Superfeminism

lol is it feminism we are talking about, or communism?
cuz if you need to an example of a failed society, there’s your examples

no sir, I am applying the natural selection reasoning to social structure
I said that it exists because it works
not that it exists because it is the best there could ever be

exists because it works, as in of all different types of structures that we’ve come up with, this is the most successful one
because it evolved alongside with our bodies and with our survival strategy
way before there was a consciousness to wonder if it’s fair or not
big monkey kill snake

it becomes a loop feeding into itself
we need good eyes and image processing skills so we can tell snakes from vines, so our brains get big
our brains get big so they develop slowly so our infants are completely useless and need complete dedication from the mother
mothers develop traits that are conducive to nurturing and protecting infants
they also select males that are more likely to be useful in assisting her in the task of raising the infant

millions of years go by, and you have women who are statistically more agreeable and neurotic than men, and men who are statistically more assertive and extroverted than women. we needed these things to evolve as we did, and now they shape our societies.
it’s as true as eyes are for seeing and hands are for grabbing.
do I …need to be typing all this?

I understand that much. There is patriarchy nowadays because the practice of patriarchy wasn’t so bad that it led to the extinction of those who practiced it. (Note that even bad practices can survive provided that people are doing something else that is neutralizing the negative effects.)

But your post seems to go a bit further than that. Indeed, you are not merely explaining why patriarchy exists, you are actually making the following point:

It appears to me you’re trying to argue against the idea that feminist societies are better than what we have today. And your reasoning seems to be no more than “It’s new, therefore it’s bad”. I apologize if I’m misreading.

Okay, you’re saying that the current societal order is the most successful one among those we’ve come up.

But in what sense is it “the most successful one”? If you’re saying it’s more popular than the others, then sure, that much is obvious. But if you’re saying that it works better than everything else conceived, the question remains: how do you know? And works better for whom? everyone? every society? every group of people? no exceptions?

Looks like you’re making a leap from “It exists because it didn’t die” to “It exists because it was necessary”. The difference is subtle but it’s there.

Some of it, perhaps.

not exactly. not that those peoples would become extinct, but that those organizations would collapse over time and others would replace them, until what is left standing is the most stable organization structure

… for a certain amount of time

it’s new therefore it is unproven, whereas the old has stood the trial of time
but there is a little bit more than that
very long spans of time change things
when you’ve been in a role for a very long time, you become an expert at it
our bodies evolved alongside our societal order, and our societal order evolved alongside our bodies
in other words, there is a physiological reason for patriarchy, on average

that is not to say that women are entirely unfit for politics, they are just less likely to be fit for it, on average

feminism should not exist in the direction of turning women into men, it should exist in the direction of recognizing the value of traditionally female roles
and I don’t man getting a fucking rose on mother’s day

wtf… is this… maturity?

I know because we’re proving it now, in the West.
There is equality of opportunity between the sexes.
Women can go to school, and they can study whatever they want.
They can take birth control pills and never have a child if they don’t want to.
They can choose any profession that they want.

It works as well as an INTP person going to software engineering instead of performative arts.
Because these personality types are better suited for these roles.

when you let people choose what they want to do, regardless of how others will perceive them, they go and pick professions that lets them do what they love, and it happens that most of the time women prefer to teach, nurture and care for people, while men like to build and plot and explore
nature selected these traits

it was necessary for us to be what we are for things to have occurred as they did, yes
if things had not happened as they did, we’d be something else

Okay, then what is meant by this?

Imagine, for example, someone like Satyr here proclaiming his own rendition of what it means for men and women to assume their “natural” roles…to eschew the “memetic” roles ascribed to gender by a “society” owned and operated by the “moderns”.

How then is her own understanding of gender roles more or less in sync with his?

In regard to interactions that revolve around political power, employment, family, careers, the military, sports, sexuality, etc.

How here has “feminism” gone too far?

And let’s get down to specifics. Let’s name names. Let’s turn to the actual headlines where gender crops up: Trump grabbing women by their pussy…Joe Biden, Tara Reade and allegations of sexual assault.

“It’s new, therefore it’s wrong” is different from “It’s new, therefore it’s unproven”. If a statement is not proven it does not mean it’s wrong.

The old is not necessarily better than the new. In fact, it might be worse. This is why I think the right approach to dealing with unproven statements is to test them.

But how can something that lasted for ten thousand years be worse than something that has never been tried?

Because its lifespan can be shorter. A method that survived for ten thousand years might perish after one hundred thousand years whereas another one that has never been tried might be able to survive for millions of years.

It looks like the need for something new arises precisely because of the fact that the old has been tested to death. When you test something, you make its weaknesses, not only its strengths, become apparent. And when a flaw is discovered, a need for correction, which is to say something better, is born. But of course, not every proposed correction is a proper correction given that it’s very easy to solve the problem by creating new problems thereby doing more harm than good.

Nah, that’s a hypothetical apology.

I understand and I actually agree with that. But that’s not what you said in your first post. In your first post, you said that feminism is wrong because it’s new.

Beside that – just to make this discussion a bit more fun – one has to make a distinction between personal preference and ability. Just because you don’t want to do X does not mean you can’t do X. In other words, if women don’t want to write code that does not mean they can’t write it. And to make things even more complicated, one must make a difference between “I don’t want to code because I wrongly feel incompetent (low confidence caused by patriarchy) or because I feel irrational aversion towards coding (again, caused by patriarchy)” and “I don’t want to code because I simply don’t want to code”. FINALLY, one must distinguish between what one wants to do and what one should do. In other words, just because women don’t want to write code doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.

According to my intuition, most women are genuinely uninterested in technical jobs (which means it’s not caused by patriarchy) and the reason they are uninterested is because it’s generally not their strength. So we have the case of ability and preference being related to each other. There are exceptions, of course, and some of those exceptions have suffered the negative effects of patriarchy.

Dead? Because that’s what you seem to be saying. If we did something else, we’d be dead.

You are both making valid points and I find the discussion is logical.
Let me just add a specification to the OP: we are in an end time of sorts. The internets have eliminated time and space as concerns for communication. This is massive, vast and enormous and completely alters what life is.
I do not think the future looks anything whatsoever like the past.

" How many things are now called the worst wickedness, which are only twelve feet broad and three months long! Some day, however, will greater dragons come into the world.

For that the Superman may not lack his dragon, the superdragon that is worthy of him"

Or perhaps the Superfeminist, the Superkaren (oh god)

Animals where the male is larger than the female:

Lions, Silverback gorillas, Human beings

Where the female is larger than the male:

Spiders, Snakes, the aliens from “Independence Day”

We all know what happened to Hera when she got too big for her britches and tried to rebel against Zeus.

Also, only Zeus (masculine) is able to fully immortalize a mortal completely in his human form (Ganymede)… All other loves of the gods turn to flowers or Cypress trees or a Cicada or whatever. Man has some special grace that woman doesn’t have. The masculine as the higher principle is connected to wholeness.

Feminism is either a blatant, toxic defiance of the masculine out of bitterness or a misguided attempt to appropriate masculine qualities in order to prove something under the banner of “equal opportunity”…That some women can do some things better than some men (or that some women outrank some men) will NEVER make the feminine the higher principle.

indeed it is different, which is why I specified that distinction

I agree with all of this, while at the same time insisting on the point that not every idea is worth being tested.
Unproven doesn’t mean wrong, but doesn’t mean right either. Often you can see the flaws from miles away.
I’ve proposed a reason why I think “superfeminism” is a flawed idea. That it is unproven is not the reason I proposed.
The reason I proposed is that it is contrary to personality traits, that they are not “cut out for it” in other words.

That is what you have been insisting I said. I forgive your misunderstanding.

history is full of cases of a person who really did not want to step up to a certain role, but who was absolutely the right person who was needed for that role
likewise we have plenty of “turtles on a tree branch” everywhere (it’s a phrase in my family which we assign to people who evidently did not climb to where they are on their own, somebody put them there)

we can hope that opportunity continues to be given to all equally, and the decision to actually enter into a role be done by an individual alone, freely and by his or her own sense of duty an evaluation, and their permanence on it be dictated by their performance
by this i mean that a person should not be denied a position for being that sex or race or age, and equally important they should not be forced into it

it’s not just intuition, as I mentioned before, it’s cross-cultural, statistically relevant, scientific fact
there are exceptions, but trust me they are doing fine, because they are just as assertive as the men, if not more
the exceptions do not want or need a “women in IT” support group to cheer them on

that is not at all what I seem to be saying I specifically said not necessarily extinct
maybe we’d still be on trees?
maybe we’d have evolved smaller brains and smaller eyes, but infants that drop and start running right away?
who knows what we’d be if things had not been the way they were?
pondering on that is an exercise of futility

Hmm . . .

Let me examine your original post piece by piece:

If you want to prove that the current societal order is better than the one promoted by feminists – and I’m sure this is what you want to do – you can’t do so by claiming that the current societal order works. You need to make a claim that it works better.

Again, it’s not enough that it works, it must work better.

Obviously, you are trying to say that the current societal order works better than the one proposed by feminists.

You are also trying to say that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses which makes men better suited for certain roles in society and women for others. In other words, men and women don’t have the same set of abilities, so a society where men and women have arbitrarily assigned roles (because if one believes that men and women are equal, it doesn’t matter what kind of role they are assigned to) will be a weaker one.

And here, you are saying that what is new is bad. Maybe not in the first sentence but most definitely in the second.

So, to sum up my perception of what you’re trying to say:

1. Man and women are not equal, so a society that doesn’t recognize this distinction will be a weaker one
   (I agree with the premise as well as the conclusion)

2. What is new is bad
   (I don’t agree with this)

yes, I am

yes

how do you figure?
i gather from the above that “the disruption of that order” is bad, and that “resent based policy” is bad
i think that a new structure that was neither disruptive of that order nor resent based would be quite welcome
in fact I have alluded to something along those lines:

i hope i cleared that up for ya

Lol
I hope it is bad enough!

LOL

Granted. Only the highest of all humans is a woman but she is much rarer than higher men. But what does this mean?

Does this not mean a ant-queen or a bee-queen… depending on fascism or monarchy.
I see a hive, dude. Don’t you? So isn’t this hive typically ruled by a mother-tyrant?
And are not males mere instruments…

Butt no, of course the ant is not the Nietzschean higher woman. I souls guess. I actually have little idea of what he meant except I can relate in my own personal way in a sense.
Not the ant-hood, but to the Valkyries. They are higher than men and they do live among us.
But Valkyries like men.

I need to get some eyeglasses.

You are speaking of policies based on resentment. ReSent based policies, not reCent based policies. “Recent based policies” sounded quite strange but obviously not enough to make me question my eyesight.

Yah.

ahahahahah

Hives, unlike human societies, are composed of sterile clones.

Human females are aggressively competitive among themselves, and it tends to not be the healthy type of competitiveness in which one aims higher to become superior to the other. Instead they target the other, and attempt to take one another down.

It is very foolish to assume that in a matriarchy there would be no “oppression” of any group.

I put oppression in quotes because it is not reasonable to speak of oppression proper in a society where all are born with equal rights.

The feminist cooperative utopia is based on denial of that or willful ignorance of it.

I’ll go ahead and demean my own argument by saying that I’m not speaking from a scientific perspective now, as I am employing the phrase “tends to” and grounding this observation on personal experience. It seems fair. It is a weak point, but I feel it’s worth mentioning when speaking of hives.

Perhaps the feminist utopia is a hive. Perhaps all women must stop rearing children for that to be realized.

The OP gives a scenario of absolute repression. It is a theoretical possibility.

(Need I remind people that fascism is always carried by women - which is why Communism is better, though also repressive, than fascism)

Ill post a portrait of a Pure, purely pure ultra sauber Communist artist
here is very much which is masculine about her art.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h37IUyfqDRQ[/youtube]

Fascism has only idolatry.

An uncle I have of mine he said: athletic exercises are fascist.

A fitness culture to him points to a fascism.

And it is true women are fascistic about their body shaping regimes. There is no other word for it.

Women have that gear, 1, 2, 444000, where men go 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, if decadent. They don’t get to that place of tyranny.

Yeah women are far more aware of their shit than men are, either of their own or of womens. And then there are plenty of men who are aware of this, and profit tremendously.