We are currently living through the declining era of democracy. The age of democracy began in 1776, when America revolted from its King, but it was not until the French Revolution of 1789 and the destruction of most of Europe’s monarchies in the ensuing Napoleonic Wars did the age of democracy begin in earnest.
Alexis de Toqueville was the first political philosopher to correctly note the rise of democratic power. After traveling through the United States in the 1830’s, he claimed that the age of democracy, so perfectly encapsulated in his masterwork Democracy in America, was coming into being.
America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance. (Source)
The principle quality of a democracy is equality. It shapes every facet of democratic life—mass elections, public debates, free-markets, welfare systems, and universal education. Name an institution of the modern world today, and it isn’t difficult to see how equality plays a central assumption in its foundation. Indeed equality would become so important in the coming times that Tocqueville claimed no ruler would be able to operate without invoking its authority:
On the other hand, I am persuaded that all who shall attempt, in the ages upon which we are entering, to base freedom upon aristocratic privilege, will fail-that all who shall attempt to draw and to retain authority within a single class, will fail. At the present day no ruler is skilful or strong enough to found a despotism, by re-establishing permanent distinctions of rank amongst his subjects: no legislator is wise or powerful enough to preserve free institutions, if he does not take equality for his first principle and his watchword. (Source)
Equality, it just so happens, is also the central assumption in the feminist movement. If feminists were to argue that people are unequal, men would retort that men are superior (many women would too). Equality is the premise that allows women to con men into believing they are all fighting for the same cause.
But before we examine feminism in greater detail, consider the following graph from Freedom House, a think tank that measures political freedoms across all countries:
Democracies have increased steadily throughout the latter half of the century, continuing a trend that started at least one-hundred years prior, with a marked rise in popularity after the collapse of the USSR. But looking closer at the numbers for “free” societies in the 2000’s, we can see that there has been a steady decline in their freedom scores since the Twin Towers fell:
Technically, they classify more countries as free, but the quality of that freedom has been in decline. I believe this is the beginning of a long-term trend.
Our age of democracy has reached the peak of its growth. If we consider the history of democracy and the spread of equality since the American Revolution, there hasn’t been a major victory for democracy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Democracies peaked at the turn of the century, but since 9/11 democratic nations have begun to die, both financially and demographically, whereas emerging economies and populations are coming from nations hostile to democracy and equality.
Thus democracies will shrink in power and scope as this century progresses. It will be discredited, much like communism was, and people will seek answers outside of democratic/representative governments. We are already seeing the transformation of democratic governments today as increasingly authoritarian controls are placed to solve intractable problems (i.e. TSA body scanners, printing trillions of dollars, never ending war, bailouts, “income based repayment” for student loans, etc).
The decline of democracy is significant for men because it also means the decline of feminism. As today’s democracies are eventually replaced with oligarchic or monarchistic forms of governance, feminists are going to have a difficult time finding an audience with their message of equality.
When thinking of feminism in historical terms, we can consider feminism as any political movement designed to regulate male behavior in favor of female opportunity. One prominent historical example was Sparta, a state which gave undue license and freedoms to its women, while treating its men like cattle.
But other than short-term historical anomalies like Sparta, there has been no other political movement more favorable for female advancement than modern democracy. At no other time in human history have women held more power than a system where equality is true. And so the rise and fall of feminism will coincide with the rise and fall of democratic governments; so utterly dependent on equality that feminism will cease to exist anywhere near its current power without it. Instead some men and women will seize and maintain vastly more political power than others, and the common citizen will unquestioningly accept the dictates from his/her new masters.
Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I cannot say, but it is clear that women will cease to exist as a significant political power when there is no more democratic government to serve them; instead both women and men will be regarded as property of the state to be used and managed as seen necessary by those in power. These trends may happen quickly or slowly, but make no mistake about where the world’s political climate is heading; the age of democracy, and feminism, is coming to an end.
Read Next: Why Feminism Will Die
Disbelieving in democracy in 2013 is a lot like disbelieving in God in 1762
Instead of teaching everyone to play chess, why not just take the best chess player and have him play for us?
Mencius Moldbug approved
“the destruction of most of Europe’s monarchies in the ensuing Napoleonic Wars”
You didn’t pay attention in school did you. Google congress of Vienna friend.
History is more than a sequence of events. Trends start with major breakthroughs and continue in waves. The French Revolution was when the world decided it was moving towards democracy.
The Congress of Vienna was the death throes. Look at the world a hundred years later. Of the big five powers – Metternich’s Austria-Hungary was dismantled; Alexander’s Russia was toppled by a revolution; Germany (the successors to the Prussians) had lost a major war and territory. England had become more parliamentarian. France had retained the republican system.
“no legislator is wise or powerful enough to preserve free institutions, if he does not take equality for his first principle and his watchword”
Or at least giving the impression of doing so.
The currently existing situation in Western society is that of an elite ruling class wielding the majority of power and money by manipulating propaganda and PR to give the appearance of respecting democracy to the proletariat, whilst actually doing nothing of the sort.
It isn’t democracy that ushered in feminism, it was communism. Feminism has been founded and funded by the big family trusts in America. The ones that have secretly worked for almost a hundred years to destroy the one and only free place on this planet. They have attacked the one thing that can destroy and nation and bring her to its knees. The family.
These are the same families and trusts that have funded Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and all puppet POTUS.
Anybody can google ” operation mockingbird ” and research how the CIA was used to take over the media in America and control the communist/feminist agenda.
The idea that feminism was founded to bring down democracy is not inconsistent with the view that feminism needs democracy to survive.
I honestly think America is fucked and if you are a player you need to seriously consider relocating. America feels like it is becoming a police state and you are being watched at every corner by Big Brother. I am not exactly sure if feminism is the cause of the problems because nobody really takes that seriously (even women). I see what you are saying though. Good post.
Hello NWO.
Feminism is still the tool / mechanism used to control men by draconian societies. So I doubt we will see an end to feminism.
Feminism might not die in our lifetimes, but by the end of our lifetime we will see it’s power greatly reduced from what it is now.
Feminist laws will still exist, but they will only be enforced if it serves the interests of the ruling class. Men like Julian Assange will be thrown in jail for slipping off the condom, but white trash who beat their wives will be ignored.
If the elite will be ruled by feminism you can be rest assured the vox-pop will be as well.
Draconian societies are dying out as well. Look at the Arab so called spring. The afghan model, via Mogadishu in the nineties, is where we’re heading. Not particularly friendly to isms of any kind.
The progressives’ client groups are going to get a rude shock when the apex progs no longer need their votes, but white men are going to remain a threat for many years to come. “Racism” and “misogyny” will remain useful sticks to beat them with.
…which @Nik just said.
Nik, you didn’t used to live in Strasbourg, did you?
Um, The USA has never been a democracy. “And to the republic for which it stands.” People hear the word so much, they have been deluded into believing they actually live in a democracy and their vote matters. When a voter goes to the polls and votes for the president, their vote has no legal meaning under the US Constitution what so ever. White women were not allowed to vote until 1927. Equality in the US did not even come close to a reality for all adults until the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
For the majority of our history women were completely dependent on men economically. In other words, they had no money. That started to change after WW2. The game changer for women was the sweeping change in divorce laws, namely “No fault divorce.”
People who long for the end of democracy see themselves as the elite. Wouldn’t life be grand if the rest of us recognized their brilliance and just let them run things? I’m very pleased that our ancestors rebelled against their unelected masters in 1776, and created the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth in the process.
Liberty, not oligarchy, is the American way. Test that at your peril.
Democratic traditions will most likely exist in America for a very long time. But this article looks at democracy as a worldwide trend, and the pendulum is going to swing back.
That’s a fair point, and a very interesting article. Very well done.
Democracy and liberty are not necessarily synonymous. I would much rather live in an undemocratic state that respected my rights than a democratically elected one like Hitler or Morsi’s.
Just say “No” to Democracy, and “Yes” to Kings!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
And especially for you, Roosh, for your Polish practice:
http://hanshoppe.com/publications/hoppe_democracy-polish-preface-english.pdf
Happy New Year!
I really wish you guys would stick to your bread and butter. You guys are male lifestyle bloggers in a land that is, well, lacking male lifestyle bloggers. These off the deep end political articles diminish the overall message of the site which, correct me if I’m wrong, is improving yourself as a man. Quite frankly, they also diminish your credibility as a site. Your conclusions may even be right, but the quality of writing and argument is lacking, especially in this piece. And that’s ok, I wouldn’t expect lifestyle bloggers to nail political articles in the same way I wouldn’t expect political bloggers to nail lifestyle articles. If you are going to write political articles I would recommend leaving them to Roosh or someone else who can weave in unique life experiences.
I think it’s wonderful that this sort of site exists, and I applaud the author for stating his horribly misguided case so well. “Men’s lifestyle” ought to include discussions of big ideas. To strive to be a gentleman is to strive to participate in the world, not to obsess over the 3 roll 2.
And doesn’t a democratic society require interested citizens to question it? Isn’t that a good thing?
The point here isn’t censorship, it’s bandwidth. You can extend the “enhanced by big ideas” argument arbitrarily to just about any cause. But as a reader I get more out of the lifestyle articles than these whacky political diatribes. Not only is this article not up to snuff in writing and in reasoning, but it’s on the fringe of what draws me to the site. If RoK moves away from lifestyle and more towards politics than I’ll just replace it in my reading rotation with something that gives me more utility for my time.
Looks like I can’t reply to your reply, so I’ll reply to my reply.
That point is well taken. I think that’s what I took issue with, and I see that I was mistaken.
I have to disagree with you about the quality of the writing; the author’s take on the subject is certainly distressing to me. I would like to see democracy expand, not contract, and he seems to applaud authoritarianism as an antidote to the excesses of feminism. In my view that’s a terrible trade. I think the answer to a cultural problem is a change in the culture, not the installation of a tyrant.
I like the idea that Roosh has expanded his public interests beyond seduction. I heartily welcome more articles on politics, philosophy… anything, really. A well-rounded man is many things, and considers many ideas. More of the same, please.
AAAAAAANNNNNNNDDDDDDDD… the “enhanced by big ideas” argument can be applied to many of life’s arenas because it is a universal truth. More education is always better; more discussion is always better as long as it does not impede action.
You agree with that, surely. May I call you Shirly?
Don’t project your lack of imagination unto others. Understanding trends is always the way to profit.
C’mon now, you’re the actual author. You’re better than this. First off, you lead with an ad hominem attack on one of your readers. Second, your statement is vague enough that it can be arbitrarily extended to argue the existence of any article you can write.
Look, I applaud you for posting something controversial but that doesn’t mean I have to come back for seconds. Nor do you have the power to shame me into reading it by claiming “lack of imagination.”
What’s a lifestyle blog?
I’m just borrowing the “lifestyle” term from you guys: http://www.rooshvforum.com/forum-14.html
and in http://www.returnofkings.com/1921/please-take-this-personally
First, part of being a man is learning how to be more than what you already are. That includes stretching yourself and your field of knowledge. That’s what these articles are about, even though this one isn’t my favorite.
Also, there’s plenty of lifestyle stuff here, too. If you don’t like these articles, skip ’em.
I’m sort of eating crow on this one now. Athlone’s latest article was amazing.
Concern trolling is fun.
Alternatively you can just blindly agree with everything they post.
I’ll take democracy over anything proposed as an alternative.
As if you had democracy…hahahaha, In time the West just replaced a blood based aristocracy for a financial aristocracy,which in some accounts is even worse! Your founding fathers didn´t want that, hence their warnings about the banks and the creation of central Banking as well as a warning against uninformed voters and the impossibility to preserve functional democratic institutions with a bunch of dumb voters. Look beyond the rhetoric and see the actions of your politicians for what they are.
I forgot that I’m working in the fields.
Jefferson warned against a national bank and Washington warned against political parties, and both of those warnings seem highly relevant today. True enough, but so what? If our democracy is flawed, it should cease to exist? To be replaced by what? A blooded aristocracy which is not flawed? That seems hopelessly utopian to me.
Feminism and the faux-equality it hinges on is going to wrap up sooner than we might imagine. This whole “equality” premise hinges on the more capable people in society carrying the weight of society while giving lip-service to the idea that they are somehow inferior to the people they’re accommodating. The economy is going down the tubes, everything is going to start getting expensive, and people are going to start getting nervous. When employers start looking at prospective employees as who can keep this company from failing instead of who can make for a nice diversity-postcard, the cream is going to rise to the top and, no surprise, 9 times outta 10, that cream is going to be a man.
I’d bet in under ten years, women are going to nearly back to where they belong: minding their f*cking manners and shaking their asses during their short shelf lives in order to attract a man who will keep them alive.
@ anonymous
Don’t bother trying to argue with this guy. I have said it before but he is by the worst guest poster Roosh has on here and I wish he would stop posting articles.
All this, and not one explanation of what “equality” means in the various contexts mentioned.
The equality discussed by Tocqueville is not the same AT ALL as the “equality” sought by the French Revolution (which was a non-stop horror show and emphatically not something to be admired, let alone emulated).
Exactly. American equality is simply equality before the law and before God. It has nothing to do with remaking society.
The American revolution created a new government, the French Revolution tried creating a New Man. That type of crap leads to heads rolling, and it did.
The French Revolution was spawned by the ideas of Rousseau, the Patriarch of the future Matriarchy. He had a ridiculous view of human nature, on the sexes, and his definition of “liberty” was beyond dangerous.
That bastard and Kant are responsible for the decline of Western Civ more than anybody else.
Would you say we have american equality today though?
There is no utopian political system invented by man yet.
Each has its own pros and cons, thus a society must make its choices and sleep in the bed it makes.
Not to be pedantic, but individuals make choices, not “societies”. A society is merely an aggregate of individual actors.
I don’t see what your point is.
Individuals don’t exist in a vaccum. They learn, immitate, follow and collaborate with others. This collection of individual choices makes up our society.
But collective choice is much more difficult than individual choice. And much less legitimate.
(Also, society is of course not the same thing as government.)
As Marx would agree, basis drives culture, not the other way around. Democracy came about as a means of justifying power during a time when the natural sciences proved that regular joes could simply look at the world, experiment, to glean truth, instead of having it rammed down their throats by “authority” figures. And, military advances, first longbows, then individual firearms, enabled the same joes to challenge standing armies.
In other words, the asymmetry in military capability between ruler and ruled shrank, and the illusion of intellectual superiority enjoyed by the rulers shrank as well.
Over the next few centuries, and particularly since ww2, things have gone in reverse. Joe gun nut simply isn’t all that much Of a threat to the DC mob anymore. While credential ism, newspeak excessive intellectual property enforcement etc. have once again enabled the well connected to fashion themselves as somehow more knowledgeable. Cue confiscatory tax rates, tea, working men stripped of their life’s work in banana divorce courts, female suffrage, and all manners of dysfunctions.
But, things are moving the other way again. The Internet is short circuiting the ability of the rulers to monopolize thought. Bitcoin is enabling people to shift activity and savings outside the realm of confiscation. 3d printing, Internet information dissemination, the rise and sharpening of coherent ideologies that does not demand bending over for self proclaimed authority etc., is once again simultaneously challenging the rulers claim to the truth, and making it more feasible to simply exterminate them, should they try to enforce their increasingly irrelevant world views by military might. Just as what happened in Somalia in the nineties. And during Arab so called spring in the past few years. It’s coming here as well.
Right now all the countries where the Arab spring began are suffering greatly under military regimes. The Arab Spring is a case against democracy and freedom, not the other way around.
Neither Libya or Egypt are stable. In Egypt, the traditional military is having its hands full simply preventing an all out civil war. In Libya, even that seems to be too tall a task for “the military”. In reality, both Egypt and Libya are veering towards control by militias with occasionally overlapping interests. Not “one true national army”
The so called Muslim brotherhood, which is excerting lots of influence across the region, is largely pan national. And not very centralized. Instead, individual, local imams form their own power bases, largely on the basis of how well they play to local sentiment.
The Arab spring is a perfect example of uselessness of violent uprising. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Interesting article but the starting point is false.
“The age of democracy began in 1776, when America revolted from its King, but it was not until the French Revolution of 1789 and the destruction of most of Europe’s monarchies in the ensuing Napoleonic Wars did the age of democracy begin in earnest.”
In 1776, the nation who you revolted from, was a democratic nation. It already had a ‘constitutional monarchy’ and a Parliament who made the decisions. Democracy existed in the UK from 1660 with the reinstatement of the monarchy in a weaker form, post Civil War and the introduction of the Bill of Rights in 1689 following the Glorious Revolution which limited the power of the Crown to a ceremonial state. This piece of legislation is still in place in every commonwealth country and even your own US Bill of Rights (and the French Declaration of Man and Citizen) is practically a copy of this.
Maybe the Americans only get taught 200 years of history, hence 1776 is like the birth of Christ in American schools. The main instigator for the war was the Stamp Act of 1765 which taxed the colonists as Parliament felt that the colonists were the primary beneficiares of military activity in North America. These colonists used the ‘Bill of Rights’ considering it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent. So in essence a revolution to start your democracy was enabled by using democratic legislation. The colonists appealed to the King, but the King had no power, Parliament is elected by the people and the King did what Parliament told him to do which was to label the colonists as traitors by royal decree. The USA was not a democracy until the abolition of slavery, France and the UK preceeded this.
Also great spot on Sparta.
(Great comment. This is some good history here.)
There is no question that modern democratic philosophy originates from England. However, you are mistaken in thinking I’m presenting an American point of view. My line of thought and reasoning is from Tocqueville, who is French, but I understand if this offends your English sensibilities.
Regardless, to claim England was a democracy during the time of America’s revolt isn’t true, and unfortunately wasn’t something I had space to address in the original article.
George III still had ridiculous amounts of power and could issue “royal proclamations” which had nearly as much power as a law passed by Parliament. Indeed there was a royal proclamation passed against America by George III without the Parliament condemning American traitors. But, even if we do not accept that England was a monarchy, that doesn’t affect my argument for one simple reason.
The contrast to democracy that Tocqueville talks about isn’t monarchy, it’s “aristocracy”. Rule by aristocrats was the norm in Tocqueville’s time, and the historical shift from monarchy to democracy, which really began with the Magna Carta, followed the path of “monarchy > aristocracy > democracy”. It was a devolution along Aristotle’s political power schemes from one ruler to few rulers to many rulers.
(I strongly suggest you read the Tocqueville pages I linked in the original article, you will find much more detail than I can provide here.)
Thus the Parliament of King George III’s time was aristocracy, as only land owners could vote and generally speaking it was only those with established nobility in their bloodlines who had any land during that time. This is in direct opposition to American democracy of the time, where landowners in America were common and voter-ship was truly widespread (compared to any historical norms). That is why I place the birth of modern democracy with the American revolution.
Incidentally, after America successfully revolted from England, George III lost considerable power to the Parliament. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, and afterwards the English King would never have as much power again.
The American retort was a joke, it’s something that’s generalised about whether American’s are taught history! (possibly due to the many comments along the lines of ‘Do you know the Queen?’)
Great reply, I’ll have a look at Tocqueville’s pages but using what you have put in your comment, namely the path to democracy from monarchy via aristocracy then I can agree with your view of the birth of modern democracy via American Revolution.
Just read that Tocqueville source, that’s some good stuff, something to add to further reading lists.
Almost. Democracy in England didn’t really kick off until after the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights of 1688.
Look, it’s hard to be the originator of difficult concepts, and I applaud you for tackling the connection of feminism-equality-democracy. From my point of view, the fundamental contradictory constraints, the Catch-22, of democracy is that either you have to include equality for those who do not contribute financially to the democracy, or you don’t include them. More practically, this critical question is do you let college students, jobless and homeless people, women who stay at home, or any other person who does not create direct financial value participate in the decision making in the democracy? If yes, like in the USA of today, then you will have a constant redistribution of wealth from those who create value to those who do not, and that democracy will create laws that cripples the wealth creating apparatus leading to the dissipation of that democracies power. If no, like in the early democracy of the United Kingdom, where the decisions were made by the landed male gentry, then you have a system where the rich get richer and the poor, which becomes an unruly mass, will revolt.
Will democracy end? I don’t know, surely eventually something will replace. But what will be the catalyst? The Nordic countries are now flirting with the concept of “fairness.” Could that be the “equality” of de Toqueville’s era???? Learn a bit about complex adaptive systems. Long-term, but often tenuous, equilibrium, dotted by extreme and short-lived disruptions leading to new equilibrium. That’s my belief on what’s going to happen.
And yes, giving women equality, without their earning it, is highly irrational…
Well I for one am tired of the uninformed having a voice in this country. The average American’s reading level is 7th grade, no? That really says it all.
The problem is not simply feminism. Many groups engage in legal plunder. Some are just more successful than others.
A great, relatively short read from the 1800s on the systemic issue:
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Yes, this post enlightens me. The peak of Democracy, in my view, was around 1999, though the trend of negativity in the world will most likely become more intense for quite sometime.
Now we’re experiencing financial debacle with increased authoriatarianism in the US which should become more extreme in the next 4 or 5 years. Afterwards, we can expect a short recovery with spending cuts in military and entitlement programs, resulting in fewer international conflicts. This leads to an even sharper crash that will end in the biggest global conflict yet, not to mention massive epidemics all probably resulting in over a billion deaths.
This, I predict, will pan out over the next 4 or so decades. There will no doubt be zero tolerance for radical, fat ugly cunts during such extreme times.
i, hate democracy here is a wonderful top idea, useless comma as, world leader,
feminism is a product of the idea of equality, however, in practice it has provided some of the best evidence that “equality” is a myth. After all, if it takes the mandates of the state to “level the playing field”, which is to arbitrarily equalize men to women then that alone is ipsofacto evidence that men and women are NOT equal. Moreover, look at what women have done with their “equal” status…they’ve used it to gain an advantage over men, which is women subjugating men and that, again, contradicts equality not to mention the central pillar of the entire feminist movement.
What’s left is a movement that uses mob rule to jockey for more privilege and power at the expense of others (remember females are 51% of the population)…hardly egalitarian, but indeed, consistent with the shortcomings of democracy. Thus feminism is evidence that democracy is a failed idea, sad as it may seem, but its failure shouldn’t be surprising, since it has been described as two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Tocqueville himself proved to be remarkable prescient in predicting the mobs “democratic” choice to loot the treasury…feminism does exactly this; its always wants more privilege (Ref: free birth control).
Kind reminder, we tried to build a Constitutional Republic, ahem NOT a democracy, which in my humble opinion optimizes freedom against the chaos of anarchy in the backdrop of a merit/market based system that acts in concert with natural law (and natural law being unfair or unequal). The first iteration got it right, in theory, but fell short in practice. Able bodied land owning men might have been a shortlist of folks having the privileged to vote back then and although this is a source of angst for many as well as justification for their causes it overlooks the key ingredient that can make a Republic and society operate at near (or the closet) level of optimality; specifically, giving the privilege to vote to people with skin in the game. Owning property being the real determinant of skin or no skin, believe it or not, no so much the sex of the person.
Skin in the game does remarkable things for the individual and the, for lack of a better word, collective. Perhaps, its because human survival tends to be the same for everyone, thus, a person who’s survival is tied to voting, tends to make better decisions for him or herself as well as everyone else. Certainly, those with skin in the game wouldn’t be as inclined to vote to loot the treasury.
Going forward, I think we need to resurrect the idea of skin in the game, this time, it should be “politically correct” in that anyone that qualifies should have a vote. But regardless of their sex, their religion, race or even “orientation” skin in the game aligns otherwise disparate interests in the same efficient manner that a free market brings indifferent and diverse parities together to a unified point of time via revealing optimal pricing for a given transaction.
Whatever city-state embraces this concept will very likely end up being the next hegemonic state.
Equality is not a myth. It is the belief that “equality” and “same” are interchangeable, that is a myth. That difference looks slight but is huge and is the basis for the deception of the leftist. Ask anyone if 4 quarters is “equal” to a dollar bill and they will say “yes” but here is the point hidden in deception, “they are not the same.” Try to put a dollar bill into a coin slot or four quarters
Identity politics is a scam to gain power and privileges over other people. The people who advocate identity politics don’t want “equality”. They want revenge and special treatment.
Women are the majority of the vote, the author is full of shit, women will not be decreasing in political power for a long time, they are just tired of feminism making them look stupid. The women of the new age are starting to realize what terrible spokeswomen feminists make.
I don’t think the inequality of gender is a defensible or convincing argument because of science. in no other species of life on earth which has a gender do we say one gender is superior or inferior to the other. Rather, gender differences exist for reproductive purposes. we can’t say, speaking scientifically, that a bull is superior to a cow. that would make no sense. only in contexts where science is scorned or unavailable educationally will gender inequality exist idea logically.
The problem with using the animal to people correlation is that you exclude the presence of higher thought from the latter.
Human beings resemble animals in the way they were designed to biologically function but the differences between Men and Women include more than just biological differences related to reproduction.
Females operate on an emo instinctual response whereas Men operate on logic more often than not. This is not me saying it, this is science.
There is an inherent inequality of ends between the two because the two do not operate using the same parameters of behavior due to biological and emotional factors.
While i will not say that males are superior to females simply by virtue of biological fact, i will say that Men are superior to Women by virtue of their intellect, wisdom, strength and tenacity, which have all helped to build civilizations and usher in technologies and a standard for living that females would not have been able to simulate if left to their own devices.
EVERY female is subject to emotional sabotage by virtue of her design whereas Men have no such weakness. This fundamental difference is at least partly responsible for why most technological, medical, agricultural, artistic and other such advances have been made predominantly by Men.
Men operate logically more often than not…regardless of the barbarity of history, civilization would not have advanced as far as it did were it not for the unique contributions of Men.
This is why Men are superior to Women…not simply because of biological differences, but also because of psychological ones.
With all due respect, I hope you realize that you are a sexist person, and you’ve just elaborately explained as much! I do believe that women are physically weaker than men, but not intellectually. You can’t see us thinking, but living within our own skulls, we are aware that we do! Besides, the physical differences are not merely a scale of strength but different organs for different purposes–women can bring children into the world, a task which our bodies are ideally designed to do. Moreover, men are not supposed to use their physical advantage of strength against women but to perform the tasks of life, such as farming, hunting, and building. When men “fight” women, it is a perversion of nature, and cowardly. I fear that by opposing feminism, women would disadvantage themselves before men who would take advantage and just use women, lovelessly and immorally, for their own pleasure and comfort without any consideration for our own wants and needs.
If by “sexist” you mean i operate on the justified belief that some stereotypes are true, then i accept the charge willingly. It doesn’t invalidate the logic in my remarks simply because your emo-instinctual predisposition knee jerks a negative response from you manifested in a negative label towards me.
Allow me to properly elucidate my remarks, since you’ve chosen to take offense to them.
I by no means wish to state or otherwise imply Women are useless. Indeed, their presence is significant and necessary and not just for the purpose of propagation.
Women are the flip side of the coin in the bank of reality that complement us (were designed to, anyway) by virtue of their differences. They are more adept at nurturing, more emotionally aware and they possess characteristics which generally speaking make them more efficient at tasks involving memory recall, for instance.
These benefits however, amount to nothing more substantial than parlor tricks and therefore pale in comparison to the plethora of abilities and advances Men alone have made.
You consider Women to be on equal footing as Men intellectually speaking, but if you and i were to compare all the ISOLATED and UNASSISTED advances, discoveries, etc that Men and Women have been recognized for (corresponding to our gender perspective) you would quickly find your category outnumbered.
This remark is therefore a straw woman on your part: “You can’t see us thinking, but living within our own skulls, we are aware that we do” since you are trying to make the case that i insinuated or otherwise remarked that because Men are intellectually superior Women must therefore be stupid. My remarks were not designed to push for the perspective that Women in general or all Women are idiots, merely that Men by and far are intellectually superior to Women. Comparing Muhammad Ali to Manny Pacquiao with the intent to identify the superiority of the former in no way intentionally denigrates the ability of the latter, given his own achievements.
“Besides, the physical differences are not merely a scale of strength but different organs for different purposes–women can bring children into the world, a task which our bodies are ideally designed to do”
I’m not sure why you would again bring reproduction into this conversation, since I’ve already stated that our differences extend beyond that. You are making an unnecessary point here.
“Moreover, men are not supposed to use their physical advantage of strength against women but to perform the tasks of life, such as farming, hunting, and building. When men “fight” women, it is a perversion of nature, and cowardly”
You are presupposing an absolute through an all encompassing scenario irrespective of X factors which may invalidate it…suppose a Woman i know or don’t know comes at me with a knife, in a fit of rage…if i were to take your advice, i would likely be stabbed and possibly killed. I am therefore expected to shirk my sense of self preservation if it conflicts with this absolute notion of yours that a Man should never hit a Woman? Really? I think you need to rethink that more extensively.
“I fear that by opposing feminism, women would disadvantage themselves before men who would take advantage and just use women, lovelessly and immorally, for their own pleasure and comfort without any consideration for our own wants and needs.”
Your fear is understandable, but still exaggerated. Men of honor (especially an honor based on supernatural faith) would not sully a Woman’s reputation through manipulation or force. There will always be males who behave in no more sophisticated a fashion that your average animal in heat, but they do not set the standards for masculinity anymore than Gloria Steinem sets the standards for femininity. These males would exist on the fringes of the borders which define a REAL Man and they would be marginalized in a Christian patriarchy. What is happening nowadays is that real Women are de-evolving into females by being indoctrinated to believe that their femininity is a weakness, when in fact it is their greatest strength.
A feminine Woman does not need to parrot the word “empowered” to herself in order to make herself feel strong. A truly strong Woman would recognize strength in adhering to traditional gender roles especially those mentioned in the bible, so that she can use that strength to mentor the next generation of children (both male and female) on how to be and what to look for. Her role there is absolutely essential and irreplacable, since only a good Woman (not a female) and a great Wife can be the best kind of Mother.
A strong Woman is strong enough to let a Man lead her since that is his natural function and psycho-spiritual design. Her sociological design is to nurture and to assist…how many generals find the assistance of their subordinates invaluable?
She is only inferior in earthly status, but to God she is spiritually equal.
You are getting comparative in an impertinent way, saying men have done greater things than women because they are simply greater. That attitude is a little bit upsetting, and it was that very attitude that “second wave” feminists fought against. Now that civilization is more advanced, women and men alike can partake in the advancements. I am an academic person in that I have a Ph.D. and teach in higher education, online, but “real life” can be very different from academia and its various theories, which can be a dime a dozen. I earned my undergraduate degree at an evangelical conservative Christian holiness college, where there was no women studies courses or bra-burning feminists. I’ve attended a conservative Baptist Church for the last ten years. My father was a minister for many years, and very conservative. I do think some of his ideas were sexist, but I’ve never said so. I have experienced sexism. There is sexism. It does exists. I’m in my mid forties but have never been married and have never had children. If that’s all I’m here to do then my whole life has been a pathetic waste of time. There has to be something more for us gals who aren’t breastfeeding and changing diapers. If I can’t support myself financially, then I can go to Hell, figuratively speaking, and so if that’s the reality, then why shouldn’t I have equal pay? Political, economic, and social equality–that’s all feminism is at a minimal level. I won’t argue details. It is not the same thing as liberalism. I would say both conservativity and liberalism have their unique set of flaws, limitations, and deceptions. I don’t think feminism will go away as long as some women need it. If “male perogative” is biologically inherent or God-given, it would seem that some men loose their perogative through bad behavior, and God blesses women, whom he loves just as much as men, with what they need to prosper and enjoy life, with or without a man and family.
“You are getting comparative in an impertinent way, saying men have done greater things than women because they are simply greater. That attitude is a little bit upsetting, and it was that very attitude that “second wave” feminists fought against”
You are again mischaracterizing me through my statements. I meant no “impertinence” but again your remark there is no suprise given your emo-instinctual pre disposition that emotionally corresponds disagreement with an attack on your primary identity.
I didn’t say that Men have done greater things because they are simply greater, i said/implied Men have in general done more things of historical note because we are essentially designed to lead not just biologically but psychologically. Leadership qualities such as intelligence and reason are as endemic to us as emotional understanding is to females. I will agree that this is a threat to feminists, first or second wave, because it represents a pov that does not kowtow to their preferred cultural narrative. This view of mine is corroborated by thousands of years of human society and centuries of civilization. It’s only been recently in our feminized anorchous times that feminism has managed to rewrite the leadership DNA of males through the constant proselytization to the male masses and indoctrination of our male children.
“Now that civilization is more advanced, women and men alike can partake in the advancements. I am an academic person in that I have a Ph.D. and teach in higher education, online, but “real life” can be very different from academia and its various theories, which can be a dime a dozen. I earned my undergraduate degree at an evangelical conservative Christian holiness college, where there was no women studies courses or bra-burning feminists. I’ve attended a conservative Baptist Church for the last ten years. My father was a minister for many years, and very conservative. I do think some of his ideas were sexist, but I’ve never said so. I have experienced sexism. There is sexism. It does exists”
This is a red herring remark. Of course Men and Women alike can partake in the advancements; that is NOT the point i was making or even arguing against. The very fact that Women can enjoy these perks of society is almost always due to the existence of the historical Man who helped create, design, develop, invent or otherwise discover some sort of new method of living which raised the quality of life overall.
Since you said that you earned your degree at a conservative college and that you “attended” a baptist church (as opposed to “still attend?”) allow me to ask this of you: how do you reconcile your (likely) religious beliefs with your feminist ones? I take you to be a feminist given your remarks, and by no means a dull one, given the overall civility in them (your sexist charge of me notwithstanding) but how do you find philosphical detente between your feminist views and your religious ones? This is presuming of course you still consider yourself religious.
Sexism does exist, but is it always wrong? Am i still a male sexist for saying that Women make better nurses or am i just an equal opportunity sexist? What sexism did you see taking place in your church that your brain in conjunction with your emo-instinctual predisposition divided by your personality find so offensive?
What is your Ph D in, if i may ask? And what brought you to feminism since you indicated a religious background in your remarks? I’m quite curious.
“I’m in my mid forties but have never been married and have never had children. If that’s all I’m here to do then my whole life has been a pathetic waste of time. There has to be something more for us gals who aren’t breastfeeding and changing diapers”
Did you prioritize your career over your biological clock? If so, does the fact that you are unmarried and nulligravida surprise you? Or do you consider that fact merely anecdotal to your life?
Why do you take my remarks as me saying you shouldn’t work? I never said any such thing. In the bible Women worked, they just didn’t sacrifice the family in order to work. The family should be paramount. Only Women can be Mothers. Only Women can offer children the unique and awesome perspective that comes with being Motherly. Do you take this responsibility as meaningless? Do you really believe that your lecturing and your degree will ultimately result in a far more fulfilling life than ushering in the next generation of your genealogy for the benefit of future society? Does money = fulfillment in your life?
“If I can’t support myself financially, then I can go to Hell, figuratively speaking, and so if that’s the reality, then why shouldn’t I have equal pay?”
You are more than welcome to have equal pay for equal work, when society gets equal work for equal pay from you…when your work equals the quality of work the Men you would compete with provide as a matter of necessity. Did you turn down all the perks, refuse all the gender related affirmative action programs, avoid all the feminist courses, etc? Was there any instance in your life that you did not benefit from a SEXIST perk offered in academia (or elsewhere) that your sex alone qualifies you to benefit from? Again, i’m curious.
“Political, economic, and social equality–that’s all feminism is at a minimal level. I won’t argue details. It is not the same thing as liberalism. I would say both conservativity and liberalism have their unique set of flaws, limitations, and deceptions. I don’t think feminism will go away as long as some women need it”
Listen to me very carefully…there can NEVER be true equality between the sexes…any attempt to do so can only come about through artificial orwellian applications from government.
The reason being: Men and Women are unique enough in their own right, so that when they group together by gender one of their members has the potential to outshine other individuals in their sex group (alpha leaders) and outshine their gender related opposites in the other sex group. Men more often than not outshine Women on things related to strength…firefighters, soldiers, etc but also with intellectual achievements…again i cite for you the many advances of human civilization which could also be considered the many advances achieved BY the gender of Man.
Feminism as it stands and currently defined is ostensibly about fairness but the truth is that it stands for promoting the gender superiority of the female regardless of the historical truth to the contrary. This speaks of a gender related narcissism that requires a feminist to repeat to herself per mantra that she is “empowered” in order to give off the impression that she can do everything that a Man can, regardless of biological fact, sociological accuracy and historical reference to the contrary.
Feminism is also about hypocrisy because it promotes the belief that fairness must come about through the sabotaging of the male, hence gender related affirmative action programs which give the female a professional advantage, reproduction related laws with regard to abortion that fabricate a right to terminate life that only females can wield, and so forth. In order for a feminist to be happier (or less miserable) a Man must have some sort of gender related handicap in order to “level the playing field.”
Feminists also give the impression of insecurity, in that they must infiltrate male bastions in order to promote feminism. Whether its breast cancer awareness in the NFL, sheryl sandburg and the NBA or anita sarkeesian and video games, it’s not enough that Women have to be feminists, but apparently Men must be feminist as well.
Feminism ironically enough makes the case that females are undeniably weak…they fear Men so much they have voted to declare war on them when not coincidentally, it was males who gave them their right to vote in the first place. I say “gave” intentionally since there was no gender war which females fought in order to win rights that their philosophical descendants use in order to try and seek perks and pass them off as rights.
All these things and more is what feminism truly represents. You may think differently and that is your right, but that is no more than gender related solipsism on your part so i wouldn’t expect differently.
Feminism is just another branch of the tree of satanism, in close proximity to marxism. The only flaw in conservatism is the fact that it requires people to defend it…history shows that those who call themselves conservative are not always in fact, conservative.
” If “male perogative” is biologically inherent or God-given, it would seem that some men loose their perogative through bad behavior, and God blesses women, whom he loves just as much as men, with what they need to prosper and enjoy life, with or without a man and family.”
Feminism will never go away so long as Man leads a flawed, mortal life where he operates under his beliefs instead of God’s. A female was able to bring about the downfall of a strong male like Sampson, and a collection of influential females can do no less for a formerly prosperous civilization built and maintained by the efforts of Man.
Make no mistake, i am just as harsh if not more so on males who shirk their leadership roles and responsibilities (parental and otherwise) with regard to their Wives and families.
Eve was able to deceive Adam because of his gullibility…her sin was ignorance of what she was told, his was poor leadership, which is why God was so much harsher on him. He was supposed to set the standard for her, as God set the standard for both of them.
God does bless a Woman if she is without a Man, but her ultimate blessing can come only through a Godly Man who can be a Husband to her and help provide her with the seed of children, who are considered blessings to the Lord.
You can go through life without ever winning the lotto and still be financially set, but it doesn’t mean you will ever be as rich as if you had won the lotto. (just a corresponding example here)
🙂
Historically, most men merely trekked out a meager existence. Very few men did great things, and with all the “moving and shaking” that “great” men did, there occurred many–what we call today–historical grievances. But to present history as “look how much more men did than women” just isn’t a good explanation–it is ungenerous to female students, and agitating. Women did not have equal opportunity–they died often in child bearing, living to an average age of only 30, compared to 40 for men, before the age of modern medicine. To answer your question, my Ph.D. is in curriculum & instruction with an English specialization, and I have several other degrees related to English studies. I teach English and education to the graduate level. I don’t label myself a feminist, but I don’t oppose it either. We hear it all the time: women have the right to choose, but some forget that one right is not enough and rights are violated all the time, and so much in life is beyond our control–not a deliberate choice at all. So I won’t answer any questions on the theme of whether or not I’m happy ending up not “having it all” because I didn’t cherry pick every outcome. I am a Christian, but I don’t have a fundamentalistic perspective to the Bible. You come across to me as a peculiar blend of radical left and radial right. You make an accusation that women do not put forth equal work. Women don’t have the strength to push a pencil across a desk in a white collar job as well as men? It’s not as if the average job is setting down railroad tracks like in the year 1850. There can be conflicts of interest politically, but it is a selfish and self-centered attitude to think that everything has to be for me. Some things are not for you; they are for others. Food stamp programs are not for wealthy CEOs. Feminism is for women. If you don’t see it serving you, that’s why, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I think you are missing the whole point of the article you are replying to, which projects that in the future both democracy and feminism will decline hand and hand together. So you’re fine with feminism going the way of the dinosaurs. What about democracy? Will you shed any tears over it’s decline? Please only reply in brief if at all. We need to wrap this up.
“Historically, most men merely trekked out a meager existence. Very few men did great things, and with all the “moving and shaking” that “great” men did, there occurred many–what we call today–historical grievances. ”
Really? Would you care to give me some specific examples of this phenomena?
“But to present history as “look how much more men did than women” just isn’t a good explanation–it is ungenerous to female students, and agitating. ”
If history is not the best indication of a civilization’s success, then what is? Individual perception? Or how about an ideological position that caters to the gender based narcissism of the female gender? Must history be politically correct in order to keep female students from feeling sad that their female predecessors have been more often than not, bystanders on the field of historical relevance?
“Women did not have equal opportunity–they died often in child bearing, living to an average age of only 30, compared to 40 for men, before the age of modern medicine. To answer your question, my Ph.D. is in curriculum & instruction with an English specialization, and I have several other degrees related to English studies. I teach English and education to the graduate level. I don’t label myself a feminist, but I don’t oppose it either”
How do you explain Annie Oakley? Marie Curie? Joan of Arc? If there really was some intentional conspiracy to subvert the ability of Women to contribute to the human race, how do you explain them? Could it simply be that the fact there are very few remarkable Women in history is not because of some conspiracy by Men, but because there are very few remarkable females period? Have you stopped to consider this?
You may not call yourself a feminist, but you are still a feminist by application. Your words indicate an adherence to feminist views which is why you are so resistant to mine. You may for your part write off my views as sexism (as you did earlier) but the fact is, i’m operating on no such pedestrian gender based prejudice. I’m stating what science, medicine, the arts, etc have shown through the footnotes of history: Men by and far have contributed more towards prosperity and enlightenment than Women have. You can argue the motivations and the circumstances, but you can’t argue the results. If civilization was left to the devices of Women, we would still be living in grass huts…i wasn’t the first to say that, Camille Paglia (a female) did.
” We hear it all the time: women have the right to choose, but some forget that one right is not enough and rights are violated all the time, and so much in life is beyond our control–not a deliberate choice at all. So I won’t answer any questions on the theme of whether or not I’m happy ending up not “having it all” because I didn’t cherry pick every outcome”
If one right is not enough, what would you do to fix it? The fundamental difference between Men and females is that the latter complains about problems but the former tends to be the one to fix them. What would you do to fix this lack of rights? Would you pass a law to make happiness a right? Surely that would solve all the gray areas where Women have their rights violated.
Incidentally, what gender is able to wield reproductive rights exclusively under the law and irrespective of the 14th amendment? Would you care to guess?
“I am a Christian, but I don’t have a fundamentalistic perspective to the Bible. You come across to me as a peculiar blend of radical left and radial right”
I think you meant fundamentalist, but i won’t split hairs there. I mentioned it because i expect more from someone who indicated she was academically proficient in the English language. Regardless, i’m not sure why you would consider me “Radical left” given that nothing i have said thus far could give that impression. Please elaborate.
“You make an accusation that women do not put forth equal work. Women don’t have the strength to push a pencil across a desk in a white collar job as well as men? It’s not as if the average job is setting down railroad tracks like in the year 1850. ”
If you read my comments with any demonstrable objectivity, you would have clearly seen that i was referencing blue collar jobs in my remarks. Soldier, fireman, or any other job where physical labor is a prerequisite. I’m not speaking from imagination here either, but firsthand experience.
One of my earliest forms of employment was a blue collar job where males and females (as a condition of employment) were expected to lift 75 lb bags as part of their duties. Males were hired as well as females for tasks involving hard work. All too often however, i would notice instances where females would call for help from the female supervisor and all too often i would see that female supervisor “ask” the males to contribute assistance after having completed their own work. I was one of the males that would routinely be “volunteered” for this.
The opposite was practically non existent. In rare instances where females helped the males, it was only because we were so backed up in workload that all available hands had to chip in for the purpose of maintaining the daily quota. Not coincidentally, these circumstances routinely involved the females slowing down production.
To summarize: more often than not the females would be slower and less efficient and require assistance from the males for the job that they were expected to give “equal work” towards in order to qualify for the equal pay. This is why i have taken to saying “equal work for equal pay” whenever i hear the typical feminist chirp about “equal pay for equal work.” History shows that when it comes to blue collar jobs especially, your gender does not give equal work. Regardless of the fact that the law bars pay discrimination based on gender, Men have been getting the short end of the stick when it comes to an equitable distribution of labor among gender lines.
“There can be conflicts of interest politically, but it is a selfish and self-centered attitude to think that everything has to be for me. Some things are not for you; they are for others.”
This comment drips with irony, especially when one considers how it is females who have been behind the attacks on male only social clubs, it is females who have pushed to infiltrate male only bastions like the NBA, NFL etc with their feminist drivel, females who have pushed to make laws that reward one gender with exclusive rights to terminate potential progeny irrespective of the fact that the 14th amendment guarantees an equal protection of the laws to EVERY person.
“Food stamp programs are not for wealthy CEOs. Feminism is for women. If you don’t see it serving you, that’s why, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I think you are missing the whole point of the article you are replying to, which projects that in the future both democracy and feminism will decline hand and hand together. So you’re fine with feminism going the way of the dinosaurs. What about democracy? Will you shed any tears over it’s decline? Please only reply in brief if at all. We need to wrap this up.”
History has shown that food stamp programs have only served to breed economic slavery among the indigent and parasitic among society more often than not. I should know…i worked for a government program that distributed these types of benefits to people. I saw the cause and effects of such programs firsthand. People (including illegals) were encouraged to have more children for the corresponding effect of receiving more benefits (sometimes in the early thousands depending on the sheer number of dependents) whereas older people were given no more than a pitiable stipend of $14 a month.
Feminism likewise breeds philosophical slavery towards those it entrances. It serves to make females antagonistic and resistant to traditional gender roles that have benefited civilization for thousands of years. It promotes hatred for Men and a narcissist mentality completely devoid of reality.
I think you missed the point of my remark, since you seem to think it was directed at the article. No, my remark was to you and you alone regarding your statement. As far as democracy goes, i care nothing for it. It’s essentially mob rule.The US was not designed to be a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner as Benjamin Franklin once opined. Both feminism and democracy deserve to be cast on the ash heap of history.
Thank you for telling me how i should reply (Please only reply in brief if at all. We need to wrap this up) it speaks volumes about what feminism also is: attempted control over Men through a prioritization of the self.
If you have somewhere else to go or if you prefer to end our little debate prematurely, feel free to use the “agree to disagree” final remark. Telling me to keep my comments brief however politely is still telling me what to do….in case you weren’t aware.
I can only reiterate that I believe in gender equality, that men and women are different but equal. The idea of gender inequality is not supported by mainstream science or by any other academic area, with the possible exception of fundamental religious studies. Even so, the Christian idea of love of God, neighbor, and enemy is one of the more predominant themes (love, forgiveness, etc.). I don’t know what else to say to you. Some women are not a credit to their gender, but they are not all women. I don’t think hard physical labor is appropriate work for women–it is for young, healthy men, and even then, equipment and tools must be provided by employers to avoid injury. Workers have rights!
Then you are indeed a feminist, because nature doesn’t make any animal perfectly equal to another of its kind with regard to males and females. In the animal kingdom generally speaking the male is the larger and the leader of the group. We see this with lions and with most monkey species, for example. Even in instances of nature where the female is larger (such as with mosquitoes) the functions related to both are unique, meaning one sex has a natural superiority to another.
“The idea of gender inequality is not supported by mainstream science or by any other academic area, with the possible exception of fundamental religious studies”
I just showed you how nature itself doesn’t design animals to be perfectly identical, in both form and function, so why would you list academia, which tries to put forth the farcical notion that there is no real biological difference between males and females? This kind of junk science is being put forth by (what else) an obvious feminist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10684179/Men-and-women-do-not-have-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html
Just because there are some in the academic circle who adhere to the gender equivalent of flat earth theory, it doesn’t make it a legitimate viewpoint.
“Some women are not a credit to their gender, but they are not all women. I don’t think hard physical labor is appropriate work for women–it is for young, healthy men, and even then, equipment and tools must be provided by employers to avoid injury. Workers have rights!”
I don’t think you’ve noticed the intentional distinction I’ve made in my remarks towards both of our genders.
Males are simply biological X/Y’ers who (behaviorally speaking) are no more than the sum of their parts. He is weak, unintelligent, and so forth. He can also be effeminate but this is not always the case.
A Man however is a psychologically evolved male…a human being who identifies himself as more than just the product of his environment. He is intelligent, sophisticated, psychologically strong and cultured. He is the very essence of masculinity coupled with the responsibility of self restraint.
With regard to XXers:
A female likewise is nothing more than the sum of her parts. She is vapid, unintelligent, and apathetic towards the reality that exists beyond her particular perspective.
She may try to pantomime masculine qualities but this too is not always the case.
A Woman however is an evolved female. She is intelligent, caring, feminine, docile and humble. She is the very essence of femininity in that she recognizes her God given role and accepts it willingly. Most Women in this category tend to be religious, incidentally.
Just thought i’d expand on that, since you seem to think i lump in all XX’ers in the same category.
It isn’t just hard labor in the traditional sense that should be done by Men…it’s also active combat roles and civil servant positions which require a strong fortitude…soldier and firefighter, respectively. Men function better in combat roles and in roles which require tenacity as a means of survival. Females have NO PLACE in these positions.
ANY position where gender disparities become obvious, ranging from the subtle to the undeniable and especially with regard to a superiority, should be held by the gender which provides that superior disparity.
In a perfect world, my logic (however cold) would be understood and followed…but that is the destiny of mortals…to follow feelings over facts, symbolism over substance, perception over reality.
Man: “I think therefore I am.”
Female: “I feel therefore i am correct”
Now you seem to be thinking more along the lines of what the ideal male and female are. Reality is–people are what they are and have the right to pursue their own happiness, right or wrong, up to the point that it doesn’t violate law.
“Reality is–people are what they are and have the right to pursue their own happiness, right or wrong, up to the point that it doesn’t violate law.”
Indeed. I’m not proposing any such orwellian policy here. My views are not something that should be judicially enforced anymore than one should legally enforce the law of gravity upon another.
They are views that just “make sense” and should be taught from parent to child and especially from Father to son, for the benefit of the individual, family and society.
Since we are in basic agreement on this at least (what i quoted from you) i suppose we can bring our debate to a civilized close.
I will therefore say “we agree to disagree.”
–“You can’t see us thinking, but living within our own skulls, we are aware that we do!”– I think, but you can’t see it and I have no proof of thinking other than stating that I can—- Miss Cates, you must be MAGIC —–like: I built a house, but you can’t see it, I designed a bridge, but you can’t see it, I stopped a war, but you can’t see it……… Proof my dear is proof. Show all of us, how you can think by showing us the proof of your thinking.
–” That attitude is a little bit upsetting” —Running into the arms of emotion again? How about a logical rebuff instead of resorting to delving into your emotional mouse hole. Personally, I don’t care what upsets you in your weak emotional castle tower (they tend to collapse on themselves). I want and only respect logic and proof. Thanks for the Whine, but I prefer the wine that comes in bottles.
—–“Please only reply in brief if at all. We need to wrap this up.”— My goodness, what power you wield, you get to pick when the conversation ends. Besides the use of poor quality English, we see that you have a need to leave the conversation, because you are either losing or you powers of stay and concentration are now declining. If you initiate an action, you should be able to ‘stay’ the action. It must be time for American Idol or Dancing With The Stars. Miss Cates, you are correct in stating that Feminism is for women and may I state, only for women. Feminism is not for men, or children or even other women who don’t profess the goals of Feminism. Therefore, equality has no place in Feminism. It’s a selfish, concentric, destructive and meaningless attitude.
——“I don’t think hard physical labor is appropriate work for women—it is for young, healthy men …..” Obviously you have never seen the hard work done by middle-age and older men. I’ve seen men in their 70’s who could out work the “young, healthy men…”, of your statement. You should educate yourself as to just whom fought wars, plowed fields, worked in factories and built things, not all were young healthy men, but all were strong, determined and stoic. Also, women have had to do hard physical labor in the past, so I do not agree that it is inappropriate for them. Who do you think did the heavy labor when men were at war. We need to be a helpmate to men, not weak, poor things sitting on the couch. Besides the household chores (which most women now feel to proud to do), women can use their muscles, it’s good for them and they’ve always done it in the past. I see a lot of American women waste their time when they could do so much more, look at farm wives for an example. —-“Some women are not a credit to their gender, but they are not all women”—– If they are not all women, what are they- Dogs? You seem to need some real life experiences. Please don’t continue to write here, I prefer to read fantasies in novel form.
Great! I’m glad you like fantasy fiction. Here are some short stories of mine you might like to read on my author’s homepage: http://www.freshinkgroup.com/authors/anna-cates
I just don’t see the point in condemning something that could have some value to me or other women. Why throw out the baby with the bath water? And I wanted to wrap up the conversation because I’m rather busy. I have an M.A. in English, a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction with an English specialization, and an M.F.A. in Creative Writing–how bad could my English be?!
People feel emotions because we have these big beautiful brains with gigantic frontal lobes. The same parts of our brain that allow us logical thinking allow us to feel emotions from love to fear. Sometimes, people try to invalidate another person’s argument by pointing out that they are emotional, but that accusation is based on flawed reasoning. Feeling particular emotions at particular times can be a very logical response to the stimuli in your life.
Do I have a homo sapien brain? Yes!!! Hello?!
Look, I’m not going to upload private, graduate school transcripts for you to peruse at a public web site like this. My profile is up at Facebook, if you get curious.
I’ll post some links to some websites with some of my writing. Go ahead; make my day; be my fan!:
http://www.freshinkgroup.com/authors/anna-cates
http://www.underthebasho.com/2015-issue/one-line-haiku/1472-anna-cates.html
https://hedgerowpoems.wordpress.com
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cpe/vol2/iss1/1/
http://haikujournal.org/e-issues/>.
http://www.fringemagazine.org/WebPages/CriticismIssue17.html
http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10637
http://contemporaryworldpoetry.com/?p=1126
http://www.towerjournal.com/fall_2013/Ana_Cates.htm
The loss of basic freedoms is sad ,but at least feminism will end!