## Misogyny

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

### Misogyny

misogynist.......a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.
What if the situation was reversed and the women voiced their opinions unchecked, which may turn out to be less than complimentary. Women have many more reasons to resent, distrust and dislike men, yet rarely do they respond in this way.
What is emerging is that the misogynists on this Forum have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess. Women have a rough time anyway in philosophy without having to tolerate unchecked bouts of testosterone, but then again that is a price worth paying for those who choose to stay and contribute.
Last edited by A Shieldmaiden on Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb

A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher

Posts: 2048
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

### Re: Misogny

A Shieldmaiden wrote:misogynist.......a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.
What if the situation was reversed and the women voiced their opinions unchecked, which may turn out to be less than complimentary. Women have many more reasons to resent, distrust and dislike men, yet rarely do they respond in this way.
What is emerging is that the misogynists on this Forum have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess. Women have a rough time anyway in philosophy without having to tolerate unchecked bouts of testosterone, but then again that is a price worth paying for those who choose to stay and contribute.

Have you ever given much thought to the female variation? You might have paid more attention to the male because you, yourself, are female. Therefore, you think, in error, that males are the only problem to contend with for lacking the sight and self-perception to notice that it takes two to tango.
(Reality isn't so kind. Everything doesn't work out the way you want it to. That's why...) As long as you don’t get your hopes up, you can take anything... You feel less pain.

(Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.)

What do you think? To tell you the truth... I worry too much about what others think of me. I hate that side of me... That's why I didn't want anyone to get to know me. I wanted to hide that side of myself. I hate it.

The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher

Posts: 2571
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

### Re: Misogny

A Shieldmaiden wrote:misogynist.......a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.

People lash out because they've been hurt.

What if the situation was reversed and the women voiced their opinions unchecked, which may turn out to be less than complimentary.

That would be a good development. Voicing opinions unchecked is honesty.

Women have many more reasons to resent, distrust and dislike men, yet rarely do they respond in this way.

Yes but if a woman has a problem, 1000 people crawl from the wood workings to console her, but if a man is bummed, no one gives a hoot and not only do they not care, but people and especially women are repulsed by a man in need. 80% of completed suicides are men.

What is emerging is that the misogynists on this Forum have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess.

Probably much of that misogyny is directed towards feminists and not ladies.

Women have a rough time anyway in philosophy without having to tolerate unchecked bouts of testosterone,

Maybe testosterone is required for philosophy? Women's brains were engineered for social interaction since they're the ones caring for the kids while men's brains developed different abilities that were favorable for hunting, fighting, engineering, etc. Men are focused while women got the gift of multitasking. One is no better than the other; just opposite.

but then again that is a price worth paying for those who choose to stay and contribute.

Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Misogny

Serendipper

By many accounts our brains were not engineered unless nature is conscious, but I digress.

Serendipper wrote:Maybe testosterone is required for philosophy? Women's brains were engineered for social interaction since they're the ones caring for the kids while men's brains developed different abilities that were favorable for hunting, fighting, engineering, etc. Men are focused while women got the gift of multitasking. One is no better than the other; just opposite.

Testosterone is not required for philosophy. Men and Women's brains were "engineered" for social interaction. There is evidence to suggest that men and sometimes women hunted in teams to capture their prey. I agree that men and women are no better than each other.

Multitasking? The whole idea of this needs to be carefully considered - no conscious part of the mind is in a state of multitasking. The conscious mind whether male or female runs through an infinite(infinitesimal) set of states of multitasking each state joining to the next taking with it part of the previous state - evolving, culling blah blah blah. Deep stuff. All brains are multitasking at the physical levels - not discretely but continuously.

Should we even perhaps consider whether a man and a woman are true opposites beyond the penis and the vagina?

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Misogny

encode_decode wrote:
Serendipper

By many accounts our brains were not engineered unless nature is conscious, but I digress.

I figured someone would catch that and in that case I reckoned I'd counter by clarifying that brains were engineered by naturally selective processes because I really did want to capture that "honing" connotation and competitive underpinning of the word "engineered". Our brains are definitely optimal or else they would not have won the no-holds-barred competition for survival of the fittest

Serendipper wrote:Maybe testosterone is required for philosophy? Women's brains were engineered for social interaction since they're the ones caring for the kids while men's brains developed different abilities that were favorable for hunting, fighting, engineering, etc. Men are focused while women got the gift of multitasking. One is no better than the other; just opposite.

Testosterone is not required for philosophy.

I said "maybe". Testosterone has been correlated to spacial and mathematical ability, as opposed to verbal or emotional intelligence, which may be an advantage to the philosopher. There are many more women poets than women philosophers since poetry deals more with feeling and articulation thereof into words, which men aren't typically that skilled, possibly due to the testosterone.

Men and Women's brains were "engineered" for social interaction.

Well, yes, but women's moreso and it was because of the child rearing responsibilities.

Check out this documentary and observe how this primitive people functioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8gk67s6YM

There is evidence to suggest that men and sometimes women hunted in teams to capture their prey.

The women didn't go along on the hunts in that video, but the boys did. The girls set about learning what the women were doing. There may be some infrequent exceptions, but it doesn't make any sense to share responsibilities when you could have two experts cooperating. The man can hunt because he doesn't have to worry about coming home to more chores and the woman can make a nurturing home because the hunter only needs to focus on hunting (mainly). If both were sharing responsibilities, they would both go on hunts and then come home too exhausted to do anything else; leaving the family to suffer. Plus, who would watch after the kids? I doubt they had contraception and probably they had lots of kids which relegated the women to be caregivers. There were always kids who couldn't be abandoned for the sake of egalitarianism.

I agree that men and women are no better than each other.

Exactly. Women have a natural tendency to be more adept at things that I generally find difficult and I am naturally proficient at some things that they typically aren't and no specific attribute is any more important than any other. You are better at some things and I'm better at other things, but we're more powerful if we work together at applying our talents rather than compete or share responsibilities. That's probably why opposites attract.

Multitasking? The whole idea of this needs to be carefully considered - no conscious part of the mind is in a state of multitasking. The conscious mind whether male or female runs through an infinite(infinitesimal) set of states of multitasking each state joining to the next taking with it part of the previous state - evolving, culling blah blah blah. Deep stuff. All brains are multitasking at the physical levels - not discretely but continuously.

Yes you're right, but women are better at multitasking tasks than men (typically); not that men can't multitask nor that women can't focus.

Should we even perhaps consider whether a man and a woman are true opposites beyond the penis and the vagina?

Not every man and every woman are opposites, but generally speaking they are opposites and because of that: complementary. People who are the same do not complement, but just add more need for a complement.

The corpus callosum and its relation to sex has been a subject of debate in the scientific and lay communities for over a century. Initial research in the early 20th century claimed the corpus to be different in size between men and women. That research was in turn questioned, and ultimately gave way to more advanced imaging techniques that appeared to refute earlier correlations. However, advanced analytical techniques of computational neuroanatomy developed in the 1990s showed that sex differences were clear but confined to certain parts of the corpus callosum, and that they correlated with cognitive performance in certain tests.[4] One recent study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) found that the midsagittal corpus callosum cross-sectional area is, after controlling brain size, on average, proportionately larger in females.[5]

Using diffusion tensor sequences on MRI machines, the rate at which molecules diffuse in and out of a specific area of tissue, anisotropy can be measured and used as an indirect measurement of anatomical connection strength. These sequences have found consistent sex differences in human corpus callosal morphology and microstructure.[6][7][8]

Morphometric analysis has also been used to study specific three-dimensional mathematical relationships with MRIs, and have found consistent and statistically significant differences across genders.[9][10] Specific algorithms have found significant differences between the two genders in over 70% of cases in one review.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_ca ... dimorphism

And

A number of studies have reported that, "relative to brain size," the midsagittal corpus callosum cross-sectional area (CCA) in females is on average larger than in males. However, others suggest that these may be spurious differences created in the CCA-to-brain-size ratio because brain size tends to be larger in males. To help resolve this controversy, we measured the CCA on all 316 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of normal subjects (18-94 years) in the OASIS (Open Access Series of Imaging Studies) cross-sectional dataset, and used multiple regression analysis to statistically control for the confounding effects of brain size and age to test the null hypothesis that the average CCA is not different between genders. An additional analysis was performed on a subset of 74 young adults (37 males and 37 females; 18-29 years) matched closely to brain size. Our null hypothesis was rejected in both analyses. In the entire sample (n= 316), controlling for brain size and age, the average CCA was significantly (P< 0.03) larger in females. The difference favoring females was more pronounced in the young adults cohort (P< 0.0005). These results provide strong additional evidence that the CCA is larger in females after correcting for the confounding effect of brain size. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22891036

Basically, women's hemispheres are better-connected and it should be obvious for what reason.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Misogny

A Shieldmaiden wrote:misogynist.......a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.
What if the situation was reversed and the women voiced their opinions unchecked, which may turn out to be less than complimentary. Women have many more reasons to resent, distrust and dislike men, yet rarely do they respond in this way.
What is emerging is that the misogynists on this Forum have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess. Women have a rough time anyway in philosophy without having to tolerate unchecked bouts of testosterone, but then again that is a price worth paying for those who choose to stay and contribute.

Without pointing to distinctions between males and females, I'll offer a bit of a critique of this argument.

The claim that women have more reason than men to have resentment and distrust is unsubstantiated, and possibly one that would be impossible to prove regardless of whether it may be true or false. It's certainly a can of worms to say the least.

The claim that misogynists have inflated views of their intellectual prowess may be accurate as well, or it may not be. Who's to be the judge of this sort of thing? Should it be a feminist?

The claim that women have a rough time in philosophy seems a bit bizarre. Why do you think that that is the case? I know 2 women who have PhDs in philosophy and they aren't having a hard time at all. I'm aware that I'm being anecdotal here, but it's the best I can do as far as relating that I don't understand the claim that women have a hard time in philosophy. Why do you think that they do?

Dealing with unchecked bouts of testosterone? I'm not sure where to begin here. Are you saying that males should suppress their biology somehow? I'm all about doing what one can for the sake of fairness, but to complain about the biological composure of an entire group of people is like...a bit confusing. If I make the same claim about any other group, I doubt that I would be met as much reason and I would rage.

As a person of whatever identity, I think it's important to play on a level field, in something that at least resembles a state of nature. What good is it to win at something competitive when the opponent, (if that's how you see men), is handicapped by the rules? A victory over someone who has one hand tied behind their back is nothing to be proud of.

I think that you may lean toward one side of the debate here, and I ask that you please not treat me the way that Uccisore does based on his leanings. He's so far right that anything he doesn't like is labeled leftist. Please don't be such a feminist that anything you disagree with becomes misogyny. I don't feel as though I'm deeply biased against anyone with regard to how they identify themselves. But I do have an interest in understanding the reasoning and the aims behind all these identities that are popping up these days.

If you're just as strong and just as capable as the next person and your gender has nothing to do with it, then why would you want to illuminate the distinction between yourself and a man with regard to intellectual capacity or academic ability rather than just play the game and win?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian

Posts: 25953
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

### Re: Misogny

I figured someone would catch that and in that case I reckoned I'd counter by clarifying that brains were engineered by naturally selective processes because I really did want to capture that "honing" connotation and competitive underpinning of the word "engineered". Our brains are definitely optimal or else they would not have won the no-holds-barred competition for survival of the fittest

You are misusing the word engineered - engineered is a word that should only be used with intent in mind and I do not think that nature had any intent in mind with its so called selection - I also think that natural selection is a backward way of looking at things - what we need here is a forward way of looking at things and that is where survival of the fittest seems to be more fitting. The weaker die off because they simply can not compete with the stronger and the rules change for what constitutes the stronger.

I said "maybe". Testosterone has been correlated to spacial and mathematical ability, as opposed to verbal or emotional intelligence, which may be an advantage to the philosopher. There are many more women poets than women philosophers since poetry deals more with feeling and articulation thereof into words, which men aren't typically that skilled, possibly due to the testosterone.

I know what you said but I think my response was quite appropriate and needs no twisting into the assumption that it was in response to you not saying "maybe".

On the topic of men - why is it that men talk so much? Why is it that they talk so much to each other? . . And why is it that men talk so much to women?

Videos aside - women did take part in hunting especially in smaller tribes - it is only when tribes get larger that women tended not to hunt so much and this leads to cultural developments that segregate men and women but the ability is still there for women to hunt and hunt quite well.

Yes you're right, but women are better at multitasking tasks than men (typically); not that men can't multitask nor that women can't focus.

This seems to me to be some modern day obscurity associated with women's roles in the home or the office and very little else.

On the topic of anatomy - if you dont use it then you lose it << we could say that << but does it make it true - is the brain a muscle? NO - but that does not mean that the brain does not act like a muscle of sorts - Einstein had a complete part of his brain missing because another part of his brain had grown to fill its place - but what does that mean. You can take a large portion of the brains function away and a human can still live their life << possibly not as well in some circumstances.

<<< la la la >>>

Back to the OP: misogynist.......a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.

The BIG question is why the hell are the geeks of philosophy on this forum not opening there self proclaimed huge ass minds up to what women are saying on this forum. Why do the women on this forum get treated like shit - or to be more polite, lesser beings. Where is there any balance in human kind where man and woman do not meet in the middle and try and sort through their differences as adults. Truly I say to you - this makes me feel ashamed to be an adult male.

While I am on the rant - what the f%&k with all the big words people try to use to measure their penises around here. This makes philosophy nonsensical garbage, fit for nothing. Then you have Urwrongx1000 who thinks he is king shit and produces nothing of value for anyone.

I could pick hundreds of things wrong with this place and I think it is high time that most of us wake the f%&k up and smell the roses before moving on to some real meaningful and humble communication that everybody understands and can take part in and slowly complicate from there.

Oh and very little of this post is aimed at you my friend Serendipper

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Misogny

Mr Reasonable

I have two words for you:

Great Post

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Misogny

encode_decode wrote:
I figured someone would catch that and in that case I reckoned I'd counter by clarifying that brains were engineered by naturally selective processes because I really did want to capture that "honing" connotation and competitive underpinning of the word "engineered". Our brains are definitely optimal or else they would not have won the no-holds-barred competition for survival of the fittest

You are misusing the word engineered -

I know, but I can't think of a better word to describe how the brain was engineered, can you? Clearly the brain was refined over millions of years and refining is an engineering principle. The point I wanted to convey is that the brain exists in its form for a very good reason and that's the best word I could come up with that fit the bill, but I'm open to suggestions, refinements, and maybe together we can engineer a better word

engineered is a word that should only be used with intent in mind and I do not think that nature had any intent in mind with its so called selection

How do you know there wasn't/isn't intent? Where does intent come from? What is it? This is the satyr conversation because now we're at the point where proteins form "life" which has intent which must have come from some other universe or something since it's assumed not to be native to this one, but "conjured" into existence "somehow" (ie magic) through complexity or whatnot.

Atoms form molecules which form amino acids which form proteins which form cells which form organisms. Where does the life property come from if it's not native to the universe? Life has intent, will, which is what fights entropy (apparently).

- I also think that natural selection is a backward way of looking at things - what we need here is a forward way of looking at things and that is where survival of the fittest seems to be more fitting.

Isn't intent "forward looking"?

The weaker die off because they simply can not compete with the stronger and the rules change for what constitutes the stronger.

Right, the men who didn't have the characteristics that we call typically male, they didn't survive. They were selected against because it didn't work. The egalitarian men won the darwin award while the sexist pigs thrived.

I said "maybe". Testosterone has been correlated to spacial and mathematical ability, as opposed to verbal or emotional intelligence, which may be an advantage to the philosopher. There are many more women poets than women philosophers since poetry deals more with feeling and articulation thereof into words, which men aren't typically that skilled, possibly due to the testosterone.

I know what you said but I think my response was quite appropriate and needs no twisting into the assumption that it was in response to you not saying "maybe".

Maybe so

On the topic of men - why is it that men talk so much? Why is it that they talk so much to each other? . . And why is it that men talk so much to women?

It's like you're thinking that I'm thinking men aren't capable of talking, but only women. Of course men talk, but the old joke for the 3 forms of communication was: telegraph, telephone, tell a woman. Women are notorious chatterboxes.

Videos aside - women did take part in hunting especially in smaller tribes

I think it's rare, but probably did happen rarely. The video I posted is of a small tribe. It's a handful of people. Women managed the gardens and one woman quipped that a man would screw it up if she didn't do it. I think the man was chopping down a tree at the time.

- it is only when tribes get larger that women tended not to hunt so much and this leads to cultural developments that segregate men and women but the ability is still there for women to hunt and hunt quite well.

Women are lousy hunters. Heck, they can't even kill a spider lol. I have several tree stands and have hunters come here to hunt and never once have I ever seen their wives. One guy said his wife tried it once, but got cold and that was 20 yrs ago and she's never come back with him. Women have zero interest in hunting, have no capacity for killing bambi, they can't tolerate the weather, and have no biological advantage that I can fathom. Of course, there are exceptions but if you go on a dating site you may find 1 hunter chick and she'll be more of a man that you lol (not that you're not a man, it's just a joke)

Yes you're right, but women are better at multitasking tasks than men (typically); not that men can't multitask nor that women can't focus.

This seems to me to be some modern day obscurity associated with women's roles in the home or the office and very little else.

You think everyone is making this up to subjugate women?

On the topic of anatomy - if you dont use it then you lose it << we could say that << but does it make it true - is the brain a muscle? NO - but that does not mean that the brain does not act like a muscle of sorts - Einstein had a complete part of his brain missing because another part of his brain had grown to fill its place - but what does that mean.

Einstein had a bit missing so the rest of the brain compensated which gave him his superpowers. Same with men and women. Men get a shot of T and don't develop the corpus callosum as extensively so the brain compensates by turning the man into a systemizer rather than an empathizer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizi ... ing_theory

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.

The BIG question is why the hell are the geeks of philosophy on this forum not opening there self proclaimed huge ass minds up to what women are saying on this forum. Why do the women on this forum get treated like shit - or to be more polite, lesser beings. Where is there any balance in human kind where man and woman do not meet in the middle and try and sort through their differences as adults. Truly I say to you - this makes me feel ashamed to be an adult male.

Why be ashamed to be an adult male? That's probably going to rattle the chains of a lot of dudes on here if they get wind of it because the men who are ashamed of their "white maleness" are seen as contributing to the oppression of white men lately by enabling their own victimization as a sort of atonement for guilt.

The men who are mean to women are being so because they've been hurt by women and you should be more sympathetic.

My old neighbor promised forever on a altar with a woman who, after 24 yrs and all the kids were grown, she lost some weight, went back to school, then ran off with some rich guy leaving my neighbor a broken man who had a heart attack after 2 years and ended up moving back in with his mother. Another guy I know raised his son to about 16 yrs of age when the judge told him the boy was never his. He's a strung-out heroin addict now while the lying tramp is happily married to some other guy. I could fill this page with my own personal stories about the atrocities of men at the hands of women. It's ALWAYS the woman who initiates divorce. It's ALWAYS the woman running off with another man. Some guys philander, but most simply get stuck in a routine watching tv and drinking beer while the woman gets bored before jumping back on the cock/wallet carousel.

Here's a video showing how women who have longterm partners are actually more flirty and promiscuous than single women https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43Grbgupds

Here's another theorizing why women do what happened to my friend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze69ySTnBA8

Cut the men some slack. Those dainty innocent creatures can absolutely ruin your life. 80% of completed suicides are men.

While I am on the rant - what the f%&k with all the big words people try to use to measure their penises around here.

Practice. I only need a handful of words, but if I don't use it, I lose it, so this is a good venue to sharpen my vocabulary in case I need to sound impressive one day lol

Then you have Urwrongx1000 who thinks he is king shit and produces nothing of value for anyone.

One almost has to be a bit of a narcissist to do this kind of thing.

I could pick hundreds of things wrong with this place and I think it is high time that most of us wake the f%&k up and smell the roses

Yes I need to get out and smell the roses. It's spring here!

Oh and very little of this post is aimed at you my friend Serendipper

No worries mate
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Misogny

A Shieldmaiden wrote:misogynist.......a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

The few women on this Forum pose no threat to the many men here, yet, the women continue to be the butt of continual derogatory comments, by those strongly prejudiced against women in philosophy.
What if the situation was reversed and the women voiced their opinions unchecked, which may turn out to be less than complimentary. Women have many more reasons to resent, distrust and dislike men, yet rarely do they respond in this way.
What is emerging is that the misogynists on this Forum have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess. Women have a rough time anyway in philosophy without having to tolerate unchecked bouts of testosterone, but then again that is a price worth paying for those who choose to stay and contribute.

I think women are a diverse group of individuals, some women can handle the field of philosophy just fine, with very little difficulty and others can't.
The same is true of men...

Also you keep using the term "unchecked" but your meaning is elusive. From context I can only imagine it to mean two things:

1) Either you mean "unchallenged", that is to say no one opposes the idea, which I would argue is demonstrably false by the existence of this very thread...
or
2) "unchecked" is taken to mean "allowed", as in no warnings are issued and no moderation is practiced so as to silence those who would hold such views.

I don't know which would be the charitable interpretation on my end as both seem entirely indefensible positions, but since 1) seems too obviously false I'll assume the "check" you'd like is in the form of censorship, which is no less damning.

You can't win an argument by silencing the opponent... these are old ideas and prejudices. People smarter than us have had these arguments before and as much as we may think those arguments have been laid to rest, there are new generations of people who need to go through the same steps we went through to get there and who knows... maybe they have new arguments we should consider and discuss...

The idea that women are lesser than men is a real idea that plenty of people subscribe to, shutting your eyes to that will not make it go away...
likewise forcing them to band together in remote corners of the internet where they can form echo-chambers of their own is also not a winning strategy...

If you want this to go away, you need to win the argument... but to win it... you need to have it.

It'd be bad enough if you'd like to shut down the enterprise of developing more effective inoculants against terrible ideas through entertaining them, for the sole reason that some pathetic cry baby could be made uncomfortable by it... but what's worse is if you're suggesting this should be done on behalf of WOMEN... making no distinction between the spoiled brat who would be dissuaded by the existence of opposition and women in general.

You may not have used any derogatory terms, but this may just be one of the most misogynistic perspective I've come across... Women are not all pathetic and helpless, choosing to run at the sight of opposition and in need of protection because they are incapable of enduring a hostile idea.

You may be a woman, and you might be incapable of enduring it.. but you are not WOMEN
Don't be so quick to represent others lest you paint them all with your failures and flaws.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

Philosopher

Posts: 2578
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

### Re: Misogny

Clearly the brain was refined over millions of years and refining is an engineering principle.

The brain has improved over millions of years and I think you have picked up on the control aspect of our language. Our language has become self centered with us at the center - as in the universe revolves around the earth. I think most languages have become this way and our current day usage reflects this "we" centric way.

I hope that makes sense - I have only just woken up.

The point I wanted to convey is that the brain exists in its form for a very good reason and that's the best word I could come up with that fit the bill, but I'm open to suggestions, refinements, and maybe together we can engineer a better word

I know bro. I wanted to make my point that the words associated all have an intervention bias. Nature as a whole can be treated as an organism with an immune system that removes unfavorable traits from itself - but even my example here is wrought with philosophical difficulty, particularly linguistically based - still with regards to the mentioned intervention bias.

How do you know there wasn't/isn't intent? Where does intent come from? What is it? This is the satyr conversation because now we're at the point where proteins form "life" which has intent which must have come from some other universe or something since it's assumed not to be native to this one, but "conjured" into existence "somehow" (ie magic) through complexity or whatnot.

Where does intent come from? I guess it should be a whole new topic << hopefully with a better set of words.

Atoms form molecules which form amino acids which form proteins which form cells which form organisms. Where does the life property come from if it's not native to the universe? Life has intent, will, which is what fights entropy (apparently).

Whoa, this I do not necessarily disagree with especially from a philosophical perspective, it might just seem that way. I believe first things have to be first explained with and without error - clarified - verified and improved upon. So we could start with a story or myth and refine from there << not suggesting we do.

Isn't intent "forward looking"?

Yes indeed it is.

Right, the men who didn't have the characteristics that we call typically male, they didn't survive. They were selected against because it didn't work. The egalitarian men won the darwin award while the sexist pigs thrived.

Yep, I think - but the situation is obviously changing in recent times >> especially here in Australia. Sexist pigs are beginning the slow process of extinction in my "opinion".

It's like you're thinking that I'm thinking men aren't capable of talking, but only women. Of course men talk, but the old joke for the 3 forms of communication was: telegraph, telephone, tell a woman. Women are notorious chatterboxes.

It is like that isn't it? Can you guess why? Now I am messing with you.

I think it's rare, but probably did happen rarely. The video I posted is of a small tribe. It's a handful of people. Women managed the gardens and one woman quipped that a man would screw it up if she didn't do it. I think the man was chopping down a tree at the time.

Possibly a larger tribe than what I am referring to and most certainly from a different time period(maybe a different dimension - lol).

Women are lousy hunters. Heck, they can't even kill a spider lol. I have several tree stands and have hunters come here to hunt and never once have I ever seen their wives. One guy said his wife tried it once, but got cold and that was 20 yrs ago and she's never come back with him. Women have zero interest in hunting, have no capacity for killing bambi, they can't tolerate the weather, and have no biological advantage that I can fathom. Of course, there are exceptions but if you go on a dating site you may find 1 hunter chick and she'll be more of a man that you lol (not that you're not a man, it's just a joke - lol)

Surely this adds in the cultural dimension. Apparently we all had fur once - what did the women do then? Female cats tend to be the better hunters - I know, I know, different species, but humor it for a second. Women have zero interest in hunting because of the new cultural paradigm that has now been around for at least 1500 years.

You think everyone is making this up to subjugate women?

No I think that nature has "specialized" but culture has accelerated this "specialization" and we often forget this when we start on the whole man vs woman thing.

Einstein had a bit missing so the rest of the brain compensated which gave him his superpowers. Same with men and women. Men get a shot of T and don't develop the corpus callosum as extensively so the brain compensates by turning the man into a systemizer rather than an empathizer.

Be careful applying this to other parts of the brain especially the parts that can so easily override the corpus callosum such as the cerebral cortex - the feedback is very strong and with rationalization we can say that the cerebral cortex is boss.

Why be ashamed to be an adult male? That's probably going to rattle the chains of a lot of dudes on here if they get wind of it because the men who are ashamed of their "white maleness" are seen as contributing to the oppression of white men lately by enabling their own victimization as a sort of atonement for guilt.

The men who are mean to women are being so because they've been hurt by women and you should be more sympathetic.

I am impatient to move the whole show forward << figure of speech. I also see that people are all to willing to tie everything we have talked about up until now up with some political bullshit. A masculine man should be able to get over himself pretty quick. I will leave that for you to pick a part.

Men need to harden up without being mean to women - simple - it is 2018 and people are still letting all this crap get to them.

I want change and I want it now.

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Misogny

I use to be one of those angry misogynists as people may know from my past threads on the subject of women but now I view women as victims of a much larger systemic process taking place and in some way victims of their own sexual nature which people in power currently exploit very well.

I use to hate women but nowadays I just feel sorry for a majority of them in a way that can only be described as pity.

Also Shield Maiden, you'll want to edit the title of your thread to misogyny.
"I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$“Assuming one can never leave permanent social exile and alienation keep on living only to observe the total collapse of entire societies, nations, or civilizations where afterwards in the inevitable chaos revel in its total destruction taking satisfaction within it as a casual witness. Let it all burn and come crashing down in a festival or spectacle orgy of violence.”-Myself Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 3295 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: Misogyny Also Shield Maiden, you'll want to edit the title of your thread to misogyny. Thank you, the only one who noticed or read it. The man that walks his own road, walks alone Old Norse Proverb A Shieldmaiden Philosopher Posts: 2048 Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am ### Re: Misogyny Mr Reasonable wrote: Without pointing to distinctions between males and females, I'll offer a bit of a critique of this argument. The claim that women have more reason than men to have resentment and distrust is unsubstantiated, and possibly one that would be impossible to prove regardless of whether it may be true or false. It's certainly a can of worms to say the least. The claim that misogynists have inflated views of their intellectual prowess may be accurate as well, or it may not be. Who's to be the judge of this sort of thing? Should it be a feminist? The claim that women have a rough time in philosophy seems a bit bizarre. Why do you think that that is the case? I know 2 women who have PhDs in philosophy and they aren't having a hard time at all. I'm aware that I'm being anecdotal here, but it's the best I can do as far as relating that I don't understand the claim that women have a hard time in philosophy. Why do you think that they do? Dealing with unchecked bouts of testosterone? I'm not sure where to begin here. Are you saying that males should suppress their biology somehow? I'm all about doing what one can for the sake of fairness, but to complain about the biological composure of an entire group of people is like...a bit confusing. If I make the same claim about any other group, I doubt that I would be met as much reason and I would rage. As a person of whatever identity, I think it's important to play on a level field, in something that at least resembles a state of nature. What good is it to win at something competitive when the opponent, (if that's how you see men), is handicapped by the rules? A victory over someone who has one hand tied behind their back is nothing to be proud of. I think that you may lean toward one side of the debate here, and I ask that you please not treat me the way that Uccisore does based on his leanings. He's so far right that anything he doesn't like is labeled leftist. Please don't be such a feminist that anything you disagree with becomes misogyny. I don't feel as though I'm deeply biased against anyone with regard to how they identify themselves. But I do have an interest in understanding the reasoning and the aims behind all these identities that are popping up these days. If you're just as strong and just as capable as the next person and your gender has nothing to do with it, then why would you want to illuminate the distinction between yourself and a man with regard to intellectual capacity or academic ability rather than just play the game and win? Women have been seen for most of history as chattels and have not enjoyed equality until recent times. Please do not be one of those who use that tired old worn "feminist" to gather points for your argument. I think you have overlooked the fact that my comments were specifically about this Forum, but to challenge your opinion of equality in philosophy per se for the sexes, I will venture further afield and agree there is little or no CONSCIOUS discrimination against women in philosophy, but it cannot be discounted that there is UNCONSCIOUS bias. The question is why this should be more prevalent in philosophy. The answer I think is what I stated initially that philosophers or those men involved in philosophy forums have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess or ability to argue their point to the nth degree. What seems to be lost and what I am advocating is that the argument, not the arguer, is what matters the most and that logic is gender neutral. I don't feel as though I'm deeply biased against anyone with regard to how they identify themselves. Except perhaps Uccisore. LOL. The man that walks his own road, walks alone Old Norse Proverb A Shieldmaiden Philosopher Posts: 2048 Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am ### Re: Misogyny I think that among professional level philosophers, the logic is what counts. These boards are mostly about politics. You could start a thread about modal operators and structural empiricism, and someone would figure out a way to make it about race or gender or class. Politics is where the less educated and more emotional usually end up when it comes down to it. Analysis for the sake of analysis is boring to the needy and the victimized and the emotionally injured. So everything ends up as it does in most cases here. It's kind of sad, but it can be entertaining at least. About Uccisore...does a person have to be a leftist to point out that Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or Sean Hannity are right wing nutjobs? I contend that one does not. People who can't get outside the kind of thinking that revolves around binary distinctions are well....not philosophical, and in most cases boring, and in some cases frustrating to try and have any kind of discourse with. Again, just the sad way that some things really are. You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square. Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too. What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Mr Reasonable resident contrarian Posts: 25953 Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself ### Re: Misogny encode_decode wrote: Clearly the brain was refined over millions of years and refining is an engineering principle. The brain has improved over millions of years and I think you have picked up on the control aspect of our language. Our language has become self centered with us at the center - as in the universe revolves around the earth. I think most languages have become this way and our current day usage reflects this "we" centric way. I hope that makes sense - I have only just woken up. I just woke up too, so we need to make a rule that when we talk, at least one of us should be awake I'm not sure about self-centeredness because I specifically put thought into how the word would be interpreted and I figured someone would eventually take issue with my choice of words and was prepared for that eventuality, but couldn't think of a better word to portray what I wanted. These sorts of linguistical liberties are taken in poetry and song because they're a compact way of transferring ideas, for instance: The wind was sighing, howling, moaning. The neon lights stabbed my eyes through the darkness. The point I wanted to convey is that the brain exists in its form for a very good reason and that's the best word I could come up with that fit the bill, but I'm open to suggestions, refinements, and maybe together we can engineer a better word I know bro. I wanted to make my point that the words associated all have an intervention bias. Nature as a whole can be treated as an organism with an immune system that removes unfavorable traits from itself - but even my example here is wrought with philosophical difficulty, particularly linguistically based - still with regards to the mentioned intervention bias. I had to look up intervention bias. Interesting. I think think it plays along with personification of the inanimate as a survival strategy that was selected for. James said something that was profoundly insightful which is evolution only works if it's resisted. If you think about it, there must be a competitive force that is fighting, resisting life in order for natural selection to work. If there were no resistance, there would be no selection and no means to evolve into higher life. So if there is resistance, there must be a greater force driving forward that overcomes the resistance. Atoms form molecules which form amino acids which form proteins which form cells which form organisms. Where does the life property come from if it's not native to the universe? Life has intent, will, which is what fights entropy (apparently). Whoa, this I do not necessarily disagree with especially from a philosophical perspective, it might just seem that way. I believe first things have to be first explained with and without error - clarified - verified and improved upon. So we could start with a story or myth and refine from there << not suggesting we do. Why don't you agree? Right, the men who didn't have the characteristics that we call typically male, they didn't survive. They were selected against because it didn't work. The egalitarian men won the darwin award while the sexist pigs thrived. Yep, I think - but the situation is obviously changing in recent times >> especially here in Australia. Sexist pigs are beginning the slow process of extinction in my "opinion". Same thing happened in Rome before the fall. Where the pigs go, the empire goes. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12 ... l-of-rome/ Making men and women the same does not work because it's not complementary. Think what would happen to the universe if cations and anions were both neutrally charged. Opposites are what makes the world go 'round and if you try to make it not-so, then you will be selected against. I mean, you may think you're winning for a while just as Rome held on for a couple 100 years before falling victim to its own prosperity, but remember that evolution overcomes resistance and time moves faster in this technological age. Women are lousy hunters. Heck, they can't even kill a spider lol. I have several tree stands and have hunters come here to hunt and never once have I ever seen their wives. One guy said his wife tried it once, but got cold and that was 20 yrs ago and she's never come back with him. Women have zero interest in hunting, have no capacity for killing bambi, they can't tolerate the weather, and have no biological advantage that I can fathom. Of course, there are exceptions but if you go on a dating site you may find 1 hunter chick and she'll be more of a man that you lol (not that you're not a man, it's just a joke - lol) Surely this adds in the cultural dimension. Apparently we all had fur once - what did the women do then? We were more ape-like back then which included a more ape-like gut for the digestion of vegetation (ie we didn't hunt). The disappearance of fur and the appearance of sweating coincided with hunting and then came cooking and then language developed as we sat around the fire picking bugs off each other. (Watch that video; they still picked bugs from each other.. and ate them.) Female cats tend to be the better hunters - I know, I know, different species, but humor it for a second. Female cats are better hunters because they have to feed a litter of kittens AND catch enough to feed the fatass male who constantly steals her food. Cats usually have a litter of about 5-6 kittens and they do that about once per year or less, so even if most of the kittens die, they still have a good shot at preserving the species over an expected lifespan of 2-4 yrs in urban areas with coyotes and traffic. Humans are a little different since the mother couldn't abandon the baby for a spell to go hunting to feed a lazy man, so instead, the man went hunting to feed the family. Lion males are absolutely worthless. They do nothing but lay in the shade and pee on things. The females do the hunting and then the male comes to take his share before going back to laying in the shade and about the only contribution of the male is in driving away the jackals. Women have zero interest in hunting because of the new cultural paradigm that has now been around for at least 1500 years. There is no truth to that because show me a hunter who would not LOVE for his wife to go hunting with him. Women utterly refuse to take any interest in things that interest men even though men are begging them to do so. They've done studies of babies and found no amount of coaxing the get girls to play with boy-toys because it sucks and isn't fun. Good video: At around 22:00, he says that babies one day old will look longer at faces if they are girls and mechanical objects if they are boys. How can it be attributed to culture at one day old? Of course, evidence just makes people dig in and strengthens their resolve to push gender equality. You think everyone is making this up to subjugate women? No I think that nature has "specialized" but culture has accelerated this "specialization" and we often forget this when we start on the whole man vs woman thing. Well it's centered around our big brains which cause lots of time invested into raising a human which developed into a culture with circular feedback effects, but the brain is the reason. If humans had a small brain like cats, then not only would we not be capable of discussing this, but the problem wouldn't exist since babies would be more expendable, numerous, self-sufficient, etc and women wouldn't need to be tied down. So it's not like a bunch of big guys got together and planned to subjugate women because they thought it would be cool, but it evolved into a culture that defined subjugation as a thing to complain about which previously wasn't viewed by women as subjugation at all. Because of our technology and prosperity, we're looking for new things to complain about since finding food is no longer a problem. Prosperity causes its own destruction since evolution requires resistance and anytime an organism gets too prolific, its population is always brought back into check. Though, in the case of dinosaurs, it took 100 million years, but they had to get out of the way because they were clearly much more successful than mammals and if mammals were to have a chance at domination, the dinosaurs had to go. How they went, I don't know, but I've incubated goose eggs before and I'm here to tell you that those creatures are hardy! They grow extremely fast, heal fast, mature quickly, can stand in sub-freezing temps on one leg, sleeping, with their heads under their wings and defy logic for how their legs do not freeze and also withstand the hottest summers. Dinosaurs totally kicked our ass, but I'm sure that in some way their own success led to their downfall because it's conditional for evolution for it to be so. A masculine man should be able to get over himself pretty quick. I will leave that for you to pick a part. Men need to harden up without being mean to women - simple - it is 2018 and people are still letting all this crap get to them. Aren't you letting crap get to you? You want to be mean to men who are mean to women who were mean to men because you let crap get to you. And now you say men need to harden up and learn to eat crap and let women be as mean as they want without returning the favor. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Misogyny A Shieldmaiden wrote: Mr Reasonable wrote:The claim that women have a rough time in philosophy seems a bit bizarre. but to challenge your opinion of equality in philosophy per se for the sexes, I will venture further afield and agree there is little or no CONSCIOUS discrimination against women in philosophy, but it cannot be discounted that there is UNCONSCIOUS bias. The question is why this should be more prevalent in philosophy. https://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estim ... ege-major/ Physics & Astronomy 533 736 1269 133 Philosophy 590 638 1228 129 Mathematical Sciences 502 733 1235 130 Materials Engineering 494 727 1221 129 Economics 503 706 1209 128 Chemical Engineering 485 726 1211 128 Other Engineering 493 714 1207 128 Mechanical Engineering 469 724 1193 126 Other Humanities & Art 563 599 1162 124 Physical Sciences 486 697 1183 125 Engineering 468 719 1187 126 Electrical Engineering 459 726 1185 126 Banking & finance 467 711 1178 125 It seems that verbal ability is less important than spacial, though less pronounced in philosophy than physics. And here verbal is roughly the same, but without the spacial pronouncement: English Language & Literature 560 553 1113 120 Humanities & Arts 545 566 1111 120 Arts-History, Theory 539 572 1111 120 Biological Sciences 491 631 1122 121 Political Science 524 588 1112 120 Foreign Languages & Literature 531 574 1105 119 It's a function of testosterone levels during development of the brain that explains the prevalence of gender in specific majors, but it's only comparing 2 of the 8-9 aspects of intelligence which paints an unfair picture imo, so I don't see it as derogatory towards women, but the yardstick is biased towards men. The answer I think is what I stated initially that philosophers or those men involved in philosophy forums have an inflated view of their 'intellectual' prowess or ability to argue their point to the nth degree. Inflated view = Dunning-Kruger which has been demonstrated in both sexes. In one study, women showed more "inflated view" of their prowess on language-specific tests than men. In other words, if you believe you should be good at something, you will overestimate your ability. Conversely, if you do not believe you're good at a task, you will accurately estimate your ability. It's egoic. Now, one difference I've noticed is that women are more likely to back down from an argument than men, which is testosterone-linked; therefore maybe women are more-able to admit error and self-correct than the men who confidently plow ahead. But that's just a theory I've been toying with lately. What seems to be lost and what I am advocating is that the argument, not the arguer, is what matters the most and that logic is gender neutral. Most definitely! But people like to categorize and pigeonhole, especially men who are the systemizers. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Misogyny It's not sexism to admit that men and women have different propensities for knowledge or intelligence simply for the fact we go about things differently. There are sexual differences between women not just biologically but mentally also. As of yet I have never found anybody to refute this. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$$$“Assuming one can never leave permanent social exile and alienation keep on living only to observe the total collapse of entire societies, nations, or civilizations where afterwards in the inevitable chaos revel in its total destruction taking satisfaction within it as a casual witness. Let it all burn and come crashing down in a festival or spectacle orgy of violence.”-Myself Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 3295 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America. ### Re: Misogyny Zero_Sum wrote:It's not sexism to admit that men and women have different propensities for knowledge or intelligence simply for the fact we go about things differently. There are sexual differences between women not just biologically but mentally also. As of yet I have never found anybody to refute this. They say we shouldn't talk about it because it's not productive and only results in further underrepresentation of women in the STEM jobs. That's the refute. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Misogyny Watched your vid. Seredipper. Biology is a reality concerning everything we are and become with nurture playing a much lesser influential role, why science fights reality is simply progressive ridiculousness. Almost everything non-specific, not taken from an individualized aspect, is a generalization that fits the majority of that type concerning men and women. I think my testosterone level was a bit on the high side in the womb since I've always tended to be a tomboy. *spitting* I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL! I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy. Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat. WendyDarling Heroine Posts: 7495 Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am Location: Hades ### Re: Misogyny WendyDarling wrote:Watched your vid. Seredipper. I'm impressed! Someone desiring the truth Biology is a reality concerning everything we are and become with nurture playing a much lesser influential role, why science fights reality is simply progressive ridiculousness. Yes I think so too. After all, only 7% of Scott Kelly's genes changed after a year in space No, space did not permanently alter 7 percent of Scott Kelly’s DNA Almost everything non-specific, not taken from an individualized aspect, is a generalization that fits the majority of that type concerning men and women. I think my testosterone level was a bit on the high side in the womb since I've always tended to be a tomboy. *spitting* That might explain why you're one of the more active women on ILP. Do you like to take chances or prefer to play it safe? I have read that although men still outperform women in sports such as running and swimming (not weight lifting and such) that the gap is closing and perhaps one day a woman may be speedier than the fastest man. I'm not sure how to explain that. Could men and women be genetically converging? Oops... guess it's already happened: Yet, the long-standing issue of whether women’s performance will eventually “equal” that of men’s surfaced again during the 2012 London Games when the final freestyle split of the 400-m individual medley of Ye Shinwen (28.93 s) surpassed that of male gold-medalist Ryan Lochte (29.10) and tied over the final 100 m (58.65 to Ye’s 58.68), although the overall performance time was 23.25 seconds faster (9.5%) for Lochte. The initial reaction was to suspect that artificial enhancement (ie, doping) had provided the biological advantages typically ascribed to androgenic hormones (eg, enhanced muscle mass, oxygen-carrying capacity). The gender gap in sport, although closing over recent decades, remains, due in part to biological differences but also to societal and cultural influences. The Gender Gap in Sport Performance: Equity Influences Equality (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_Equality [accessed Mar 17 2018]. Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2180 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Misogyny Serendipper wrote: Zero_Sum wrote:It's not sexism to admit that men and women have different propensities for knowledge or intelligence simply for the fact we go about things differently. There are sexual differences between women not just biologically but mentally also. As of yet I have never found anybody to refute this. They say we shouldn't talk about it because it's not productive and only results in further underrepresentation of women in the STEM jobs. That's the refute. Oh, I know. It's a part of a much more social political sinister agenda being played out in the west. "I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-$

“Assuming one can never leave permanent social exile and alienation keep on living only to observe the total collapse of entire societies, nations, or civilizations where afterwards in the inevitable chaos revel in its total destruction taking satisfaction within it as a casual witness. Let it all burn and come crashing down in a festival or spectacle orgy of violence.”-Myself

Zero_Sum
Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire.

Posts: 3295
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America.

### Re: Misogyny

After all, only 7% of Scott Kelly's genes changed after a year in space

Scott grew two inches taller while in space according to last evenings news piece.

I've always leaned towards risk taking.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling
Heroine

Posts: 7495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am

### Re: Misogyny

WendyDarling wrote:
After all, only 7% of Scott Kelly's genes changed after a year in space

Scott grew two inches taller while in space according to last evenings news piece.

Dang... an astronaut and taller... what more can a woman ask for?

I've always leaned towards risk taking.

Yeah me too. I'm not sure if it's T or my mother being overprotective
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Misogyny

Zero_Sum wrote:...not just biologically but mentally also...

Mental states are biological states.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian

Posts: 25953
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Next