Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?

[Aero]

Other words the ones that laugh at the world burning. A robot would indicate programming for a purpose. And no doesn't mean a human (where they at one point?) i think i might have ran across such entities...black smoked figures with purple aura eyes freaked me the hell out happened during a lucid dream

Exactly, they are programmed for one job. Holding other people down.

I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument for the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics. But it seems like the most logical explanation for the whole robot thing. And surely the Buddhists would probably disagree because it all flies in the face of the concept of karma. In other words, a person can't strictly have good or bad karma, they have both at any point in time.

This isn't a refutation of Buddhism, I'm merely pointing out what I feel is a loophole. As far as dream interpretation goes, it's a tricky business. I do that a lot, and even I'm still stumped from time to time. An archon can't enter your dreams, though. However, it may be your psychic representation of an archon. In my experience that would be extremely rare.

Also, you shouldn't be freaked out in a fully lucid dream. Because in a fully lucid dream you are like God. And there's an inherent calmness to being God. So to the people who say God gets angry, I highly disagree. God is sterner than anything, perhaps subtly frustrated at times, but not angry.

 

[Maldarker]

Exactly, they are programmed for one job. Holding other people down.

I wasn't trying to turn this into an argument for the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics. But it seems like the most logical explanation for the whole robot thing. And surely the Buddhists would probably disagree because it all flies in the face of the concept of karma. In other words, a person can't strictly have good or bad karma, they have both at any point in time.

This isn't a refutation of Buddhism, I'm merely pointing out what I feel is a loophole. As far as dream interpretation goes, it's a tricky business. I do that a lot, and even I'm still stumped from time to time. An archon can't enter your dreams, though. However, it may be your psychic representation of an archon. In my experience that would be extremely rare.

Also, you shouldn't be freaked out in a fully lucid dream. Because in a fully lucid dream you are like God. And there's an inherent calmness to being God. So to the people who say God gets angry, I highly disagree. God is sterner than anything, perhaps subtly frustrated at times, but not angry.

I see yup i do see people like that. I don't think i explained my experience correctly sorry didn't mean lucid dream....umm sleep paralysis fighting to gain control of body feeling startled awake not able to move & knowing down to your core if you don't fight these entities will enter you but hard to fight when paralyzed is what your body feels...just never encountered anyone else with those described type beings.

 

[Lyfe]

Quick question: what makes you think this view of history is "one dimensional"? Considering that this view is supported by historical records written largely by men? Or did you forget that men were the ones who ultimately wrote everything? Legal documents? Memoirs? Philosophical takes on gender relations in which men almost unilaterally placed themselves above women in an ontological sense? You keep refusing to acknowledge everything the FeMiNiStS on the board try to give you when it comes to both life experience and historical documents.

Which feminists are you straw manning? The only stigma against traditional relationships are where its FORCED. Again, you completely ignored (or perhaps just didn't read) where it was said that these "traditional" model of husband as sole breadwinner and wife as homemaker are relatively recent roles. They're 50s American nostalgia caricatures. They don't represent human history before then and they don't describe the roles of women and men in cultures outside of the Western model. Youre being incredibly obtuse if you think that dynamic is somehow the universal natural order of things. There are men and women who love this brand of "traditional" gender roles and are fulfilled by them. No normal person has a problem with this. Conversely, there are men and women who dont feel fulfilled by these roles, or they're somehow incapable of observing them. How does men being the first line of deface in a hypothetical burglary immediately equate to gender roles? Its common sense considering the person attempting to inflict harm is most likely another man. Men are so quick to jump at the opportunity to use that as one excuse to claim men are natural protectors only to balk at the idea that men are natural predators as well. Also, weapons are an equalizer. I imagine there are more women than you'd want to believe who would not let their male partners go alone. Women HAVE done that throughout history -the women who disguised themselves as male soldiers in the WWs to fight alongside their fathers or brothers or lovers for example. A desire to protect and the courage to try has never been an exclusively male domain except where men have tried to make it so. As for you point on equality: you dont seem to understand the grievances that led to women embracing feminism at all. There are differences between the sexes and in general, there will be noticable patterns of tasks or interests each sex flocks to. The issue (for the millionth time) is that men turned these patterns into prescriptive roles and then instilled more value in male attributes. Ask yourself what would have to happen for some women to become so repulsed by "traditionally" roles. Why do you think that would be?

Here is my challenge to you: please provide evidence of the stuff you're claiming. Maybe link the studies that show women prefer leaders or that they still hold men to strict gender roles. Maybe provide some "true" historical sources that the evil feminists are subverting. You can't make a bunch of claims and then make no effort at substantiating it.

Quick question: what makes you think this view of history is "one dimensional"? Considering that this view is supported by historical records written largely by men? Or did you forget that men were the ones who ultimately wrote everything? Legal documents? Memoirs? Philosophical takes on gender relations in which men almost unilaterally placed themselves above women in an ontological sense? You keep refusing to acknowledge everything the FeMiNiStS on the board try to give you when it comes to both life experience and historical documents.

I will ask you then...

According to your knowledge of history how should women view men and Is a reluctance to trust men based off that history justified?

Which feminists are you straw manning? The only stigma against traditional relationships are where its FORCED. Again, you completely ignored (or perhaps just didn't read) where it was said that these "traditional" model of husband as sole breadwinner and wife as homemaker are relatively recent roles. They're 50s American nostalgia caricatures. They don't represent human history before then and they don't describe the roles of women and men in cultures outside of the Western model.

Feminism specifically used the housewife model as an object of protest so thats why i was addressing it. Again tho tell me, what role did women commonly fill in other cultures? To sum it up and based off history what was the life of the average woman like?

I am on a phone so i cant properly respond to all of this until i get on a computer, but you are equating a system of competency to flat out oppression.

How fast do you think things would gravitate towards these older models if everything crashed? The reality is that men are just more efficient resource gatherers, it is how they are built. Im not saying women cant do the same, but naturally if you have a grester efficienxy to collect resources and hsve resources that others cant acquire as efficiently then a particular way of life and system is going to reflect that. Why would it make sense for women to go out and gather resources if men were better at it? Who would do the things women were accustomed to doing if both men and women were doing the same things? The entire system isnt as efficient when people are doing things they arent as well equipped to do as others and therefore survivability becomes less efficient. Feminists paint this as an opprrssive history unfair to women. You can take examples of abuse, but to allow it to dictate this systems perception as a whole is exactly the issue.

 

[Lyfe]

Also @Lyfe , you never answered this:
So if you could answer that and my previous questions, maybe we could get somewhere.

Opera News - Latest News In United States of America-English | Breaking News

Get the latest United States of America-English news at OperaNewsApp.com: Breaking news and videos in United States of America-English , Football news, Politics, Sports, Entertainment, Tech, Business.

ng.opera.news

 

[Drifter]

I will ask you then...

According to your knowledge of history how should women view men and Is a reluctance to trust men based off that history justified?

Yes, I think a reluctance to trust men is completely justified. Note that I'm not saying hatred. But even my parents (including my dad) would not leave me alone with male family members other than my grandfather when I was a child. It's not just history: it's modern day statistics. I'm sure that even as a man, if you were walking alone late at night and a bigger guy was tailing you, that you would also at the very least be uneasy. Why?

Feminism specifically used the housewife model as an object of protest so thats why i was addressing it.

Probably because it was a model that forced dependance on a husband. If we're talking America (which is the context I assume you're sticking to), women werent allowed to open their own bank accounts until the 70s. That's not healthy division of labor . . . That's infantilizing women.

Again tho tell me, what role did women commonly fill in other cultures? To sum it up and based off history what was the life of the average woman like?

It depends. In hunter gatherer times, women provided up to 70% of the food supply through foraging and hunting small animals. They built shelters, took care of the kids, made clothes and produced various material cultures. Pre-Industrial revolution women often learned their father or husband's trade to ensure their business could still continue if something happened to the man. Women worked in agriculture. They worked in factories. During the world wars they basically kept every industry running. Programming for example was an industry that started as a woman's vocation in WW2. Then they were kicked out when the men returned and the field became more lucrative. There were women who were active in creative spheres as well. It's also important to note that many cultures aggressively pushed women out of the public sphere and prevented them from the opportunity to do something outside of the home. The Greeks ad Romans for example believed that women should not be seen in public. They were two of the most woman-hating societies in history. Look at some of their writings and tell me if those men built their societies with the intention of loving and protecting women. Regardless, women actually did shit. Honestly what do you think women did throughout history? Just pop out babies?

I am on a phone so i cant properly respond to all of this until i get on a computer, but you are equating a system of competency to flat out oppression.

How fast do you think things would gravitate towards these older models if everything crashed? The reality is that men are just more efficient resource gatherers, it is how they are built. Im not saying women cant do the same, but naturally if you have a grester efficienxy to collect resources and hsve resources that others cant acquire as efficiently then a particular way of life and system is going to reflect that. Why would it make sense for women to go out and gather resources if men were better at it? Who would do the things women were accustomed to doing if both men and women were doing the same things? The entire system isnt as efficient when people are doing things they arent as well equipped to do as others and therefore survivability becomes less efficient. Feminists paint this as an opprrssive history unfair to women. You can take examples of abuse, but to allow it to dictate this systems perception as a whole is exactly the issue.

Explain what you mean by men being "more efficient resource gatherers"?

 

[Drifter]

Opera News - Latest News In United States of America-English | Breaking News

Get the latest United States of America-English news at OperaNewsApp.com: Breaking news and videos in United States of America-English , Football news, Politics, Sports, Entertainment, Tech, Business.

ng.opera.news

How is bringing up the stories of 6 evil female rulers answering the question? None of them instituted any kind of gender-based violence against males even within their own societies. The question was for you to name any matriarchal society wherein women treated men the way men have treated women. Still waiting for an answer.

 

[Lyfe]

Again tho you are focusing on specific examples of abuse and inequality in history to paint the conclusion that mens relationship with women is one that is overwhelming defined by abuse, suppression, and mistreatment. Your not even giving it all proper context. Its like taking all the accounts of child abuse in the history of child abuse and using it to paint the picture that parents have been abusive and then use it to justify some kind of reform. Conveniantly enough the state has been doing that for quite some time... Soon kids wont even trust their parents.

Not once have i denied or failed to acknowledge that allot of women werent mistrreated. You simply contend that women have been universally mistreated way more than they have been well treated by men.

Either way ill have to respond properly when i get to a computer, because it would take me a few minutes to respond to specific things in your messages on there whereas it takes 10 minutes.

 

[Maldarker]

Men are expendable. Plain and simple. That's why they where more "efficient" hunter gatherers.

 

[Lyfe]

How is bringing up the stories of 6 evil female rulers answering the question? None of them instituted any kind of gender-based violence against males even within their own societies. The question was for you to name any matriarchal society wherein women treated men the way men have treated women. Still waiting for an answer.

Queens killing men doesnt count?

Women are no different. You give them power and they find ways to abuse it. That much is now self evident. How much have men lost in finances due to divorce? How many wives have just up and taken their kids and left men with nothing just, because they dont feel the same way anymore?

If the point of your question was to somehow demonstrate that women are less inclined to forms of abuse that is false. It just merely comes in different forms if the circumstsnces are allowed.

 

[Drifter]

Again tho you are focusing on specific examples of abuse and inequality in history to paint the conclusion that mens relationship with women is one that is overwhelming defined by abuse, suppression, and mistreatment. Your not even giving it all proper context. Its like taking all the accounts of child abuse in the history of child abuse and using it to paint the picture that parents have been abusive and then use it to justify some kind of reform. Conveniantly enough the state has been doing that for quite some time... Soon kids wont even trust their parents.

Not once have i denied or failed to acknowledge that allot of women werent mistrreated. You simply contend that women have been universally mistreated way more than they have been well treated by men.

Either way ill have to respond properly when i get to a computer, because it would take me a few minutes to respond to specific things in your messages on there whereas it takes 10 minutes.

If you're so determined to prove me wong then please provide the sources to the statements you make because I havent seen much of the positive you mention. None of the stuff mentioned on my end were specific cases of abuse or mistreatment btw. These were laws or cultural codes or things that were considered normal and expected. Like war r*pe.

Queens killing men doesnt count?

Women are no different. You give them power and they find ways to abuse it. That much is now self evident. How much have men lost in finances due to divorce? How many wives have just up and taken their kids and left men with nothing just, because they dont feel the same way anymore?

If the point of your question was to somehow demonstrate that women are less inclined to forms of abuse that is false. It just merely comes in different forms if the circumstsnces are allowed.

We weren't asking for individual instances. It is different because you're comparing individual killing to mass r*pe and abuse. There is literally no comparison. An equivalent example would be a society where women abused men, raped them en mass, created and regulated laws to restrict their economic independence etc. The scale is entirely different and these crimes against women weren't only carried out by the rich and powerful.

 

[Drifter]

Men are expendable. Plain and simple. That's why they where more "efficient" hunter gatherers.

So how does men being more expendable connect with with them being better at it, like Lyfe said?

 

[Drifter]

Not once have i denied or failed to acknowledge that allot of women werent mistrreated. You simply contend that women have been universally mistreated way more than they have been well treated by men.

Yes, you have. When Kerrichinchilla mentioned all of the gender-biased atrocities committed against women, your response was literally "that means nothing, men treated other men worse". And you shut down whatever some of the women here say to mention how abusive patriarchal laws were and why they didn't work for the women we personally knew who lived through them.

 

[Maldarker]

So how does men being more expendable connect with with them being better at it, like Lyfe said?

if i have to tell you then maybe biology is not your strong suit.

 

[Lyfe]

Yes, you have. When Kerrichinchilla mentioned all of the gender-biased atrocities committed against women, your response was literally "that means nothing, men treated other men worse". And you shut down whatever some of the women here say to mention how abusive patriarchal laws were and why they didn't work for the women we personally knew who lived through them.

I didnt discount it. All i have literally been hearing is how awful men have been to women in general and how awful it was to live as a woman at the hands of men. No objectivity about it. No context about the times. Just a history of men abusing and mistreating women. Im not sure if this is really your mindset or if you just want me to acknowledge horrible things that happened to women, but i consider it must be horrifying to live as someone who believes their father, brothers, and men in general are born with an inherint tendency to mistreat and abuse women. Thats the unavoidable and ultimate conclusion of everything you have laid out for me. Either some men were abusive, or most of them... You made it clear that men were just abusive in general.

 

[Drifter]

if i have to tell you then maybe biology is not your strong suit.

No, I'm asking you to apply men's superior brute strength and lower reproductive value to present times. Becase even back in hunter gatherer times, men didn't provide the majority of food sources (largely except for arctic tribes).

 

[Drifter]

I didnt discount it. All i have literally been hearing is how awful men have been to women in general and how awful it was to live as a woman at the hands of men. No objectivity about it. No context about the times. Just a history of men abusing and mistreating women. Im not sure if this is really your mindset or if you just want me to acknowledge horrible things that happened to women, but i consider it must be horrifying to live as someone who believes their father, brothers, and men in general are born with an inherint tendency to mistreat and abuse women. Thats the unavoidable and ultimate conclusion of everything you have laid out for me. Either some men were abusive, or most of them... You made it clear that men were just abusive in general.

So can you provide the broader, more objective historical context of gender relations? I never said men have an inherent tendency to abuse women. I just pointed out the patterns with how men treated women throughout history, regardless of class. I trust the men in my life who have proven they wouldn't hurt me. But I also have men in my family who actually have hurt other women I love, who I steer well clear of. Just becase I know I can trust my father and brother, doesnt mean I trust men as a whole, which I don't. I dont trst women as a whole either but I'm infinitely less terrified that they'll physically hurt me and even if they did, I have a better chance of defending myself. It's just common sense to be weary of men, especially as a woman. Sorry if that's offensive but that's hardly the fault of women.

 

[Maldarker]

No, I'm asking you to apply men's superior brute strength and lower reproductive value to present times. Becase even back in hunter gatherer times, men didn't provide the majority of food sources (largely except for arctic tribes).

You can't equate the two from ancient times to now. It's different men are obsolete.

 

[Lyfe]

So can you provide the broader, more objective historical context of gender relations? I never sad men even inherent tendency to abuse women. I just pointed out the patterns with how men treated women. I trust the men in my life who have proven they wouldn't hurt me. But Ialso have men in my family who actually have hurt other women who I steer clear well clear of. Just becase I know I can trust my father and brother, doesnt mean I trust men as a whole, which I don't. I dont trst women as a whole either but I'm infinitely less terrified that they'll physically hurt me and even if they did, I have a better chance of defending myself. It's just common sense to be weary of men, especially as a woman. Sorry if that's offensive but that's hardly the fault of women.

You kept affirming that women(in a general sense) have suffered abuse and mistreatment at the hands of men and that this reality largely defines the history between both genders. It makes no sense to come to conclusion other than men are abusive toward women by nature. Even patterns are based off of tendencies. Thats basically what your own findings reveal. Men are abusive to women by nature.

 

[Drifter]

You can't equate the two from ancient times to now. It's different men are obsolete.

I'm equating them because lots of men still use the past to assert dominance and superiority over women now. If manhood was staked only in what they provided then sure, men are obsolete.

You kept affirming that women(in a general sense) have suffered abuse and mistreatment at the hands of men and that this reality largely defines the history between both genders. It makes no sense to come to conclusion other than men are abusive toward women by nature. Even patterns are based off of tendencies. Thats basically what your own findings reveal. Men are abusive to women by nature.

It does largely define the relationship between the two genders. You haven't been able to prove otherwise. Its captured in everything from religion to law to art. That's the Genesis 3:16 curse at play -men dominating and brutalizing women. That is what I personally believe. The relationship between men and women has been largely painful and the happy successful ones are the exception.

 

[Lyfe]

I'm equating them because lots of men still use the past to assert dominance and superiority over women now. If manhood was staked only in what they provided then sure, men are obsolete.

It does largely define the relationship between the two genders. You haven't been able to prove otherwise. Its captured in everything from religion to law to art. That's the Genesis 3:16 curse at play -men dominating and brutalizing women. That is what I personally believe. The relationship between men and women has been largely painful and the happy successful ones are the exception.

The problem is nature doesnt change. If men were abusive in mass back then it would still be the same today, laws or not. In fact if men were so abusive by nature women would have no laws today at all protecting them since you so elequantly pointed out when you said men could just overpower women. Your views are bias and inonsistent. Your basically saying that the only thing protecting women from nowadays are laws(which were ironically given by men according to you, the same men that just cant help but subjugate women).

Your views are dishonest. I acknowledge that women have been abused and mistreated, but to conclude that the sweeping majoritty of relationships and marriages were characterized by abuse, subjugation, and mistreatment is dogwater and laughable. Your the one that needs to prove that in a conclusive sense and not just use examples and segments in history that build your argument. Not only that, but apply context that the world was allot different before feminism.

If men were abusive like you say back then it would be apparent today, because their nature has not changed.

You are right when you say scores of women have been mistreated, but to say that defines womens history is utterly dishonest and to teach that to women is dispicable.