Superfeminism

[Fixed Cross]

Like, isn't it time?

Men have already been given up on by themselves mostly except in ultra high places and of course just general blokes, who are too dumb to even think about shit. And then theres philosophers of serious quality such as myself and a handful maybe of maybe of maybe others maybe.

But the tides are the tides, man. You can try to stop em but you'll end up looking even more silly than you already do.

So, lets extrapolate.

Whats real?

The Minoans, if you look at their murals, were a Matriarchal warrior society that held men as, basically, cows.
Just for fun and breeding, to dress up, tie down and fuck and kill to the gods.

It could very well be we're heading towards something like that. I don't even have the mood right now (I'm drinking some nice tea for gods sake) to write out any of the examples of men succumbing.

[surreptitious75]

This originated in Western society with Seventies third wave feminisms drive for equality
Then further enhanced by political correctness and post modernism and identity politics

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

However there is a very real difference between treating everyone as equal in principle and absolutely equal in reality
The former is the basic principle of secular law and of human rights but the latter is completely unworkable in practice

Anything unworkable is not possible which is why I am not an ideologue of any persuasion preferring pragmatism instead since that actually works
But the rise of identity politics in general is an attempt to take an unworkable principle and try to make it work in practice when it just cannot be
This is because within identity politics any group identity is absolute so individual identity is denied but human beings at their most fundamental level are individuals

Men are probably becoming less masculine and more feminine within the West but no man should feel he is automatically compromised by the rise of identity politics
I do not label myself a feminist but equally do not feel threatened by feminism because of my detachment with this world especially with things that I cannot control

[Fixed Cross]

Your thinking seems sound to me.

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

Exactly!

From the good ole days:

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.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=2218001

[phoneutria]

I don't think that there is a historical record of a society unambiguously matriarch.

[Fixed Cross]

Thats what my teacher said.

[phoneutria]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

She got that from Satyr. Unless of course Satyr got it from her. Unless, perhaps, they both got it from Lyssa.

Who, if I'm not mistaken, was paraphrasing Ayn Rand. Only Rand was more intent on construing gender interactions based solely on a metaphysical morality derived from objective reason.

As opposed to, say, in a more primitive sense, nature.

Anyway, it would be interesting to note which actual behaviors, roles, responsibilities etc., she feels is most in sync with "the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia".

What sort of things/behaviors would she note as best suited for the female gender? What sort of things/behaviors would she advise women today to stop doing?

[phoneutria]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

Note to others:

Do you share her point of view? Okay, then tell me:

...in regard to gender roles, which actual behaviors, roles, responsibilities etc., do you feel that she feels is most in sync with "the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia".

What on earth does that even mean? Note particular contexts in which we might be able to explore this more substantively.

Also...

What sort of things/behaviors do you imagine she might note as best suited for the female gender? What sort of things/behaviors would you imagine she might advise women today to stop doing?

And how would you differentiate her disdain for feminism from someone like Satyr? Or from someone like Ayn Rand?

For example, when Howard Roark basically raped Dominique Francon -- or as Rand called it 'rape by invitation' -- are feminists being inherently irrational or unnatural in their negative reactions?

[Fixed Cross]

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]

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?

not without the use of lab techniques that women most certainly did not come up with on their own
even if they did, they would not have done so without the hoards of men and women required to keep power pants running, food arriving to the table, sewage flowing away...
speaking of that, even now in this times of equality, I don't see a lot of women giving up motherhood to go work at sewage processing plant
ha ha, says the engineer lady

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.

and land

evidently women are well capable to possess land, cattle, and themselves
the big dent on the whole equality thing is that a woman is not always purely a woman. sometimes she is woman + infant
woman + infant is a very very vulnerable being
it can do nothing else other than to take care of itself

what do we do about that then, stop making infants?
do the full transformation into becoming a bastardized version of man?
or maybe we split into bastardized versions of men, and breeders, and let the former enslave the latter?
how long do you think that'd last, even assuming that the bastardized versions of men would do a half-way passable job at manning society?
lol, manning society
... I'll see myself out.

[Fixed Cross]

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]

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]

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?

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

[phoneutria]

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.

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?

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

do I ...need to be typing all this?

Some of it, perhaps.

[phoneutria]

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.

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

(Note that even bad practices can survive provided that people are doing something else that is neutralizing the negative effects.)

... for a certain amount of time

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".

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

I apologize if I'm misreading.

wtf... is this... maturity?

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?

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

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.

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

[iambiguous]

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

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.

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

wtf... is this... maturity?

Nah, that's a hypothetical apology.

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[perpetualburn]

" 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.

[phoneutria]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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'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

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.

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

[Magnus Anderson]

In your first post, you said that feminism is wrong because it's new.

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

Hmm . . .

Let me examine your original post piece by piece:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

[phoneutria]

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

yes, I am

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.

yes

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.

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:

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)

i hope i cleared that up for ya

[Fixed Cross]

" 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)

Lol
I hope it is bad enough!

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"

LOL

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.

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.