OK... so there are no women on here...

[KatieDoes]

Again .. I'm not being "tribal" in the sense that I believe there are "sides" here .. I'm just expressing my opinion.

On some things I agree with the women who are expressing their opinion on this board, and on other things I don't On the fact that they should be free to express themselves here without being stereotyped, I agree. On everyone having to be a feminist, or believe in feminism, I disagree.

Is that so difficult to accept?

@SkyeGirl32 Any why be angry with someone who has a different opinion than yours?

Isn't that why someone else on the board accused one of the men of having a fragile ego, because he got angry when the women disagreed with him?

Or am I missing something here?

I don’t think you’re worth anger, and I can’t speak for Skye…. But surely you can understand why women might be angry at a man that thinks our equal standing as humans is a ‘difference of opinion’.

 

[SkyeGirl32]

Of course you'd single only one of us out, when there has been more than just me who reacted negatively to your posts...

I will say this: I am not angry... I'm just extremely exhausted and tired of men who act like they stand behind and support us... and then show their true colors.
Either you're with us fully... or you're not with us. There's no middle ground here.
You can't just PICK AND CHOOSE which parts of feminism that you agree with and want to stand with -- either you're all in, or you're not.
It's that simple.

That's all I'll be saying on this matter as you are now someone who isn't worthy of me wasting any more of my energy on.

 

[KatieDoes]

someone else who we thought was on our side. But really isn’t. This thread is good at showing us that at least.

They can’t help themselves.

They all love women… as long and they’re just looking for a wet hole to stick their dick in, or someone to do all of their emotional labor.

But when those women start having opinions? Demands? Expectations?

That’s unreasonable, obviously.

 

[SkyeGirl32]

They can’t help themselves.

They all love women… as long and they’re just looking for a wet hole to stick their dick in, or someone to do all of their emotional labor.

But when those women start having opinions? Demands? Expectations?

That’s unreasonable, obviously.

Right? They hate us when we dare to even voice said opinions that differ from their own and then claim to be butt hurt when we dare to call them out on the bullshit that doesn't agree with their own. And then act like we aren't allowed to be exhausted and whatnot when someone who we thought was an ally, turns out not to me.

Also the fact he only called me out when there were others who clearly reacted the same way as me.... *sighs* I'm just exhausted and tired, and over men who can't see that them behaving in this way, is the issue - because to them, we are always the problem and will never be equal or deserving or respect..

 

[KatieDoes]

Right? They hate us when we dare to even voice said opinions that differ from their own and then claim to be butt hurt when we dare to call them out on the bullshit that doesn't agree with their own. And then act like we aren't allowed to be exhausted and whatnot when someone who we thought was an ally, turns out not to me.

Also the fact he only called me out when there were others who clearly reacted the same way as me.... *sighs* I'm just exhausted and tired, and over men who can't see that them behaving in this way, is the issue - because to them, we are always the problem and will never be equal or deserving or respect..

I NEVER assume them to be allies. Never.


Some might turn out to be, and yay them. But I don’t expect it at all.

< — old and jaded

 

[SkyeGirl32]

I NEVER assume them to be allies. Never.


Some might turn out to be, and yay them. But I don’t expect it at all.

< — old and jaded

That's a smart way of going about it.
Then all you're gonna be is pleasantly surprised IF one does end up being an ally.
And makes sense -- I'm starting to get to that jaded frame of mind myself as well.
I hate it, but it is what it is.

 

[NorthernVAM]

Far be it for me to mansplain feminism (although I think I can beat Wikipedia) so take this with a grain of salt.

I’ve always understood it as choice, both societally and personally. Unfortunately, a lack of equality in society makes choice impossible much of the time and so feminism in that context means fighting for the equality to choose. If that means choosing “traditional” roles due to biology, then fine but suggesting that biology justifies inequality grossly misses the mark.

Actually, I wasn't justifying the inequality .. I'm acknowledging that no matter what you do, inequality exists in human societies, always has, always will, unless you believe in some type of utopia that we haven't reached yet. Honestly, I think it would take a radical change in human nature (emphasis on the word "nature"), to change human behavior which has evolved over millions of years. So -- I'm not "justifying" the way it is, just explaining why I believe it is the way that it is.

On the topic of feminism, the second part of your post made my point, which was you've had relationships with women who are feminists (by whatever definition) and some who are not, and in general I tend to look at that as a "survival strategy" choice. There are some women who prefer to take on a more traditional feminine role, and there are some that don't, again free choice without some abstract political construct around it.

My original point about biology was that in a world that has less technology, such as the hunter-gatherers, the survival of the extended family or "tribe" seems to be dependent upon a division of labor between the sexes. In other words, there is an evolutionary or historical (take your choice -- the argument is the same) legacy here that is based upon survival.

I don't think the "patriarchy" is an abstract political concept designed to limit women's power in society, in fact, I would argue in some ways today they have less control over male behavior than they've had in the past. When the society was more restrictive about moral behavior, men were pressured into taking care of their families, and "deadbeat dads" would suffer serious social consequences in the society, including being shunned. In that case, it was often women providing the moral compass for society -- and that's sort of how we got social movements like prohibition. As the traditional roles dropped from the 1960s onward, men began to compete directly with women, women sort of lost the societal protections that they once had (i.e. taking care of widows and orphans), and there was a rise in one parent households, where the woman was taking on the responsibility that the men often abandoned.

Again, not saying whether this is right or wrong, good or bad, in some ways it doesn't make a difference. In some ways, the feminist movement was a boon to men, because they can now behave irresponsibly and stick the women with the consequences. So they come out ahead on that -- but then there is a price to pay for both the women, and in particular less educated women who don't have a wide variety of choices in how to earn a living, and children who are abandoned by men who don't what the responsibility of being in the role of husband and father.

Again, not trying to be a moralist, but I don't think many of people really examine the unintended consequences of their belief systems and how many beliefs can be contradictory in their desired outcomes.

 

[crazychemgirl]

This thread is still going???

 

[NorthernVAM]

I don’t think you’re worth anger, and I can’t speak for Skye…. But surely you can understand why women might be angry at a man that thinks our equal standing as humans is a ‘difference of opinion’.

Actually .. I don't think I said you were unequal ... I said I didn't believe in feminism. I think it's an inaccurate social / political theory for the most part that ignores human nature, just as I believe communism as a social / political theory ignores the realities of human nature, and when you practice it, the outcome is vastly different than the theory predicts. For example -- one could say that one of the "outcomes" of the women's liberation movement is that there are more female led single parent homes, and that it's much more likely for a single parent home to live in poverty". That seems to be much more acceptable to our society than it used to be, but in theory, the woman is being treated as an equal.

While it seems you think the words "unequal" and "feminism" are interchangeable .. they aren't. Feminism has a much broader definition, and believes there is an social / political construct that keeps women from being treated as equals, and I disagree. So, here is some of my rationale ...

In general, when men compete with each other for dominance in the social hierarchy, they tend to do it by forming alliances when necessary, but in general they are willing to discard and screw an ally over if they don't see any useful future in the relationship. Men's outlook on relationships are like that for the most part. The traditional feminine role compliments the male role, the feminist role competes with the male role, and you can argue that the traditional feminine role is a subordinate role, and I would agree, but in many ways it is no different than being a "beta" male in the male dominance hierarchy.

I'm not sure I fully understand the female dominance hierarchy, but when females cross over into competing with males, I believe they perceive the male's behavior as somehow being directed at them because they are female. In some cases that's true .. like I don't think Harvey Wienstien would have used his power and status have sex with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he would have tried to have sex Ashley Judd, and make that part of the "business deal". I'm sure if Harvey were gay, he probably would have used his wealth and power to coerce some handsome rising male star into gratifying his lustful desires. My take on it is that if Harvey were just out for sex, he could hire a beautiful woman to service him any which way he wanted, but I'd argue that he the reason he was trying to coerce Ashley Judd into having sex with him is that he wanted to show his dominance, and that he was so powerful he could make her do what he wanted. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think that's how males operate in a modern society .. in a more primitive society dominance went to the ones who were the most powerful -- or perhaps the one who were most successful at creating powerful alliances, so that they could kill an overly dominant male, and then fight among themselves to be his successor.

In the end, I don't think it's so much about male vs. female, it's about who has the power within the social structure, and so if you want to compete for dominance in a society, it will eventually devolve into a street fight.

 

[NorthernVAM]

You sound like a paleo diet evangelist trying to cram shitty views into pseudo-intellectual anthropological observations that even if minimally true are far more complex than a few paragraphs can possibly explain. I really don’t care if my distant ancestor clubbed another distant ancestor over the head and the product of that unholy union was eventually me. The only things I hunt and gather are a good cup of coffee and the occasional joint. My ancestors can look upon me in disgust from whatever afterlife you believe in but I’m going to continue to champion full equality in the society we actually live in now.

Well .. is that really true?

Don't you compete in the modern world for resources?

Are you saying you don't compete for power, position, status, money?

The tools of dominance are different in a modern society, but I'd argue that what people are calling "toxic masculinity" these days is just the result of a dominance hierarchy that evolved as a mechanism for survival. What I"m trying to articulate is the reason I don't believe Feminism's explanation of how the world works is accurate, therefore, I don't believe in it.

It's not that I don't believe in equality, I don't believe human nature allows for a society based upon true equality, and modern history is littered with idealists who say they believe in equality, but when they rise to power, are rather brutal and unfair in the way that they treat people who are rivals for their power.

Rather than just try and insult me -- and throw a one off -- do you have a theory of why things are they way they are? Seriously, look at all the celebrities in the entertainment industry who claim that they are the most liberal and enlightened folks on the planet, and yet they are the ones who have behaved so terribly that a "me too" movement arose because of the abuse.

Would I trust anything that they say is true?

 

[KatieDoes]

Im so done with my humanity being mansplained to me by some dumbass who thinks his opinion warrants 45 paragraphs and if women would only learn from him, we’d be much better off.

Done.
Its not up for debate. We’re done debating whether or not we’re entire people with assholes that think it’s a fun thought exercise because there‘s no actual consequences for them.




To summarize the thread:

Are there any actual women on these boards?

Yes. But most of the men here are utterly unfuckable, so the women that are here avoid them.

 

[crazychemgirl]

Im so done with my humanity being mansplained to me by some dumbass who thinks his opinion warrants 45 paragraphs and if women would only learn from him, we’d be much better off.

Done.
Its not up for debate. We’re done debating whether or not we’re entire people with assholes that think it’s a fun thought exercise because there‘s no actual consequences for them.




To summarize the thread:

Are there any actual women on these boards?

Yes. But most of the men here are utterly unfuckable, so the women that are here avoid them.

Standing fucking ovation.

 

[crazychemgirl]

Can I also add that the best thing ever on this new board is the “leave conversation” for private messages … dudes who message without any prior interaction can get fucked.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Im so done with my humanity being mansplained to me by some dumbass who thinks his opinion warrants 45 paragraphs and if women would only learn from him, we’d be much better off.

Done.
Its not up for debate. We’re done debating whether or not we’re entire people with assholes that think it’s a fun thought exercise because there‘s no actual consequences for them.




To summarize the thread:

Are there any actual women on these boards?

Yes. But most of the men here are utterly unfuckable, so the women that are here avoid them.

Thunderous applause!

 

[SkyeGirl32]

Im so done with my humanity being mansplained to me by some dumbass who thinks his opinion warrants 45 paragraphs and if women would only learn from him, we’d be much better off.

Done.
Its not up for debate. We’re done debating whether or not we’re entire people with assholes that think it’s a fun thought exercise because there‘s no actual consequences for them.




To summarize the thread:

Are there any actual women on these boards?

Yes. But most of the men here are utterly unfuckable, so the women that are here avoid them.

Very well said!

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

OK .. so first, let's agree upon definitions .. Wikipedia has one handy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

If you agree that this part of the Wikipedia statement is accurate:
Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unjustly within those societies. Efforts to change that include fighting against gender stereotypes and establishing educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men.

... Ok. ... ok. ... ... ... ... ok. This is decent for a Wikipedia definition of feminism. And, credit where credit is due, at least you're offering a definition of terms, unlike that other asshat who probably at one point in his life spelled it "feminimizm." You know, that guy. Fuck, don't make me scroll up to figure out how to correctly spell his idiot username.

Then, I disagree with the "equal outcomes" portion of the last statement.

Um, ok, why?
So, let me get this straight: you do not believe that two people, a man and a woman, sharing equal qualifications – graduating from the same university, same GPA, same/equivalent honors, awards and etc. – should not, upon entering the job market, reasonably expect to merit similar outcomes?
Let's say they enter the same field, have a similar career track, and ten years after college wind up in roughly the same position. Should they not both expect to be making about the same amount of money?

Also, on some fundamental level I disagree with the idea that there well ever be "equality" in the choices that men and women make, and part of that is just due to their different biology.

I don't know what this means, please explain how having tits keeps someone from being equal – career-wise – to someone who is non-titted.

I also sort of disagree with the first statement in that I don't believe that gender roles and a division of responsibility in a society necessarily equal unfair or unequal treatment.

So, as you may know – living as you do in Northern Virginia, near to the cradle of democracy in the Free World – we live in a free society where citizens are afforded certain liberties. We don't have this, how you say, "division of responsibility" here. That sounds a wee bit too much like the gubment telling 'muricans what to do!
Also I don't think "gender roles" are really a part of this discussion, at least not if we're sticking to the parameters of your wikipedia definition.

I think it represents a simplistic view of how our species survived, and ignores the biological underpinning of the fundamental building block of society, which is a "family".

Well, a couple points here.
First, there is a lot of scholarship to suggest that the division of labor in hunter-gatherer groups was not always based on gender, but rather on ability. This makes sense, because a hunter gatherer economy is one where there generally isn't a food surplus, so practicality rather than rigid gender rules would be the order of the day.
Yes, this means that sometimes men picked berries, and sometimes women speared mammoths. You know what else? We may overly romanticize the mammoth hunters, but it was actually the nuts and berries that provided most of the nutrition for the group, so most adult group members actually spent way more of their time gathering than hunting.

Second – obligatory eyeroll – yes, the "fundamental building block" of society was technically "family" groups. But the model for this is *not* anything like what we mean when we say the word today, either in the nuclear family sense or in the Fast and Furious meme gif sense.
At the outset of human civilization, at the most basic levels of groups of humans getting together for mutual survival, the family group typically consisted of about a dozen adults and their kids. Some of these groups practiced monogamous marriage. Some practiced polygyny, or polyandry. Usually this was about as far as the polyamory went, because most hunter gatherer groups did have an incest taboo (which I know will make a lot of people in Literotica's chat rooms sad ).
But basically none of these groups looked like your model sitcom family, where the "family" is two parents plus their biological offspring. No, *that* model is *not* the "fundamental building block of society." That's a specific cultural feature that only came about long after the advent of things like agriculture and organized religion.

I contend that this proposition of yours is fundamentally flawed, and the *actual* fundamental building block of human social order is an egalitarian labor model and a strict prohibition against brothers and sisters fucking each other. Because that's how you get hill people. And monarchs.

In a less technological society, which is where we have our origins, the division of labor between men and women was based somewhat on biological roles,

No, it wasn't. (see above)

and it is only because of the rise of industrialization and related technologies that political constructs like feminism arise,

I mean, you could say this about a lot of things. It's only because of the rise of agriculture and economic developments born out of early modern human groups having a food surplus that political constructs like wealth arise.
Is this a reason not to have, endorse or use money? No, don't be stupid. A lot of political thought, philosophy and "constructs" rose out of rising society complexity. I view it as a net positive that one day somebody had the bright idea that "hey, maybe those people with tits ought to be treated a bit more fairly, eh what?"

which puts men and women in some sort of competition for power and control within the society.

But wait, one of the fundamental underpinnings of liberal democracy and free market capitalism is that competition is a *good* thing; that, out of the thick milky morass of the free market, the cream always rises to the top. (I mean it's been a while since I've read Milton Friedman, but I'm about 60% sure he used a frothy, milky, creamy analogy just like this one to describe the free market...)
So isn't it a good thing for women to be equal players in the market, because more competition is inherently virtuous? And same for politics, where the "market of ideas" always benefits from a large pool of participants?

Does that explain my position well enough to answer your question?

I mean, you made no technical errors and didn't say anything stupid, so. Already you're ahead of the game in this thread. However, I don't think any of your explanations for why you don't like feminism make any sense, and each is just a tiny bit more disprovable than the one before it.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

On some things I agree with the women who are expressing their opinion on this board, and on other things I don't On the fact that they should be free to express themselves here without being stereotyped, I agree. On everyone having to be a feminist, or believe in feminism, I disagree.

Is that so difficult to accept?

Yes.

Because at its simplest, most distilled level, feminism is just the idea that society should regard women and men as equals. Socially, economically, legally, politically.
Feminism is agreeing with the notion of women's suffrage being an essential democratic value.
Feminism is agreeing that women should *not* be paid less for the same work as a man in the same job.
Feminism is agreeing that women should be afforded the same access to educational and career opportunities as men.
Feminism is agreeing that women should have the right to self determinism, socially and politically and economically, without having to answer to, say, a male relative or a husband.

What's difficult for me to accept is that there are people living in America in the 21st century who see the word feminism and start wishing they were in episode 1 of Wandavision.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

They can’t help themselves.

They all love women… as long and they’re just looking for a wet hole to stick their dick in, or someone to do all of their emotional labor.

But when those women start having opinions? Demands? Expectations?

That’s unreasonable, obviously.

... I know I don't deserve to ask this, given, you know, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY... but please don't lose faith in all of us.

Some of us are really quite nice. I promise.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Actually, I wasn't justifying the inequality .. I'm acknowledging that no matter what you do, inequality exists in human societies, always has, always will, unless you believe in some type of utopia that we haven't reached yet.

There's that can-do American spirit that won two world wars and put a man on the moon!
Throw up your hands and give up in the face of inevitable adversity – it's the American way!!!
Of course, don't be stupid. This defeatist attitude has no place in the 21st century. The American model of constitutional democracy acknowledges that people are imperfect, which is why we have the ability to amend the constitution so that our founding document can evolve with the times.
Similarly, we as thinking and rational people are capable of self reflection, and are able to, as a society, correct injustices by adapting our attitudes, our laws and our cultural practices in the name of self betterment.
I know of no society whose rallying credo was "bad things are inevitable - sorry y'all!"

Honestly, I think it would take a radical change in human nature (emphasis on the word "nature"), to change human behavior which has evolved over millions of years. So -- I'm not "justifying" the way it is, just explaining why I believe it is the way that it is.

O ye of little faith.
You clearly don't understand how adaptable the human creature is if you expect us to be daunted by "millions of years."
We only invented agriculture about 12,000 years ago.
6,000 years later, we started building proper cities.
About 100 years ago, monarchy as a default system of government met its gruesome end in the trenches in Europe, to be replaced by mostly-democratic practices and institutions – and then some years after that, the second world war saw the beginnig of the end of colonialism and the rise of the modern nation state.
Literally none of these innovations are part of our natural behavior. But we adapt.
That's what humans do best – adapt and change. To suggest that our nature – characterized in such dour and nihilistic terms – is static is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of how humans work and where humans come from.

On the topic of feminism, the second part of your post made my point, which was you've had relationships with women who are feminists (by whatever definition) and some who are not, and in general I tend to look at that as a "survival strategy" choice. There are some women who prefer to take on a more traditional feminine role, and there are some that don't, again free choice without some abstract political construct around it.

lol Wait, are you suggesting that women choose whether or not to be a feminist as a "survival strategy"?
Okay, well, in all seriousness, let me ask you this: what if it were reversed, and non-titted people with penises were the second class citizens by default, and women said things like: "Well, you're a man, you're just a pile of muscles with a dick, so of course you can only have jobs in things like construction and factory work and auto repair and janitorial services and the military. Leave the thinky jobs – like executives, senators, doctors, five-star generals, cabinet secretaries, leading women in major Hollywood pictures, coprorate lawyers, and so on – to the women, k?"

My original point about biology was that in a world that has less technology, such as the hunter-gatherers, the survival of the extended family or "tribe" seems to be dependent upon a division of labor between the sexes.

Except that it doesn't. Hunter gatherer tribes were largely egalitarian. And hunted meat accounted for a really small amount of a hunter gatherer group's sustenance – largely because picking berries was far less dangerous than hunting animals, and an injured tribe member who couldn't move with the tribe was as good as dead – and if you lose a tribe member, well, that's one fewer person to pick berries and provide food for the group.

In other words, there is an evolutionary or historical (take your choice -- the argument is the same) legacy here that is based upon survival.

Except, no, it isn't. What you're thinking of is largely a romanticized mythology of cavemen fending off sabertoothed tigers with a flint spear.
(oh, by the way, flint-knapping for stone tools? also work equally shared by the sexes – and not always an industry possessed by all hunter gatherer groups [because some of them just liked berries so much and didn't want to have to bother knapping out spearheads for hunting])

I don't think the "patriarchy" is an abstract political concept designed to limit women's power in society, in fact, I would argue in some ways today they have less control over male behavior than they've had in the past.

No, it's a thing. It may not be a conscious thing, but it's an animus that has existed in men ever since the first vestiges of women's suffrage began to emerge in Western democracies.
How else does one explain the fact that there was *opposition* to giving women the vote, in basically every major democratic society in the last century?

When the society was more restrictive about moral behavior, men were pressured into taking care of their families, and "deadbeat dads" would suffer serious social consequences in the society, including being shunned. In that case, it was often women providing the moral compass for society -- and that's sort of how we got social movements like prohibition.

lol Right. When was this golden age, pray ye tell?
And how does it explain that, like, 90% of Charles Dickens' literary characters came from broken homes?

As the traditional roles dropped from the 1960s onward, men began to compete directly with women, women sort of lost the societal protections that they once had (i.e. taking care of widows and orphans), and there was a rise in one parent households, where the woman was taking on the responsibility that the men often abandoned.

So, is it your contention that, prior to 1960, there were no one-parent households, and men always took responsibility for the kids they sired?
This is a grossly oversimplified, pollyanna-ish vision of modern history. Your rose-colored lenses were so thick I had to adjust my monitor settings!!!

Again, not saying whether this is right or wrong, good or bad, in some ways it doesn't make a difference. In some ways, the feminist movement was a boon to men, because they can now behave irresponsibly and stick the women with the consequences.

Ah, yes, one of the core tenets of feminism. I know it well.
Chapter 6, verse 34 of Ye Olde Feministe Handbooke.

So they come out ahead on that -- but then there is a price to pay for both the women, and in particular less educated women who don't have a wide variety of choices in how to earn a living,

Gosh if only there was a philosophy that advocated for more educational and career opportunities for women... then she'd be okay, right?!

and children who are abandoned by men who don't what the responsibility of being in the role of husband and father.

lol Are you projecting a little bit maybe? Are you here on Literotica as a salve for your daddy issues? You have this thing where you keep bringing up deadbeat dads... I think your Freudian slip is showing.

Again, not trying to be a moralist,

Uhm, yes you are.

but I don't think many of people really examine the unintended consequences of their belief systems and how many beliefs can be contradictory in their desired outcomes.

Actually, countless studies have shown that improving gender equity has a net positive impact on GDP per capita over time. Especially during the post-war period, let's say from the 1950s through to the end of the Cold War in 1989, the "American Century" was largely built, wealth-wise, on a labor force comprised of more women and men working side by side than ever before in recorded human history (well, you know, except for that whole berry-picking thing we used to do, right!?).

So, with men and women becoming more equal in the post-war period, we became wealthier, our standard of living improved, we invented computers and the internet and we went to the moon; we defeated the Soviet Union and helped to build one of the most peaceful and prosperous periods in all of human history...

I mean, except for all these phantom deadbeat dads you keep bringing up, I actually think the advent of feminism has sort of been really fucking awesome for humanity! Go, homo sapiens!!

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Actually .. I don't think I said you were unequal ... I said I didn't believe in feminism.

But, the definition you quoted above specifically says that feminism seeks equality for women and men.
And you said you don't believe in this.
And so, it follows...

I think it's an inaccurate social / political theory for the most part that ignores human nature, just as I believe communism as a social / political theory ignores the realities of human nature, and when you practice it, the outcome is vastly different than the theory predicts.

So, you think it's in human nature to be misogynist? And, therefore, we shouldn't bother to change it?
You know, early hunter gatherer tribes (as I said a couple of posts ago) pretty universally held to incest taboos. Because they learned the hard way that when you let brothers and sisters start fuckin', things get WEIRD.
So these groups, they knew it was in their nature to want to fuck their hot siblings, BUT they defied that nature because they did not want to devolve into morlocks.
So, long story short: if we can hold to incest taboos and stop fucking our sisters, I'm sure we can find a way to resist whatever you think is in human nature to make us want to be absolute dildos in our interactions with women.

For example -- one could say that one of the "outcomes" of the women's liberation movement is that there are more female led single parent homes, and that it's much more likely for a single parent home to live in poverty".

That's probably got something to do with the fact that women's liberation helped make it possible for women to be able to support themselves after leaving abusive relationships with their husbands.
Sorry, does bringing the topic of domestic violence into this discussion totally destroy your quaint little monochromatic tableau?

That seems to be much more acceptable to our society than it used to be, but in theory, the woman is being treated as an equal.

What you're not saying is that a woman's ability to get a job and add an extra paycheck to a two-parent household significantly increases the wealth of that particular family model. That's something you saw a whole lot less of before the 1960s.
Doesn't that suggest that equality for women is actually a *good* thing for "traditional families"?

While it seems you think the words "unequal" and "feminism" are interchangeable .. they aren't.

LOL No, they aren't. Feminism stands in stark opposition to inequality.

Feminism has a much broader definition, and believes there is an social / political construct that keeps women from being treated as equals, and I disagree. So, here is some of my rationale ...

um what.

In general, when men compete with each other for dominance in the social hierarchy, they tend to do it by forming alliances when necessary, but in general they are willing to discard and screw an ally over if they don't see any useful future in the relationship.

Yeah, foo, I know! I saw Game of Thrones, bitch!

Men's outlook on relationships are like that for the most part.

wait what

The traditional feminine role compliments the male role, the feminist role competes with the male role, and you can argue that the traditional feminine role is a subordinate role, and I would agree, but in many ways it is no different than being a "beta" male in the male dominance hierarchy.

Okay, so, this is nonsense. This is literally pseudo-intellectual post-facto reasoning somebody just pulled out of their ass to rationalize a belief that woman needs to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
That's just stupid.

I'm not sure I fully understand the female dominance hierarchy,

There's a chat room for that here on Lit. Drop in sometime.

but when females cross over into competing with males, I believe they perceive the male's behavior as somehow being directed at them because they are female. In some cases that's true .. like I don't think Harvey Wienstien would have used his power and status have sex with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he would have tried to have sex Ashley Judd, and make that part of the "business deal".

um.

what

I'm sure if Harvey were gay, he probably would have used his wealth and power to coerce some handsome rising male star into gratifying his lustful desires. My take on it is that if Harvey were just out for sex, he could hire a beautiful woman to service him any which way he wanted, but I'd argue that he the reason he was trying to coerce Ashley Judd into having sex with him is that he wanted to show his dominance, and that he was so powerful he could make her do what he wanted.

Yeah, he was a fucking rapist and a predatory asshole, WHAT IS YOUR POINT ACTUALLY

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think that's how males operate in a modern society

Okay, I dunno how you use *your* dick, but that's not how I use mine. Also don't speak for me please.

.. in a more primitive society dominance went to the ones who were the most powerful -- or perhaps the one who were most successful at creating powerful alliances, so that they could kill an overly dominant male, and then fight among themselves to be his successor.

Dude, fucking no! They were too busy picking berries, jesus christ read a fucking anthropology book already!

In the end, I don't think it's so much about male vs. female, it's about who has the power within the social structure, and so if you want to compete for dominance in a society, it will eventually devolve into a street fight.

... so, basically, now you *do* believe in a patriarchy.

I feel dizzy.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

The tools of dominance are different in a modern society, but I'd argue that what people are calling "toxic masculinity" these days is just the result of a dominance hierarchy that evolved as a mechanism for survival.

lol Okay. Stop using the word "evolved."
So, just a quick googling of "toxic masculinity examples" gets me a list that includes "hyper independence."
As humans *evolved* as social animals, and we were only able to survive and succeed as we have by cooperating, and increasing societal and technological complexity requires a commensurate increase in specialization in the labor force that makes "hyper independence" *literally impossible* for any individual who plans to continue living... I think it's safe to say what people are calling "toxic masculinity" is actually probably just a psychological phenomenon with a range of contributing soci-economic factors that has absolutely nothing to do with either the biological or cultural evolution of modern humans.

What I"m trying to articulate is the reason I don't believe Feminism's explanation of how the world works is accurate, therefore, I don't believe in it.

You literally closed your last post by saying that "it's about who has the power within the social structure," and you gave the example of Harvey Weinstein – an example of a male in power within an industry where males are entrenched in positions of power!!

It's not that I don't believe in equality,

I mean, it kinda seems like you do. You do a *lot* of shitting on single parent households, presenting them an example of why women maybe shouldn't have all this equality they're after.

I don't believe human nature allows for a society based upon true equality,

*cut to footage of a peaceful tribe of hunter-gatherers, with a mixed group of ten-or-so adult men and women slowly filling their grass-woven baskets with delicious, delicious berries*

and modern history is littered with idealists who say they believe in equality, but when they rise to power, are rather brutal and unfair in the way that they treat people who are rivals for their power.

Name two? Since history is "littered" with them.

Rather than just try and insult me -- and throw a one off -- do you have a theory of why things are they way they are? Seriously, look at all the celebrities in the entertainment industry who claim that they are the most liberal and enlightened folks on the planet, and yet they are the ones who have behaved so terribly that a "me too" movement arose because of the abuse.

I don't think that's the nail-in-the-coffin-of-feminism that you seem to think it is.
I mean, I sorta think it's an argument that we need to double down on the feminism. Stat.

 

[Diosax]

O ye of little faith.
You clearly don't understand how adaptable the human creature is if you expect us to be daunted by "millions of years."
We only invented agriculture about 12,000 years ago.
6,000 years later, we started building proper cities.
About 100 years ago, monarchy as a default system of government met its gruesome end in the trenches in Europe, to be replaced by mostly-democratic practices and institutions – and then some years after that, the second world war saw the beginnig of the end of colonialism and the rise of the modern nation state.
Literally none of these innovations are part of our natural behavior. But we adapt.
That's what humans do best – adapt and change. To suggest that our nature – characterized in such dour and nihilistic terms – is static is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of how humans work and where humans come from.
...

Except that it doesn't. Hunter gatherer tribes were largely egalitarian. And hunted meat accounted for a really small amount of a hunter gatherer group's sustenance – largely because picking berries was far less dangerous than hunting animals, and an injured tribe member who couldn't move with the tribe was as good as dead – and if you lose a tribe member, well, that's one fewer person to pick berries and provide food for the group.

So, you think it's in human nature to be misogynist? And, therefore, we shouldn't bother to change it?
You know, early hunter gatherer tribes (as I said a couple of posts ago) pretty universally held to incest taboos. Because they learned the hard way that when you let brothers and sisters start fuckin', things get WEIRD.
So these groups, they knew it was in their nature to want to fuck their hot siblings, BUT they defied that nature because they did not want to devolve into morlocks.
So, long story short: if we can hold to incest taboos and stop fucking our sisters, I'm sure we can find a way to resist whatever you think is in human nature to make us want to be absolute dildos in our interactions with women.


Dude, fucking no! They were too busy picking berries, jesus christ read a fucking anthropology book already!


... so, basically, now you *do* believe in a patriarchy.

I feel dizzy.

Dude I don't think he knows what egalitarian means

I don't even want to think what he thinks about racism.

Someone send help

 

[MMM_wms]

re: the “quality” of this pseudo-discussion

@ Northern VAM, Permit me some remarks addressing you first: I have witnessed several highly laudable attempts of yours, to conduct a rational debate with people here, who are incapable of that. Mostly because their thinking is so clogged up with ideologies. And my personal conclusion is: once a person’s brain has been blocked by an ideology or two, that person becomes “unreachable”. And any and all attempts to induce them to stop and begin thinking rationally, will fail every time.

So IMHO, you have been wasting your time with these people here.

And I am convinced now that addressing anybody other than NVAM – is a waste of time as well. Especially this pedantic fellow who keeps insisting to “correct” other people’s writings all the time. Disliking redundancies and the use of the character “+”. Makes me think of the ending of the movie “Z” made by Costa Gavras in 1969.

And the word pitiful is in fact my overall assessment of what Katie the Troublemaker has kicked loose in her post #7. Which tells me one additional thing: the world – in its present state – needs such exercises in stubbornness, most likely, to create the illusion of brain activity for ideologically infected people. OK, so be it!

 

[KatieDoes]

re: the “quality” of this pseudo-discussion

@ Northern VAM, Permit me some remarks addressing you first: I have witnessed several highly laudable attempts of yours, to conduct a rational debate with people here, who are incapable of that. Mostly because their thinking is so clogged up with ideologies. And my personal conclusion is: once a person’s brain has been blocked by an ideology or two, that person becomes “unreachable”. And any and all attempts to induce them to stop and begin thinking rationally, will fail every time.

So IMHO, you have been wasting your time with these people here.

And I am convinced now that addressing anybody other than NVAM – is a waste of time as well. Especially this pedantic fellow who keeps insisting to “correct” other people’s writings all the time. Disliking redundancies and the use of the character “+”. Makes me think of the ending of the movie “Z” made by Costa Gavras in 1969.

And the word pitiful is in fact my overall assessment of what Katie the Troublemaker has kicked loose in her post #7. Which tells me one additional thing: the world – in its present state – needs such exercises in stubbornness, most likely, to create the illusion of brain activity for ideologically infected people. OK, so be it!

I hope that you and VAM are very happy together, with years of cyber fucking each other to your crotchety little heart’s delight.

I do love when a heart finds a home.

 

[KatieDoes]

… and we still don’t want to fuck you.

He’s completely un fuckable.

I’m off the market for fucking, but I might just flash TossAwayPedantic my tits for fun.

My next screen name will be KatieTroublemaker