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 … 
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).
You missed the point, lol.
The point is that feminists like her, or a woman like you, seem resentful of your own gender, and resentful of the function of your sexuality. You detest the notion that sex does act as pleasure, for the sole purpose of facilitating reproduction of biology. You ignore the most obvious, simplest of facts, the fact of Gender-Itself. You cannot stop Nature, in the same way the Feminists cannot change Nature. To resent what your sex is, what your sex offers, does expose the charade of ‘Feminism’ and other such ideologies, which are bent on resisting Nature.
I have no doubt that sex, ‘Gender’, makes a feminist like her, and like you, feel lower as women. In other words, you and her are resentful of being and becoming women. Of embracing your gender, your sexuality.
I think “the truth” is most exposed by fat, ugly, and old women, who receive very little attention compared to the young, beautiful, thin women. Women secretly enjoy being the target of men’s attention, affection, and competition. Another thing women have exposed to me over the years, is how much they/you enjoy being fought over, and fought for. That is the most flattering fact of Gender, of being a woman, of being privileged-protected-prized.
That’s what I’ll call it:
Privileged.
Protected.
Prized.
The valuable half of the species.
Again, it’s not until males make themselves valuable (a result of specialization and Artificiality), that some, rare males, may become as valuable as a woman, or more so. In other words, when are men ever necessary? Or, more necessary than a simple woman? For all mankind’s achievements, how many men can compete with the innate value of a woman’s sex?
. This is how men like you want to see women, as sex objects and nothing else, because it boosts your own ego that is so deeply entrenched in your own animal nature that you allow to control you.
These African men see it the same way, and look at the consequences. But of course a man like you, owned by his own dick and it’s reflection, will only see it as another example of female privilege as well, and then, blame the women for the consequences, even while denying them any fair alternatives. (But of course, nature does not provide women with any alternatives, making them entirely dependent on their dumb men who just bring everybody down.). How does one even break this chain?
I bet you’re one of those men who thinks that some poor Philippina girl feels empowered by her gender by selling herself to some old “rich” foreigners in order to feed her family. But would she still do it if she had all the money and opportunities to do what she wanted with her life? Would she still sell herself just to feel empowered? I doubt it.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_for_Fish
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LjGRzCk1dc[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t8Peu7XeG4[/youtube]
It is the truth about how men see women, not about how women are themselves.
. Lol! I wouldn’t even give two shits. I’ve been through too much. But there is a very strong vibe of jealousy and insecurity about you. I really suggest that you ease off on comparing yourself with just about everything and everybody around you. And stay away from garbage like Yahoo Entertainment. These things are having a bad influence on you and your sense of manhood.
This is the your fallacy, Pandora. You keep repeating it, as-if it’s true. I’m not saying “and nothing else”. Rather what I’m saying is primary and core. You are ignoring the function of gender, of ‘Male’ versus ‘Female’. So this is your cognitive blind-spot. Maybe you’re incapable of objectivity. The fact that you keep repeating “and nothing else”, expresses your own attitude of femininity.
Women could “do more”. But why, and what? You are underestimating the importance of child-rearing. You are furthermore underestimating the importance of genetic-screening.
Women are worse. Women will readily cut each-other to shreds, on looks and appearance, on beauty, if you can benefit from it. It’s easy to point-out. Women will step all over each-other if it means attention from an attractive man.
Yeah right… 
Your argument is that women are at core the priviledged gender, and I showed you examples where your so-called priviledge also works against women, putting them at a disadvantage and making them vulnerable to abuse.
And you either do not see it, or keep disregarding it.
I’m not underestimating the importance of child-rearing, I just think that a woman’s position and function in society should not be limited to her reproductive role, and her subsistence should not be dependent solely on (inadequate and unreliable) men. You can see the potential visible outcomes of limiting women’s access to education and earning capacities by confining them to their reproductive roles and making them increasingly dependent on men. It’s really like a gambling situation in which a woman doesn’t even have a say. If she’s completely economically dependent on her man she doesn’t really have a choice, and if her husband dies or leaves her, and she’s left with kids, she’s really out of luck. So now she may have to go and prostitute herself to strangers, so again, because of limited economic opportunities, she’s placed in a situation where she’s dependent on men.
And this you call a priviledge.
Lol! Maybe in high school.
(Though some women will compete for a rich man. But I say, let woman take care of herself so she wouldn’t have to do all this nonsense).
I’m going to steal this thread with the meta discussion on women.
If all:
Bullying stopped on earth
Rape stopped on earth
Habitat issues stopped on earth
Financial issues stopped on earth
Homicide stopped in earth
Physical torture stopped on earth
Disease stopped on earth
Infertility stopped on earth
ZERO females would commit suicide
MILLIONS of men would commit suicide each year
It is a deterministic system stemming from female psycho sexuality - females are currently and will always be the last mass murderers