Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Feminization of Males

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by quelsen View Post
    uhm, uhm, uhm????


    i hope you are joking here. or maybe you are just too young to know any better, youth is riddled with functional errors.

    recognition of whites has been done by whites.

    that hardly makes it an objective exercise.

    i am not denying that some white people made some pretty cool shit IN OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, however Monsanto is also a white ongoing concern.

    There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in your philosophy, Horatio.

    most of the worlds intelligence has not destroyed it. Additionally most of the worlds intelligence has been carefully hidden from the "white" man due to the clear knowledge that the Caucasian race in general ( Aryan and Indo Aryan alike) are just beserking genocidal destroyers looking for something to smash mindlessly.

    Hopefully as time progresses "whites" will mature out of that infantilism. Individually many of them do very well, but as a group, sigh.

    so of course they have to pat themselves on the back, who else will????
    Thank you Quelsen. Wilton just keeps digging himself in deeper.
    Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post

      p.s. Have you read this before? What do you think of it?
      I thought this was a very good explanation of privilege, though I think he should have factored in class as well.
      Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post

        Wilton, do you honestly think that the endless pursuit of status (which in our society typically also means material wealth) makes any kind of sense? Look at all the waste and environmental degradation and corruption that comes with it.
        I know my response here is (mostly) aside from the thread but....waste and environmental degradation are typical of all societies....which is why Jared Diamond said "agriculture was the worst mistake in human history."
        The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

        The pursuit of any post-paleolithic society is the pursuit of material wealth. None of which is ecologically sustainable and why societies are known to grow in complexity and then collapse as their primary energy source can no longer keep pace with population growth. While I agree with you that the pursuit of social wealth makes no sense ecologically, it is what it is. Humans are going to do what humans do. (Kind of leading back into the thread here: ) I can't prove this but I believe it's typically a male thing, for which I'm sensing in some of your arguments. Men, typically, seem to believe they can engineer better social systems which look good on paper but don't work in practice. The don't because they require a type of universal progressive altruism. Marxism is one such system (for which another poster was asking about). The USSR was not a classless society, neither is China. Labor unions are another. Unions are a kind of sub-culture third-world country run by a dictatorship. Union bosses usually stay in power for long periods of time and command salaries in the hundreds of thousands: - The Daily . Keynesian economic theory is another that politicians exploit to maintain control...even at the risk of crashing the economy. Peter Schiff on The Real Crash, Austrian economics and Ron Paul | Washington Times Communities.

        In whatever form it takes people pursue power and control over resources. Native tribes controlled territories and kept other tribes out. No universal altruism there. At the core but now more politically sophisticated, politicians do the same thing....for themselves and their political party. I don't think he meant to but in his book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer does a good job of illustrating this pursuit of power status and material wealth within Washington....even though it's at the expense of wrecking the financial health of the country...quite contrary to altruism. We have two political parties (political tribes if you will) battling it out every election for financial resources. Why don't they simply come together in a spirit of cooperation to try and fix social problems? How many people feel a sense of relief because their guy won the election and their political tribe has maintained its status?
        Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
          I know my response here is (mostly) aside from the thread but....waste and environmental degradation are typical of all societies....which is why Jared Diamond said "agriculture was the worst mistake in human history."
          The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

          The pursuit of any post-paleolithic society is the pursuit of material wealth. None of which is ecologically sustainable and why societies are known to grow in complexity and then collapse as their primary energy source can no longer keep pace with population growth. While I agree with you that the pursuit of social wealth makes no sense ecologically, it is what it is. Humans are going to do what humans do. (Kind of leading back into the thread here: ) I can't prove this but I believe it's typically a male thing, for which I'm sensing in some of your arguments. Men, typically, seem to believe they can engineer better social systems which look good on paper but don't work in practice. The don't because they require a type of universal progressive altruism. Marxism is one such system (for which another poster was asking about). The USSR was not a classless society, neither is China. Labor unions are another. Unions are a kind of sub-culture third-world country run by a dictatorship. Union bosses usually stay in power for long periods of time and command salaries in the hundreds of thousands: - The Daily . Keynesian economic theory is another that politicians exploit to maintain control...even at the risk of crashing the economy. Peter Schiff on The Real Crash, Austrian economics and Ron Paul | Washington Times Communities.

          In whatever form it takes people pursue power and control over resources. Native tribes controlled territories and kept other tribes out. No universal altruism there. At the core but now more politically sophisticated, politicians do the same thing....for themselves and their political party. I don't think he meant to but in his book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer does a good job of illustrating this pursuit of power status and material wealth within Washington....even though it's at the expense of wrecking the financial health of the country...quite contrary to altruism. We have two political parties (political tribes if you will) battling it out every election for financial resources. Why don't they simply come together in a spirit of cooperation to try and fix social problems? How many people feel a sense of relief because their guy won the election and their political tribe has maintained its status?
          Oh, absolutely. Of course this does suggest that if there were a way to (a) stabilize the population even in the face of resource abundance and (b) limit the extraction of natural resources to their respective natural production levels, then people would be free to pursue material wealth and status within those hard limits without causing an overrun and subsequent crash. Of course the tricks to managing (a) and (b) are not something we've got sorted out, and maybe there are no such tricks.

          Actually, now that I think of it, accomplishing (b) would automatically solve (a), though possibly mainly through famine which is obviously less-than-desirable, humanistically speaking.

          I recommend Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by the way, if you haven't read it. He meanders a lot into personal ruminations on his memories of Montana, but there's a lot of interesting information in it about the Greenland Norse and other failed societies, along with an attempt at a systematic understanding of the main drivers of societal staying power vs failure.
          Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

          My Primal Journal

          Comment


          • It occurs to me that we may have been a little hard on Wilton. He clearly has learned his lessons well. High School history teachers should be proud of him, he's inculcated the approved texts into his belief system. He's seen through all the distracting (PC) additions that history textbooks have included for the past 30 or so yrs to the underlying message that it's really white males that have accomplished all the stuff worth writing about. I give Wilton an A+. The education system is still working!
            Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
              It occurs to me that we may have been a little hard on Wilton. He clearly has learned his lessons well. High School history teachers should be proud of him, he's inculcated the approved texts into his belief system. He's seen through all the distracting (PC) additions that history textbooks have included for the past 30 or so yrs to the underlying message that it's really white males that have accomplished all the stuff worth writing about. I give Wilton an A+. The education system is still working!


              Well, considering the vast majority of teachers, especially in the early, formative years, are women, you all only have yourselves to blame. Gheesh, women failing again.

              Comment


              • I have Diamonds Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed and read most of it but yeah he meanders a lot which is why I never finished it. I think Joseph Tainter is more on point with his energy spiral and complexity argument: Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter (1 of 7) - YouTube

                This is a summary of the above lecture. At the heart of our social problem is that ours is based upon fossil fuels which are not sustainable and as of right now there is nothing, not anything, that can replace those fuel sources declines or have the net energy return they've supplied. In the face of all that we have a government (and governed) who is increasingly adding to social complexity. Obamacare is only the latest of such attempts at solving problems with increased complexity.



                If you haven't seen this I highly recommend: The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity Chris Martenson was VP of a fortune 300 company (Pfizer I think). He downsized his life from the corporate rat race. He spent 6 months putting together The Crash Course and, as he puts it, gave it away for free. It ties together the 3 "E's" economic, energy, and environment.

                Tainter's 7 part lecture, The Crash Course, and Mary Logan's Withering Complexity Dr. Mary Logan - Whither Complexity? are, in one way or another, all saying the same thing. There are young people reading this message board who can expect to see that global famine in their life time. Between 2008 and 2030 the global oil industry needs to put online the equivalent of 6 new Saudi Arabias, 4 of which are simply to replace declining fields. We'll replace a lot of it...but it'll have to come from unconventional plays like shale and tar sands. That's very expensive to drill and produce (both in engineering complexity and in economics) which will push down the net energy return from the effort and drive up the relative cost of living.....back on thread topic
                Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                Comment


                • A longish read, but very well worth it. And off topic, but not really.
                  There is hope for us yet... maybe...

                  State of the Species.
                  Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                  SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                  Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                  2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                    Well, considering the vast majority of teachers, especially in the early, formative years, are women, you all only have yourselves to blame. Gheesh, women failing again.

                    Here's one of the criticism of the education system I've seen coming from scientists like Ann Moir: If the vast majority of teachers are women and they believe gender behavior is socialized are boys being hampered by that socialization paradigm? If it's in a boy's nature to be active and roam how many of them are being accused of having ADHD when they may simply be acting genetically normal, simply because they fidget and don't stay in their chair?
                    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                      Here's one of the criticism of the education system I've seen coming from scientists like Ann Moir: If the vast majority of teachers are women and they believe gender behavior is socialized are boys being hampered by that socialization paradigm? If it's in a boy's nature to be active and roam how many of them are being accused of having ADHD when they may simply be acting genetically normal, simply because they fidget and don't stay in their chair?
                      I've read the same and think there is some merit to the idea, especially given that something like 85%+ of elementary teachers (at least in the US) are women. Add in the large number of single mothers raising boys and you have yet more female influence. I'm not saying this is bad necessarily but I can see it having an influence on the development of the male mind these days.

                      Edit: As for ADD, I think this could be part of it, but I also consider it part of the culture of irresponsiblity/self-esteem movement. "I must be a good parent because I exist; as such my kid must have a problem, since he is not perfect, therefore, medication!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                        Women....grow up. You just sound like snickering bachelorettes that are riding high while they're young who struggle to find men as they get older. It's pathetic.
                        Amusing assumptions...

                        I'm certainly not young. Hell, I'm 20 years past that. Nor am I single... been with my husband for 15 years.

                        I'm happily married, to a happily married and very masculine man...
                        The kind who is confident and secure in his masculinity so that he doesn't need to yap his head off about silliness such as you are doing... who 100% believes in equality of all people based on individual merits and characteristics not the sexual organs they posses, or their race, etc.
                        There are men in this world who are small and slight of build and who's best talent is dancing on broadway or giving a great manicure.
                        There are women who can, I guarantee, both out-think and out physically work many men (including you).
                        Individual people, individual characteristics, individual merits.


                        Why the flippant remarks then?
                        I simply don't see anything you are saying as actually worth addressing with any real seriousness.
                        I'm not going to change your mind.
                        You are youthfully entrenched in defending your turf regardless how illogical/ridiculous it is, and will remain willfully ignorant for as long as you please.
                        Enjoy that.

                        Maybe someday you'll grow up a bit.
                        Also, do try to remember that there is likely someone out there that thinks you are 'inferior' for 'logical' reasons too.
                        “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                        ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                        And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
                          A longish read, but very well worth it. And off topic, but not really.
                          There is hope for us yet... maybe...

                          State of the Species.
                          That was a long read. Here's the problem I have with it, though: It assumes (as Tainter is critical of) that human "progress" is linear. But it's not. Historically, societies have grown in complexity and then collapsed. Populations collapse and a "dark age" set in. As a whole, the population becomes less literate.

                          Past societies energy system was solar (ag crops) along with biomass (wood) for heat. Complex societies are dependent upon efficient energy source (including resource commodities like copper, etc) which will determine how much of a population it can sustain. What happens to the population if that primary energy source can't be sustained? When coal became the primary energy source, that injection of high energy allowed for a more complex social structure to develop which in turn supported greater technological innovation. Then crude oil came into use, first as a replacement (kerosene) for whale-lamp oil. It was once said that the streets of London were lit with whale oil. Watch the movie Titanic. You have all those men shoveling coal to keep the ship powered. By simply switching to fuel oil you replace most of those men with pumps.

                          People confuse technology with energy. Technology uses energy and finds ways to exploit it more efficiently but it doesn't create energy. Human use of energy evolved from using biomass, to coal, to oil & natural gas, and nuclear. Each one more energy dense than the former. 75% of the energy used in the US comes from oil and natural gas. It's well worth spending the time to learn what Martenson complied in The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity He actually lets people copy it to DVD and sell for $10 a copy. His only restriction is not to change the content.
                          Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Are you mocking me with that first sentence or being honest?
                            Uh, I was being sarcastic. I don't think that either statements are true, and as other people have said, whenever one people group looks at themselves and declares they are superiour, it's possible there's some observer bias going on. Since that's how basically every people group ever sees themselves.

                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            To be clear, I never claimed white superiority in all phases of life. I have a belief that all people deserve basically equal dignity. However, I think certain races are smarter than others.
                            I think that 'smart' is too complex to be reduced in this way. Part of the reasoning behind why blacks in american were held in a sub-human state for so long was the 'scientific' reasoning that they were retarded. When you place a cloth over a white babies head, normal babies squirm and are distressed, while babies that grow up to be retarded do not. African american babies don't have the squirm reflex either. So that was used as scientific justification for the sub-normal intellect of african americans.

                            Completely ignoring the decades of entrenched prejudice which made like harder for them.

                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Even among "white" people, there are smart and dumb races.
                            But are the differences genetic, or cultural? And do you think that CULTURE is hardwired?

                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Another simple explanation for the European vs the African is that cold climate living requires more intelligence to survive.
                            Yes, it is a simple explanation. I think it's overly simplistic. Have you read Guns, Germs and Steel? I think that's a much better arguement for why some people groups dominate others.

                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            I think a huge difference that men from women is the drive that men have. Here's a simple evolutionary reason for why men have drive: sexual competition. Do women go to college and get careers so that they can attract men?
                            Actually, for some women, yes. Just like some men and women who are ostensibly christian go to church for the sole purpose of finding a mate.

                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            No, they're doing it for their own personal reasons.
                            I think that ultimately EVERYONE does everything for personal reasons?

                            Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Men seek fame and fortune for women ALL THE TIME. Men will do wild things to get women. Also, this drive is not necessarily conscious, but men who use that drive to achieve something are not necessarily looking for sex. Think of it as a form of mental masturbation. Men have a larger "organ" in their brain that they have to keep satisfied in order to be happy. This organ I believe is a relic of evolution.
                            I think that both men and women can be equally stupid when it comes to sex.
                            Last edited by magicmerl; 11-14-2012, 01:56 PM.
                            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                            Griff's cholesterol primer
                            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                            bloodorchid is always right

                            Comment


                            • It is perfectly reasonable to assume that more technically advanced civilizations have existed on this planet in the past. The sheer speed of current advancements is a clue to how thin the strata of evidence would be after it's collapse. In 200 years we've gone from horses to supersonic jets, from abacus to hand-held computers. Were our world to collapse today, most of our technological artifacts would be dissembled and lost in short order. We're just one bead on a long chain of rising and falling cultures. Men and women alike. We are together, doomed together, struggling together, different and the same. No part of our species is any better than another. Sure, one paranoid white guy might fare better in a society that favors white paranoia, and a relaxed black person will find social success in a more laid-back nation. But they are just different, and it's all going to be washed away regardless.
                              Crohn's, doing SCD

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
                                It is perfectly reasonable to assume that more technically advanced civilizations have existed on this planet in the past. The sheer speed of current advancements is a clue to how thin the strata of evidence would be after it's collapse. In 200 years we've gone from horses to supersonic jets, from abacus to hand-held computers. Were our world to collapse today, most of our technological artifacts would be dissembled and lost in short order. We're just one bead on a long chain of rising and falling cultures. Men and women alike. We are together, doomed together, struggling together, different and the same. No part of our species is any better than another. Sure, one paranoid white guy might fare better in a society that favors white paranoia, and a relaxed black person will find social success in a more laid-back nation. But they are just different, and it's all going to be washed away regardless.
                                No unless there's an energy source they used that we aren't aware of. You cannot have a complex society without an energy source capable of supporting that complexity. If such a culture did exist the evidence for it would be around, porcelain toilets for example.

                                Here's a shortened version of The Crash Course that Matenson gave in Boulder Co
                                The Crash Course: The 45 Minute Version | Peak Prosperity
                                Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X