It does not bother me personally because I do not feel that I am being compromised by it in any way
Although I do not agree with the principle of equality of outcome but instead equality of opportunity
Jakob wrote:op·por·tu·ni·ty (pr-tn-t, -ty-)
n. pl. op·por·tu·ni·ties
1.
a. A favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances.
b. A favorable or suitable occasion or time.
2. A chance for progress or advancement.
Synonyms: opportunity, occasion, opening, chance, break
These nouns refer to a favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances. Opportunity is an auspicious state of affairs or a suitable time: "If you prepare yourself . . . you will be able to grasp opportunity for broader experience when it appears" (Eleanor Roosevelt).
Occasion suggests the proper time for action: an auspicious occasion; an occasion for celebration.
An opening is an opportunity affording a good possibility of success: waited patiently for her opening, then exposed the report's inconsistency.
Chance often implies an opportunity that arises through luck or accident: a chance for us to chat; no chance of losing.
A break is an often sudden piece of luck, especially good luck: got his first big break in Hollywood.
I think James is right here. Opportunity has been misinterpreted as right. It designates another thing - an opportunity is per definition specific, property of a particular person in a perticular moment.
Land of opportunity means a land where opportunities arise more frequently than elsewhere. It signifies that it is a common idea that opportunity is good, desirable and that laws are made so as to make opportunities arise more spontaneously. Equal rights provides greater number of opportunities to a mass of unequal people. What it does not do is provide equal opportunity to unequal people. Greater opportunity comes to greater people.
America has traditionally been respectful of the differences between people, has revered its great ones without envy. This is unlike most countries, where great ones are envied and their heads are cut off, (mostly) figuratively.
"affirmative action" is indeed counterproductive to opportunity as a spontaneously occurring, circumstantial phenomenon, a synthetic reaction of ones (creative) efforts, talents and strengths on the one hand and favorable conditions on the other.
One should never give a beggar more than a few dimes - it ruins him, afterward even begging for dimes becomes too much of an effort - he should have to work for real money. Opportunity comes to those who deserve it. One deserves opportunity when one puts everything to work to make it occur. A land of equal opportunity means an impotent land.
phoneutria wrote:As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.
It works because there are real, statistically relevant, cross-cultural personality trait differences between the sexes which accounts for things to have fallen as they lay.
Create artifice for a disruption of that order, for whatever reason, in the name of fairness or justice or what have you, and you will watch that system collapse in the span of a few generations, and then return to what it was before.
Resent based policy (and politics) will always fail.
Things don't fall upward simply because you think it'd be neat if they did.
It's nature.
It be like that.
phoneutria wrote:lEtS bRiNg It dOwN tO tHe ReAl WoRlD dUr DuR dUr
EDIT:
For the record, I blocked biggie's posts and don't read them, which explains the silly troll-like post I just did.
Fixed Cross wrote:No, I don't believe it is necessary because woman has advantages over man such as that it is from all I ever hear, possible for women to procreate without men.
I haven't really studied genetics at all, unfortunately.
But if this is true, well. I mean. What else is there to say?
A lot though, a lot can be said otherwise, such as that power is usually understood to mean cattle and women, and men are merely in possession of these things. Gold, also, but you cant use gold as directly.
Nature disagrees with my idea, but we have earlier seen that man is able to subvert nature, not just his own.
What is lacking is a proper order of rank among women.
phoneutria wrote:As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.
Fixed Cross wrote:All your concerns are, and Im playing the bitches advocate here if you hadn't noticed, of a Patriarchal society. A cruel, indifferent world n which everyone has to fend for themselves.
The Superfeminist Utopia consists of Community.
Barfbags allowed, but consider.
A world with only women doesn't present the dangers of ... toxic masculinity. A woman could walk the street naked and not be bothered by hornable men.
She would be one of the sisters and mothers and daughters and she would be included because everything would be inclusive.
You with me so phar?
Magnus Anderson wrote:phoneutria wrote:As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
The question is:
How do you know that every other societal order that can be imagined (or at least the one proposed by feminists) is worse than the current one?
The fact that the current one works does not mean it's the best societal order out there.
(More generally, the fact that a method works does not mean it's the best method out there.)
There is a reason why appeal to tradition is considered a logical fallacy.
Indeed, if all you have to do is stick to tradition, then intelligence becomes unnecessary.
phoneutria wrote: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
Create artifice for a disruption of that order, for whatever reason, in the name of fairness or justice or what have you, and you will watch that system collapse in the span of a few generations, and then return to what it was before.
Resent based policy (and politics) will always fail.
exists because it works, as in of all different types of structures that we've come up with, this is the most successful one
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.
do I ...need to be typing all this?
Magnus Anderson wrote:phoneutria wrote: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
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:Create artifice for a disruption of that order, for whatever reason, in the name of fairness or justice or what have you, and you will watch that system collapse in the span of a few generations, and then return to what it was before.
Resent based policy (and politics) will always fail.
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.
exists because it works, as in of all different types of structures that we've come up with, this is the most successful one
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?
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.
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.
phoneutria wrote: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 m[e]an getting a fucking rose on mother's day
phoneutria wrote:it's new therefore it is unproven, whereas the old has stood the trial of time
wtf... is this... maturity?
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
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
Magnus Anderson wrote:phoneutria wrote:it's new therefore it is unproven, whereas the old has stood the trial of time
"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.
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
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.
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
Dead? Because that's what you seem to be saying. If we did something else, we'd be dead.
Magnus wrote:In your first post, you said that feminism is wrong because it's new.
phoneutria wrote:That is what you have been insisting I said. I forgive your misunderstanding.
phoneutria wrote:As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.
It works because there are real, statistically relevant, cross-cultural personality trait differences between the sexes which accounts for things to have fallen as they lay.
Create artifice for a disruption of that order, for whatever reason, in the name of fairness or justice or what have you, and you will watch that system collapse in the span of a few generations, and then return to what it was before.
Resent based policy (and politics) will always fail.
Magnus Anderson wrote: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.
Create artifice for a disruption of that order, for whatever reason, in the name of fairness or justice or what have you, and you will watch that system collapse in the span of a few generations, and then return to what it was before.
Resent based policy (and politics) will always fail.
And here, you are saying that what is new is bad. Maybe not in the first sentence but most definitely in the second.
phoneutria wrote: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
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)
perpetualburn wrote:" 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.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users