Gender Everything

Can I get some specifics? What about coordination? What about extrovertedness? What about talented? What about a hearty constitution (being without non obvious diseases such as ms or mental illness? Then, how much stock are you going to put into family genetics by looking at her siblings, parents, grandparents, etc?

I’ve brought this up before, and it proves the point of the wickedest gender:

If you stopped all rape, all homicide, all disease, all habitat issues, all financial poverty, all physical torture…

Not one woman would commit suicide, and millions of men would. Men are working to basically give this planet never ending male suicides into perpetuity.

That: in a nutshell, is the problem with women.

Why is this true? Because of female psychological constitution (sexuality). They are always the last of the mass murderers.

I would add: all a woman has to do to stop this is have sex with decent men… which will not happen, so men evolve into the universe construction business… a massive and extremely dangerous undertaking

Intelligent women can still be insecure, and they do that whole, “I’m independent” bit where they act weird when you buy them dinner. That’s annoying. Strength? Petite, attractive women are not usually strong. I don’t want to fuck a crossfit girl or a girl who looks like she’s been working on a farm. Height? I hope you mean that you’d want them selected for the trait of being around 5 foot 2 to 5 foot 5. I don’t like a lanky long bitch who’s got big long feet and big hands. Give me a petite girl that’s around 5 foot 2 and about 115lbs with some tits and I’m good. Not dumb, but not one of these college bitches who thinks that because she went to nursing school that she’s intelligent and then overcompensated by acting smug even though she’s just a fucking nurse and not some girl who’s got muscles and shit.

This is and the name you have given yourself is of course the proof of your “professionality” :smiley:

Obviously? What a leap of faith in your own infallibility.

This conversation that you are having with yourself is your real problem. You actually believe the garbage your mind offers you, instead of waving it aside, you follow even the most gibberish of thoughts to a supposed logical end. Morality is always the question first of what we can individually do better and then as a further question, what we can contribute to the collective so that it does better as well. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Considering that we are ruled, to a large degree, by white men, who do the most for other white men, treating women as servants for their own needs, keeping their wages low, disregarding the need for a comprehensive health care and the fact that women are very often left by men, and that this and much more consequently contributes to a high rate of poverty amongst elderly women, you are about as wrong as your username implies.

Perhaps you have been brought up in a Judeo/Christian setting in which Eve was “to blame” for the fall “of man”, which reveals a complete ignorance of the symbolism used in the story. Eve is the feminine, which symbolically stands for creativity and chaos, because in her lies the potential for change and progression, whereas the man is the symbol of order and certainty, which gives us more of the same and eventually stagnation. The point is though that we all have both order and chaos in us to varying degrees, and without this “feminine” side, men couldn’t progress.

With regard to the upbringing of children, it has been traditionally the role of the father, once a boy has passed infancy, to show the child “the ropes”. The fact that this has become nearly impossible for most people is hardly to blame on women. The girls and women were traditionally given the task to care and protect the family, especially the infants. This they instinctively still do, and the wrath of a mother is not to be underestimated. This means that society does tend to put boys in the situation in which they have less contact with their fathers than in the past, and so women have to teach them what it means to be a man – obviously at a distinct disadvantage. However, what will become of those children is primarily decided by genes and the environment, since the influence of the parents wanes when kindergarten or school takes over.

You make it too easy to blame women. They have their part in how the society turns out, that is true, but they can hardly be held singularly to blame. It is in fact the lack of balance in our upbringing, the lack of understanding of myths and stories, the tendency to see truth as only objective, and consequently many other aspects of life have a one-sided influence. We’re continually just flipping the coin instead of understanding that the interaction of many aspects lead to what we experience. The world isn’t black & white, male & female, right & wrong, good & evil. There is so much that we have to experience to understand, which is why in 99% of people the opinions change with age.

So on your understanding of one persons words, you judge the whole word. There are two aspects here – 1. it is your understanding, which may be faulty, 2. it is the opinion of one woman.

You are really a male chauvinist and should really be ashamed, because your words actually reveal how bigoted you really are. Look at yourself in the mirror and tell me that you are the dream of all women, and I will call you a liar. Really at this point there is no point in continuing …. :violence-stickwhack:

I forgot to add “no bullying” to the list above.

Basically, this is the root cause of the types of movementsthat spawn threadslike this one. Men are angry and confused, when the dust settles and they stop being hypocrites, this problem still looms.

Aren’t you a woman? What does your genetic screening process tell you? Do you let any slime through?

These are the generalized traits of humanity, applying to either men or women. In other words, men are attracted to women, usually out of beauty. Women have higher standards, hypothetically. Intelligence is most important because cognitive traits are really the essential one of humanity. Concerning self-confidence, self-esteem, social status, those can be considered cognitive traits (therefore applicable to intelligence).

No it’s not. I get a better conversation answering my own questions than I do of you answering my questions. You don’t answer them. You’re not even close to a participant in this entire thread.

You could add something productive. But I realized quickly not to expect as much from you or your ilk. You, like many others, are here for the entertainment, not to add, but to subtract.

It’s a reaction, sure, and it’s attributed to you, sure. Identity is notoriously non-specific, we just develop this general idea based on what we’re most conscious of. But what that turns out to be is just a tiny segment of this universe-sized chain reaction. You don’t decide anything, you experience a kind of conscious manifestation of what has already been decided - like watching yourself on TV but with all sensory stimuli, not just sound and vision.

The space between stimulus and response is just a lag in becoming conscious of what has already been decided subconsciously - as has been proven neuroscientifically. Some guy who was caught up in some horrible situation musing on the shitiness that can imposed on other people is no authority compared to this, sorry, no matter how much we might feel the need to respect him for what he went through. We grow with experience, yes, the amount stored away to structure our decision gets bigger, but it’s still all utterly based on ultimately external factors that we did not choose and cannot control.

Like I said, gratefulness feels good, but that doesn’t make it any less based on nonsense. Once you realise this, the placebo effect wears off a little.

In terms of freewill; it evolves, it grows.

The experiments showing yes/no choices in the brain before we can utter it don’t discard that for efficiencies sake, we intentially hard code the subconscious reactions to conserve processing time and speed.

You keep saying freewill evolves and grows without explanation.

I acknowledged how it seems like it does, but even if the neuroscience doesn’t convince you that it actually doesn’t, logic should.

Take, for example, a rational choice. You base it on what you know, you can’t base it on what you don’t know. It depends on all the things that have happened to you, your capability to reason, and your current situation. Your capability to reason, even your tendency to contrarianism - to intentionally do differently to that which seems like the choice you’d normally make - this is all set up at the time you make any decision. You have no choice but to choose that which you were set up to prefer to choose at any given point. It’s all determined, you won’t choose differently to what it was set up for you to choose. As I already explained, this is the case for every decision you ever made, all the way back to the first one you ever made where this is all the most clear. You’re given all the things that have happened to you and your current situation without any input, and your decision will reflect this. Your next decision will reflect the first decision and all the things that haven happened to you and your current situation just the same - and so on.

Do you not understand this?

Silhouette is accurate.

Ideals of moral agency and personal responsibility, leading to the “sense of self” people have within their Identity, are just that …ideals. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Morality and agency are processes of power. I agree with Nietzsche and the Nietzscheans on this point. Few people are capable, or willing, to take responsibility over actions and events in life. It’s arguable about who caused what and why. Does a soldier following orders act on his own volition, or the volition of another? That’s what I mean by Innocence, and Privilege. People like to think they’re not responsible for the actions and events they cause. Bob you can relate to this with your little Nazi analogy. Who is responsible for the Holocaust? The Nazis? Or the Jews? It can very much go either way. Blame is another thing. Responsibility is yet another.

But without power, can you really “take” responsibility for anything? No, you can’t. Within society, children and teenagers are perceived as powerless, devoid of personal responsibility, devoid of agency. The same can be applied to Blacks, or Women. Some people are assigned different powers (moral agency) than others. In other words, society, people in general, expect a lot of some people (evil white men) and little of others (everybody else).

Until you delve into these concepts, quite frankly, yes you and others here are complete philosophical amateurs.

And this is more of a children’s lesson than anything else.

I’m read to delve deep, anytime. I like that Silhouette here can remark on the deeper topics, which nobody else really is. Including Pandora. Pandora merely dodges the big points over and over and over again. It’s …boring after awhile. And it doesn’t make for good conversation, which I’m confident we can all agree on.

Who’s fault is this …mine? Or hers?

Here’s a simplification, to sum up the thread so far.

Why do we expect the most out of a small minority of the population (evil-white-men)?

And we expect almost nothing out of the rest of the population (good-black-women)?

Side-point:

It’s pretty obvious how people confuse morality with power. People seem to believe that the more agency you have (more moral righteousness), necessarily, the more ‘evil’ you must be. They rationalize this, because you have so much control and responsibility over other people’s lives …because your choices affect so many others, that you must be in a position of evil, represented by Fascism and Totalitarianism. “All fascists are evil” --logical fallacy.

So people are using another logical fallacy.

They are presuming that more power = more evil. And that less power (innocence, privilege, protection) = more good.

Or worse yet… that being completely powerless, a victim, is the highest good and sense of morality.

This is a moral Inversion. It’s completely backward.

I will call this: the Victim-Complex Fallacy.

Put this one into the logic books. Post-Nietzschean credo.

How can Silhouette be accurate if what he is saying is that you don’t have choices, that life is pre-determined and that still mesh with what you believe that you can be affective and effective of your own accord, your own responsibility to act as such?

You’re the one who’s dodging my arguments. I brought you historical examples and present day instances in which women are deprived of equal rights and opportunities, but, to you, no matter how badly a woman is treated, whether she’s beaten or raped or patronized and treated like domestic cattle, she is still the privileged gender. This is your kind of messed up thinking, which I think is based on none other than personal insecurities and jealousy.

Should I bring up the topic of global sex trafficking, as well? Is that women’s fault, too, for being the priviledged gender? I’m sure in your kind of twisted mind, these kidnapped girls are feeling pretty privileged, for being kidnapped and used for sex, or at least should be. A man like you can only dream of such things happening to you, but you’re not that kind of special, you’re not…the privileged gender.
If women are responsible for anything it’s being too trusting and believing in men’s lies.

It’s called incel logic, and goes a little something like this.

I, by my own reckoning, am everything a woman should want, but women don’t want me. Therefore, women are the problem.

This sort of “logic” is usually used by people who are generally obsessed with sex, but rarely, if ever, get it. They love to use words like “alpha”, “beta”, “cuck”, etc.

My challenge to men is to have sex with at least one woman without hating yourself.

You guys think you’re smart “incels”…

Raise the game…!!! You’re bored.

We know that this has never been accomplished before, I look at someone like urwrongx1000 as someone if he received sex from a woman today, his conscience would rot him. He knows he’s not there yet

I wouldn’t knock nurses down just yet. I’ve encountered many nurses who had more sense and experience than the doctors under whom they worked for. In my experience some DNP/ARNPs are often even better than physicians in terms of first hand knowledge, patient care and overall medical experience (heck even some RNs). Functionally, they are now what the doctors used to be, about patient care, and not about some bureaucracy. Today, about 50% of a doctor’s job is about filling out reports and paperwork.