patriarchy, a problem.

[joal0503]

When we hear the word 'matriarchy', we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it.

hmmmmmmm

 

[joal0503]

the aging population, controlling the institutions grew up with this shit in their brains:

have we really changed much, at all?

 

[Akuma]

All the rape, looting , pillaging and theft since ancient times; who were the main beneficiaries? The wife, mother, daughter, concubine or whore that the war criminal brings his spoils to.... And she flaunts it, and enjoys it, and encourages him to rape, plunder and pillage more in her name, or by proxy, in her tribe's or nation's name.

Consider me blown away, rape benefits women

Patriarchy has brought human kind to a place where life is much less nasty and brutish.... Only patriarchy could develop culture civilization to the point where egalitarian notions and ideals of all humans being created equal could percolate existence, even where such ideals have not been met they exist and they are uniquely 'Male' projections of thought.

Female thought has always hinged on creating classes and subclasses of human. Matriarchy is petty and cruel and, makes for an unequal society, unjust laws and nasty existence..... And most females recognize this; even at the sub-conscious level.

Yes you definitely know what goes on in the minds of females.

WE WOMEN ARE SO VILE WE OPPRESS OURSELVES.
It's all true, how can men ever love us now that the truth is known?

 

[Brontosaurie]

social inequality is likely the product of global reliance on male values of assimilation, consciousness, legislation and rivalry, as contrasted with female values of accomodation, subliminality, compromise and collaboration. whether this reliance is a historical disease or one more of those agonizing necessities, i'm not so sure.

theoretically i gravitate toward the female values as i feel they are more refinedly human, and i try to impersonate them. however i despise most feminists because they insist on tabula rasa and exhibit a fragmented, contradictory understanding of structure and agency. also the very term "feminism" is a passive-aggressive fucktwat as well as a blatant hypocrite.

 

[scorpiomover]

And the only way to do that is via AI, a product of diligent computer science, and more importantly, the modern world. So onward, I say, for the crucible shall leave us stronger.

And onward, led us to Zyklon B, and the gassing of millions, for no other reason, than an accident of birth.

 

[Fukyo]

Those ads are hilariously bad but refreshingly honest. Ads of today do not candidly state it but mostly convey similar notions, just implicitly.

 

[Duxwing]

And onward, led us to Zyklon B, and the gassing of millions, for no other reason, than an accident of birth.

Argumentum ad Hitlerum, really? That's all that you've got? Come on, scorpiomover, you can do better!

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

Argumentum ad Hitlerum, really? That's all that you've got? Come on, scorpiomover, you can do better!

I can list out plenty more. But you already know that, because you're not a complete moron.

Address the point.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@joal0503

a patriarchy does not need a bias for it to exist, does it?

Yes, it does. This whole fairy tail of a patriarchy is predicated on the idea that men have a bias against women. In turn, they subjugate women. They seem to think that aptitude in different activities governing the decision people make and the roles that they play don't exist. We don't have self-determination at all. We are at the whim of XX or XY and there is nothing more to it.

Edit: Ohh how ironic, posting this on a website espousing a subset of personality theory.

the whoooole point though...is that the men who created the image of the leader, set the rules in order to attribute themselves and their traits as the 'desirable' ones to begin with. cant that be seen as a great disparity right off the bat?

Both genders have the capacity of exhibiting leadership characteristics and qualities. Margret Thatcher, Hilary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, etc. had/have these qualities. Now, typically all individuals desire the same leadership characteristics. There is a simple thought experiment validate this. No one, men, women, even confined to their respected gender groups, will willing choose to follow a person who is perceptively indecisive, passive, meek, not confident, emotional whimsical, unstable, etc. A person who is perceptively these things will more than likely be a person who would make bad decisions and detrimentally affect the group. This is more than likely to be true.

By god, a person like Margret Thatcher is absolutely brilliant. A superb example of a person exhibiting leadership qualities that people desire. Funnily enough, feminists universally shunned her because good old Maggie Thatcher was not a communist. According to many feminists I have read, she had the wrong hair and the wrong clothing. They like Clinton exhibits similar traits to Thatcher but feminists seem to like Clinton. I think this has something more to do with Clinton being a communist.

Spoiler

I am using the term 'communist' to exaggerate what I am talking about to amuse myself.

if social institutions are upheld and operated under a male dominated regime...wouldnt it make sense that theyd be telling you everything is okay?...

No. Just like other men, I could not care about other men. I am not in competition with them so I don't care. Actually, I only care about people (men and women) when I am in competition with them. I like to compete. I like to win.

Me? I am a fiercely independent person and when it comes to working with other people, if I perceive that no one else will be an effective leader I will take up that position.

take politics for example...yes women can get involved and become politicians...but do they? or are they sort of turned off in another direction at an early age? they dont want to play that game...they want to go be a dancer or some shit like that...to me thats nothing about genetic traits. deeper reasons to explore there.

Could it simply be an economic calculation question? If a person wishes to become a politician, they must forgo other avenues of opportunity? Perhaps if a woman became a politician there would be less time to spend with her children? From all of the biographies of successful people I read, both men and women, it seems as so at the end of their lives they almost universally wish they had spent more time with their families. Furthermore, a great many men do not wish to be involved in politics either. There is quite an interesting dynamic at play. The dynamics is called 'choice'. People seem subjectively value things and make choices.

but beyond simple gender differences...just look at the male ego alone. no need to compare...and id certainly say it exists.

Personally, I think a great many people who believe patriarchy exists are deluding themselves.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I can list out plenty more. But you already know that, because you're not a complete moron.

Address the point.

I think it is ok to level such insults at such people like myself but not ok when it comes to people who do not wish to play the insult game. I think you should be more considerate in the future.

 

[Duxwing]

I can list out plenty more. But you already know that, because you're not a complete moron.

Address the point.

OK. How does the creation of a strong AI have necessitate the murder of millions of innocent people by poison gas?

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

I think it is ok to level such insults at such people like myself

He claimed that I can do better. If he's being honest, then he believes that there are more examples, because he's thought of some. If he's lying, and doesn't believe that others exist, then why is he trying to claim that other examples exist, except to try to dismiss truth? I only gave an insult IF he hadn't thought of any, only IF he wanted to lie, and to dismiss truth.

but not ok when it comes to people who do not wish to play the insult game.

He's been extremely insulting to me, and about billions of religious people, that he's never met.

I think you should be more considerate in the future.

I usually give people consideration first, and I did so with this site, and these posters. But if anyone starts talking about religious people or athiests the way that members of the National Front used to talk about black people in the 70s, then they've chosen that they want to be treated like a bunch of violent extreme racists.

OK. How does the creation of a strong AI have necessitate the murder of millions of innocent people by poison gas?

Your argument was about technology in general.

But if you want an example of the potential dangers of AI, have you heard of Skynet?

After all those movies about AIs destroying the world, that were made for people like you to watch, and are watched again and again by people like yourself, it's a wonder that you've not ever suggested any security protocols into AI programming to prevent that from happening. At least Isaac Asimov came up with 3 laws for robots.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Patriarchy. Really? Come on.

 

[joal0503]

Although the term patriarchy is loosely used to stand for "male domination", as has been pointed out above, it more crucially means—as others have stated here: "The rule of The Father"[44] or "The Responsibility of the Father". So patriarchy does not refer to a simple binary pattern of male power over women, but power exerted more complexly by age as well as gender, and by older men over women, children, and younger men. Some of these younger men may inherit and therefore have a stake in patriarchy's continuing conventions. Others may rebel.[45][46] This psychoanalytic model is based upon revisions of Freud's description of the normally neurotic family using the analogy of the story of Oedipus.[47][48] Those who fall outside the Oedipal triad of mother/father/child are less subject to patriarchal authority.[49] This has been taken as a position of symbolic power for queer identities. The operations of power in patriarchy are usually enacted unconsciously. All are subject, even fathers are bound by its strictures.[50] It is represented in unspoken traditions and conventions performed in everyday behaviors, customs, and habits.[51] The patriarchal triangular relationship of a father, a mother and an inheriting eldest son frequently form the dynamic and emotional narratives of popular culture and are enacted performatively in rituals of courtship and marriage.[52] They provide conceptual models for organising power relations in spheres that have nothing to do with the family, for example, politics and business

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

So you quoted a paragraph of presumptive nonsense that fails the burden of proof obligation, congratulations.

 

[jachian]

Consider me blown away, rape benefits women


Yes you definitely know what goes on in the minds of females.

WE WOMEN ARE SO VILE WE OPPRESS OURSELVES.
It's all true, how can men ever love us now that the truth is known?

What ?!..... women? what on earth are you talking about?!.... Did you even read what I posted?...... When you speak you should make sense.

 

[joal0503]

So you quoted a paragraph of presumptive nonsense that fails the burden of proof obligation, congratulations.

i apologize for the simple, lazy response. when i get the time, ill try to come up with something more. i just have been strapped for forum time lately. i really did appreciate the response you put forth.