoid it except to condtion them some other way

3) gender roles are natural becuase they are socially constructed. the social ocnstruct was an accident, its not like one day 10000 years ago some hunters came home and dedied ok guys now lets raise our daugthesr t be good house wifes while we go out and hunt. no it was an accident, an accidnet hat peole decided woriked well

4) society si alwys changing so th social sturcutre does too. the roles of men and women do change, but that doest mean basic simialirts don't remain. also remember not all change is good.

BurnTheOliveTree
19th August 2006, 16:22
This is not a sincere argument.

I must admit, the "Wom*n" thing does puzzle me somewhat. Why do you do it?

-Alex

adenoid hynkel
19th August 2006, 16:56
Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 19 2006, 12:17 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 19 2006, 12:17 PM)
theraven
women and mine complietn each other. both have strong and weak points that the other should counter balance. generally this couner balance is that of the male being the phsyicaly stronger an dlarge, generally more outwardly focused on buisness and such while the women is more inwardly focused more concerned with whether children, family and so on. this does not mean that men dont' care about family or women dont' care about thei outside world, just the genrlly the womesn going ot be more concned about the kids or how the house looks and the guy will be more cncned about the stock market or that new drill type he'll have to sell.

What you are putting forth as the 'nature' of men & wom*n is merely the social conditioning of hetero-patriarchal society - 'gender roles' are not 'natural', they are socially constructed. And they change over time (because they are socially constructed), they're not static - and for this reason 'gender', and 'gender roles' can be changed, and abolished. [/b]
Long live wom*n, bl*ck, Br*wn, qu**r, y*llow liberation!!! :lol:

Morag
19th August 2006, 18:32
Leave Black Dagger alone about the "wom*n" thing. It's an accepted spelling that I've seen in academic journals.

To the argument:

Shut up. Your friend got tossed by some girl and now you have absolute proof that women want domineering men? Why do I have the feeling that it wasn't your friend who was tossed? There is a line, a huge huge line, between respecting a women and caving to every whim. It isn't domination women want, but a partner with a backbone.

adenoid hynkel
19th August 2006, 18:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:33 PM
Leave Black Dagger alone about the "wom*n" thing. It's an accepted spelling that I've seen in academic journals.

To the argument:

Shut up. Your friend got tossed by some girl and now you have absolute proof that women want domineering men? Why do I have the feeling that it wasn't your friend who was tossed? There is a line, a huge huge line, between respecting a women and caving to every whim. It isn't domination women want, but a partner with a backbone.
Just for curiosity; what's the reason to change the word from women to wom*n?

And how does wom*n sound?

Dr. Rosenpenis
19th August 2006, 19:09
nobody here has even attempted to address any of the points raised by those of us who replied negatvely to the first post
so you lose
this thread might as well be locked now

theraven
20th August 2006, 00:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:33 PM
Leave Black Dagger alone about the "wom*n" thing. It's an accepted spelling that I've seen in academic journals.

To the argument:

Shut up. Your friend got tossed by some girl and now you have absolute proof that women want domineering men? Why do I have the feeling that it wasn't your friend who was tossed? There is a line, a huge huge line, between respecting a women and caving to every whim. It isn't domination women want, but a partner with a backbone.
its a stupid potliical statement tryign to take the "men" out o f owmen"


nobody here has even attempted to address any of the points raised by those of us who replied negatvely to the first post
so you lose
this thread might as well be locked now

i've respoend to quite heavily

An archist
20th August 2006, 13:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:10 PM
nobody here has even attempted to address any of the points raised by those of us who replied negatvely to the first post
so you lose
this thread might as well be locked now
You don't lose an argument, you only win insight.