Gender Everything

Probably closer to the truth than you’d think. At least sex-slaves are being valued for something. Men and less physically desirable women often enough are not, and in some this amounts in a being even more chained and helpless than someone captured to perform a sexual role. This explains plenty about existing sexual fetishes, which are all senses of belonging.

But I agree that being the frail gender necessarily makes woman the more risk-prone gender. Her capriciousness, caprice, relates to Capricorn, balancing on the sharp rock along the abysses.
She might love to let go and easily fall into someones strong arms, be safe - but it is more a gamble than she would like, almost like she is the ball in the roulette wheel.

When it’s all over, you don’t get to ask “was it worth it?” - it being over means nothing comes afterwards. Up until that point, you have to make a choice - what do you value most in life? Happiness? What is positive and negative? How can you know if you’ve not explored all the choices thoroughly enough?

I value authenticity. I would rather be as grounded in truth as possible, as interested and satisfied with my pursuit as I see fit, than happy based on ignoring logic. I don’t need anti-depressants - they are for people who haven’t followed through on the philosophy far enough. I actually find more contentment in knowing, challenging and accepting difficult truths - not a downward spiral at all.

You only think you’re using the space between stimulus and response. You can believe in nonsense to fill the gap if you’d compromise all else to feel a way that you believe is right - you were going to anyway. Perhaps there are some causes that would change this that you have yet to experience, perhaps there aren’t because either you can’t or you’re only able to want something else than truth beyond certain thresholds that you won’t cross.

What if they’re high on unicorns and rainbows? There’s more than one way to enjoy yourself, some ways might be better than others along a variety of different measures. It’s nice to see people enjoying themselves in any way, but the enjoyment is compromised by pity in many of them.

To re-connect this with the thread, I can see how people who are not perfectly reasonable might select other imperfectly reasonable people - even more than more reasonable people. There’s no objective reason to pursue reason. I, for one, am put off by unreasonableness in others, which severely impedes my chances of finding someone with whom I am happy to get to know - not nearly as conducive with sexual selection as someone who, for example, values happiness over truth. We each have all kinds of approaches, some of which are more common to one gender than the other. Whether one is more privileged than the other overall, I’m not convinced, but I do know that where one comes out on top, the other comes out on top in other areas. One way females come out on top is that they are less disposable than males, and one way males come out on top is they’re physically stronger and more aggressive. Each situation can be turned into something pretty shitty, but one being shittier in one way than another isn’t proof that one is privileged and the other isn’t.

Is there really an objective way to measure this one?

Okay, I didn’t want to pull this one, but I work with dying people. I see what holds up and I see the people asking themselves the questions in the end. I see the morons die, dejected and struggling to make sense of it all and I see the fantastic people die, who still go out on an upward spiral. There is a vast difference. What you may say is “nonsense” has been a life-long attitude, a composure and a bearing, that carries them through.

Some of these people say to me, “What is the use of knowledge, I forget so much? What will carry me through?”, and I say that it is faith. It may not be in God or the afterlife, but faith that it was worth the experience. In the end it isn’t objective truth, but experiential truth that carries you through.

Well, in the end, the male is just as frail as any other dying person. What the problem is though, is that having lived a life as an alpha doesn’t make giving it up any easier. In comparison very few males have the character to keep their composure, whereas the women are generally more impressive. There are of course all kinds on both sides, but the way we live our lives “inside”, out of view of our superficial neighbours, is the way we die.

Women can also occupy themselves better in old age, whereas males very often fall into depression, even if they have a fantastic family. There is a lot to be said for the way we hold ourselves up to life struggles, and the way we learn to cope with the insufficiencies we have.

Bravo, Bob. Quite eloquent and honest with much truth. I agree that it all comes down to faith and the composure you mentioned but is that a person’s innate essence? A quality of being that one is born as or designed with?

Am not. Regardless, your “arguments” are degenerating and deteriorating into a mess. I’ll show you how.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Women were never, ever, “deprived of equal rights and opportunities”. This is more Feminist garbage, trash ideas, pumping through your skull. You are indoctrinated, very much like a fundamentalist Christian, indoctrinated with ideals of God. The “poor, oppressed, masses!!!” BOO HOO!!! Isn’t it you painting women as weak, pathetic, victim, children? Yes, it is. Because it suits your argument. You paint women in the negative, to suit yourself and hold weight to your argument.

I, on the other hand, have a much more esteemed and positive sense of women. So, who really “hates women” here? Me? Or you???

Hint: (it’s you)

Correct, 1 victim out of 1,000,000 women doesn’t account for much. Just because one young girl is kidnapped and raped by a dozen men, doesn’t mean that female-privilege suddenly vanishes. And, aren’t you proving my point? Why is the sex-slave valuable? For her sex, yes? See, you’re proving my points again. You’re conceding the whole argument. Child-sex slaves are valuable because of their sex. So you are using the point of contention of the entire thread, to claim its opposite, and use exceptions as the rule (that all women are kidnapped into sex slavery, when in reality, only very very rare).

Pandora, you basically undermine your entire argument thus far.

Please do, as-if I’m scared of the topic?

As-if 1 in 1,000,000 females, kidnapped and raped, represent the entirety of the category? As if one raped girl represents all women? The #MeToo movement is a sham, a farce, an extension of degenerating post-modern Feminism. Feminists intentionally compare a man grabbing a woman’s ass (like the radio host did with Taylor Swift, for example), to full-scale rape, like your example, of a 12-year-old girl stolen from her home, and sent off overseas to be gang-raped. The two are oceans apart. And as long as you, and other women, continue to conflate the two (ass grab to gang-rape), then you are fucked up in the head. The two are not the same, at all.

And I full-scale reject any nonsense of you conflating the two. Thus, we may as well use “ass-grabbing” as “trampling on women’s freedom”, based on sex, of course.

The fact that you don’t question any of this, and you dive straight into it, gives me more evidence that I’m right all along.

Don’t bring me into your ridiculous fantasies, to try to prove a point, as-if the 1 in 1,000,000 exception forms a rule. How many young girls are sold into sex slavery overseas, anyway? Out of the 300,000,000 people in the United States, what percentage does it represent? Are 50% of women, 25% of the whole population, sold into sex slavery? No… 1%??? No???

0.0001% ??? Maybe closer to that.

Yes yes, men’s fault. Everything is men’s fault. We’ve gone over this point.

Even when you “concede points”, you have the habit of always blaming men. When is it ever, ever, women’s fault, for anything? Go ahead, Pandora, give me a few examples. Or one. Just one will do.

Which half?

The difference between men and women is that women have types while men do not… other than the general type preferred by most men. Show a pic of a hot woman to a group of guys and you’ll get a near-unanimous agreement that she is indeed hot. Show a pic of a hot guy (whatever that means) to a group of women and you’ll get a range of opinions from “ew” to “eh” to “oh wow”.

So when you say that half the men are rejected, I’m not sure what you mean.

For the record, the number of girls preyed on by traffickers and pimps and porn “directors”, not to mention frustrated dads and uncles and coaches and teachers is more like 1 in 7 than 1 in a million.

It is all mens “fault”.
First they killed Caesar, then his son, God.
Alpha males killed by beta males.

Thank you.

I am a INFJ, and have all of the applicable traits. I have, however, not always been a typical INFJ. I think that the degree in which we are a certain personality type depends on our orientation. We can orientate ourselves by other people, or we can orientate ourselves (this more towards old age) on internal values.

In my experience, the longer we adopt a position, attitude or stance based on such values, the more it becomes “second nature” - our innate essence. Much of what we are has been learnt by our experience in younger years, some of it is genetically predestined, but the degree to which it holds up at the end of life is dependent on what we have put our faith in, and how have we approached life.

I’ll be generous and say, the other half … :smiley:

Bob wrote

I’m really struggling to define and explain faith in another thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193985. Would you mind giving it a shot? “Our experience in younger years” has a different meaning to me since I have faith that we are immortal beings due to the transcendent nature of our souls. Would you be interested talking about more spiritual matters in another thread, I’m interested to read your take on souls, religion, faith, peace?

I wouldn’t bravo an appeal to emotion, this is a logical fallacy.

Don’t confuse this with a lack of empathy with those who are dying though, of course many of these people are vulnerable, and in such circumstances of course it would be forgivable to feed them nonsense if that assuages someone’s fear and unease in their most desperate moments. But you have to respect greatly those such as Christopher Hitchens who didn’t falter in his beliefs even while he knew he was dying, but I know it’s unreasonable of me to expect quite such outstanding displays of character in the vast majority who aren’t his intellectual or philosophical equal.

Children can be told stories and that Santa and the tooth fairy are real to make things more exciting for them, but that doesn’t make it true. Yes, it’s nice to dish out feel-good fantasies, but the effectiveness of this trickery on the flawed human psyche is no measure of truth, which doesn’t care how you feel.

You don’t need free will to have had a worthwhile life, sorry Bob. It’s not like all the good times and experiences suddenly go away once u realise it was all determined independently of any control you thought you had - you still live just as engagedly as you always did before. You can still feel that feeling you feel when you feel in control, it’s just put into perspective for what it really is. This is what people don’t understand when they go into this “downward spiral” you’re assuming - all experience is exactly the same, you’re just understanding it better.

Anybody ever notice how women revolve around ‘Feeling’ and emotion, never around Truth?

Have you ever met a woman who preferred harsh truth, cruelty, Reality, over fantasy?

Neither have I. Another cause/reason why women cannot ever be philosophers or philosophical. They always default to feel-good-lies over truth.

Again, Privileged Gender. Protected from the truth (by men).

One of the reasons I also have close female friends is because they are grounded in reality in ways I find men are not. I often find men to be living in what they think makes sense and are cut off from how it feels on the ground, in reality, and yes, also in emotions. Even if it is supposedly the best of all possible solutions and ‘makes sense’ I find women more willing to admit that something is fucked up, even if no one can put a finger on it, let alone solve it.

For you there is a dichotomy between truth and emotion. Around a vast range of issues, the truth involves emotion. People cut off from their emotions are crippled in relation to determining all sorts of truths. And the men I respect get this.

No, they’re not.

Women, as a whole, as a gender, are privileged, protected, and separated from reality. This fact is best represented by the lack of moral agency that women have or demonstrate. Women do not demonstrate moral agency, that women-in-general are responsible for this or that action, event, or societal occurrence. Women are ‘blameless’, ‘innocent’, never responsible for all the evil, shit, negativity, hatred, in existence.

Obviously, this is false. Women are responsible for some, or most of it. The main problem therein, is not necessarily that women are responsible for this or that social evil, but rather, that they are shielded from all forms of responsibility which would expose the very precise ways they are. So, basically, conversations never even get past scratching the surface of (female) moral agency.

Thus, women are not moral agents.

If women are moral agents, or capable of causing social events, capable of responsibility, then they would be held to very, very low standards. And this is true. Women receive a slap on the wrist, on the rare occasions they do commit a crime, compared to the exact same crime if a male commits it.

You can’t dodge around this fact and then sling the proposition “women are grounded in reality”. No. Wrong. False.

You can never be “grounded in reality” when you are the privileged, pampered, elite half of the specie.

Valued…as what? That’s like saying people who are forced to sell their kidneys to feed their families are also valued by their recipients. I mean, talk about your kind of privilege! I’m sure serial killers assign certain value to their victims, too…in their own twisted way (if only their victims could also see and appreciate that, as well). Just how self-negating does one have to be to let others define their (so called objective!) value?

. Women usually get harsher sentences for killing their (abusive) partners because their acts are usually interpreted as premeditated, whereas men’s are usually seen to occur in the fit of fury, where an actual intent to kill is harder to prove.
takepart.com/article/2015/09 … men-prison

Are those the bottom of your arguments?

Value is a very complicated concept. But can you deny the more ‘objective’ utility for females and women, as a gender? If not sex, then what else? Do women ‘add’ to humanity, outside getting pregnant, giving birth, and raising children? Do women really “do more” than that?

Pandora, listen closely. A few years ago, on another forum, I debated a young feminist girl at length. At the end of our exchanges, she revealed something very important to me. It was what I believed to be her deepest fear and insecurity. She admitted this inadvertently and accidentally, she didn’t mean to clue me into her modus operandi. And what she admitted to me, was that she feared that women’s “purpose and meaning” revolve around pleasuring men. She was against that prospect and possibility, with all her mentality.

So after that exchange, I questioned the proposition. What if that’s all there is to it? What if her deepest fear, has a real platform? What if that’s the core of it?

What if your value revolves around others, around men? You tell me.

Everyone’s value revolves around others when others are discussing their value. Women have an uncompromising eye for detail and precision, far surpassing that of men for one seen greatly in intricate tech assembly jobs, also greater balance, endurance and slower metabolisms which allow survival for longer in harsh conditions, but women need to realize all of their realistic abilities which most women have no clue of today. The greatest reason for me to launch a women’s only intentional community would be to open women’s eyes to what their possibilities and their limits are in every aspect of life.

Males have more ‘independent’ values because males are the expendable gender. In other words, society simply doesn’t ‘need’ males, in general. This forces males to become independent (of a system/hierarchy that automatically excludes them).

You, as a woman, wouldn’t understand (what it’s like to be the expendable gender).

Bullshit.

If you mean detail-oriented about dresses, shoes, and jewelry, then maybe you have a point.

I do not derive enjoyment, nor have the need to use and abuse men like that, even if it’s what they want and crave. Personally, I consider it rather cruel (or charity work at best), and my respect for such men is really low, because these men are really like drug addicts who are unable to master themselves (dyonisian, if you will).
In this whole sex issue you make it sound like there is only two choices present: use and abuse, or be used and abused. This is the area that BDSM deals with, as well, both physically and psychologically. (Sadistic/destructive/controlling vs. masochistic/self-destructive/helpless). And even though these people may paint themselves in a naturalistic or even positive light, I personally see it as a symptom of a psychological inadequacies (why does one’s well-being in these situations depend on controlling or degrading another; or alternatively, be controlled or degraded?) And since you’re talking about taking responsibility here, the hedonistic or cathartic factor present in these situations, especially with a woman taking charge, points to an innate desire of men to relinquish it. Consider what need drives men to seek female dominatrices. Same with the psychologies of hopeless romantics who chase the feeling of being in love down.
But back to your question, sexual dimorphism and all that comes along with it may have co-evolved, and may even be necessary for continuation of the species, but to proclaim it the end of all, or even elevate it above all else, is very animalistic. Essentially, that’s like saying that the highest and noblest goal of humanity is eating and fucking. And where is taking responsibility for one self in that? I don’t see it.

Maybe to a man, yes, but not necessarily to a woman herself; and not even in all cases. As an example, what value does a very fat or ugly, or old woman have to a man? Most feminist movements aim for woman’s independence, so a woman can have a freedom to have a self-determining value that is also recognized by society at large. Before this a women would probably have to go and live alone in some mountain cave with a herd of goats (like Tenzin Palmo).