The Feminization of Man

Many will accuse me of generalizing, for this is the favourite defence of those seeking to find an escape from insulting or hurtful premises they cannot contradict directly, but I will remind them that any exception to the rule only serves to prove the existence of a rule.

If it were not so then science itself would be impossible and specific studies would have to be conducted for each and every individual alive on any given time.

There would have to be a science focused entirely on me, one on you and every category and label would be absurd and meaningless.

But more than all this, the following critical analysis of man and woman in social contexts are based on my personal observations and deductions and will not be defended using popular beliefs, political-correctness, scientific studies, or any third-party sources even if this is also is possible.

It is clear that one can find a study defending most perspectives making the studies themselves and the way they are conducted questionable.

Those dependants on the assessment of others, to create personal beliefs, inadvertently expose their weaknesses and limitations.

In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable, but in areas where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible a personal assessment, is often, more preferable and constructive.

What follows is my perspective, based on my personal experiences and observations, using my senses and mental faculties.

Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant.

You cannot judge the accuracy of an idea by its popularity but by the strength of its argument, the supporting evidence and the ordered reasonable manner by which it is presented.

I will expect nobody to take my word for anything or to simply agree with me; I actually expect scepticism and personal supporting or contradicting observations to prove or disprove the precision of my opinions.

This entire following text is meant to promote free-thinking and personal intellectual effort and to encourage debate and individual awareness that may promote choices and free-will.

To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but on my apparent human imperfections upon which much speculation can be dedicated.

Care to explain the illogical segue*?

Firstly, generalizations often have value. Instead of making the case for the value you simply make a daisy chained fallacy, making a pre-emptive ad hominem on the basis of guilt by association.

In the latter, exceptions do not "prove" your rule so much as question its validity.

Indeed, and your reliance on your ipse dixit and desire to exclude other realms of study make this a prime candidate for classification as demand-side ratiocination.

Those exclusively dependant on their own accessments, to create personal beliefs, willingly not only expose their weaknesses and limitations but then proceed to rely on them with exclusivity.

I'll also note that this introduction is long past logorrhea and has yet to introduce any validity to your thesis. A thesis that spends most of it's time pre-empting refutation with exlusionary disclaimers 'inadvertently exposes its weaknesses and limitations'.

Unless, of course, personal bias detracts from objectivity.

You can't make a decent case for "personal observation" being more objective than peer-review.

This is a crutch for the inability to survive peer-review.

Huh? Make the case for the irrelevance you claim.

I've never seen someone actually take pride in ipse dixits and an inability to substantiate their opinion, so I'm not sure if this is just another of the "the moon is cheese and don't ask me to proove it" things you do or if you think you can actually substantiate your claim.

Hey, if you can't make a good argument the next best thing is to "provoke thought".

Well, I've exhausted my break time and must go back to work. It's a pity that I only got halfway through the disclaimer.

Craven de Kere

Quote:

Care to explain the illogical segue*?

Just mentioning how small divergence can have large consequences.

Quote:

Firstly, generalizations often have value. Instead of making the case for the value you simply make a daisy chained fallacy, making a pre-emptive ad hominem on the basis of guilt by association.

All human thought is a generalization and a simplification of much more complicated phenomena.

Quote:

In the latter, exceptions do not "prove" your rule so much as question its validity.

I never said my theory is fact.
Can you define fact?

I wouldn't "exclude other realms of study" if it is also noted that these other realms are dependant on and influenced by human factors, as well.
Popularity or labels of quality, themselves a product of systemic forces are no proof of anything.

Quote:

Those exclusively dependant on their own accessments, to create personal beliefs, willingly not only expose their weaknesses and limitations but then proceed to rely on them with exclusivity.

"Exclusivity" is your word, not mine.

I'm only reminding you that even your dependence on second-hand accounts that somehow follow some more objective path is fraught with subjective reasoning.

It's only based on experience with the posting of this subject from other Forums and pre-empts specific replies.

A theory created using personal effort and contemplation is always more beneficial than one that is adopted and accepted.

The first method exposes you to the full spectrum of possibility and forces you to deal with the multiplicity of side-matters connected to the subject, not all of which can be dealt with in a single essay; the second method of knowledge gathering simply offers you the end result the answer.

Quote:

Unless, of course, personal bias detracts from objectivity.

You may have fallen for that myth about objectivity but I have not.

All human thought is subjective.

Quote:

You can't make a decent case for "personal observation" being more objective than peer-review.

This is a crutch for the inability to survive peer-review.

Am I not posting it on a Forum?

Quote:

Huh? Make the case for the irrelevance you claim.

Popularity is not proof of validity.

Someone claiming heliocentric solar systems centuries ago would have been ridiculed by his scientific peers.

Could he offer proof of his theory, at that time? No.

Quote:

I've never seen someone actually take pride in ipse dixits and an inability to substantiate their opinion, so I'm not sure if this is just another of the "the moon is cheese and don't ask me to proove it" things you do or if you think you can actually substantiate your claim.

Define 'proof' and I will offer you some.

Quote:

Hey, if you can't make a good argument the next best thing is to "provoke thought".

No, the next best thing, is to, like you, accept the argument of another.

Quote:

Well, I've exhausted my break time and must go back to work. It's a pity that I only got halfway through the disclaimer.

Funny then how you claim to know I make no arguments.

Off top work, little one, the bourgeoisie demands upon your intellect take precedence over free thinking.
You've replaced one faith for another. Typical.

altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.

A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety.

Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities, its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and adapt.

In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies that were the product of a slavish resentment of all things superior and because of a general decadence caused by attrition and complacency, the paternalistic system has eroded enough to make equalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation possible.

Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers; it is also the expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for peace and stability.

This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made equalitarian, servile moralities essential and vital.

The more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more governable and controllable it becomes. It is therefore understandable why unsettling ideas must be quarantined and eradicated, why free thought must be restricted and why defiance and uniqueness must be controlled and punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.

In our modern western world this dummying-up of the masses has resulted in populations that, despite their relative affluence, learning access and general prosperity, display the apathy, ignorance and naïveté of the less fortunate in third-world countries.

The complete indoctrination of man into artificial [manmade] environments, sometimes demanding behaviours contrary to more primitive natural ones....

....has moreover been facilitated by the gradual diminution of man through unnatural sexual selection...

...re-education and the slow eradication of the, before mentioned, human characteristics that made man a natural dominator and a survivor in a threatening universe.

It is derisive that the very intellectual superiority that resulted in human dominion is also contemporary society's greatest foe, that must be controlled and even narrowed, and the very male spiritual attitude that knelt to no natural demand and accepted no holy authority is now to be atrophied and warped.

Ahhhhhhhh, I thought I was done reading lengthy metascientific mumbo jumbo for the day. I'll come back to read this when I don't already have to study for two highly theoretical anthropology classes tommorrow.

I'm heartened that you don't ascribe it to a conspiracy. But saying it's natural put's it at odds with your previous text (emphasis mine):

Define "human nature" and explain how this alledged process is any less a part of "human nature".

This has a base emotional appeal but in logic it's simply not more than clever wordplay, more prose than critical thought.

You can construct a null hypothesis by making a reverse wordplay that is just as good:

"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its unwillingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."

Do you consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal?

Define "quality" in your accessment.

Yet objectionable to you?

The leap from thought to behavior should be more carefully examined.

There is a causative link, but in proximity it is largely the behavior that is the issue, not mere thought.

Where do you substantiate the behavioral evolutions from proximity being "dummying-up"?

And furthermore, please substantiate your last comment.

I have lived in many 1st and 3rd world countries and will challenge your attempt to substantiate your claim (with personally observed data to boot ).

Craven de Kere
I'm glad you took time off from your busy schedule and from your prestigious profession to acknowledge my presence.

Living up to your expectations, dear sir, is what I'm here for.
A man with your, obvious, intellectual power can only flatter with his interest and attentions.

Quote:

Define "human nature" and explain how this alledged process is any less a part of "human nature".

Ah, very good.
It is one of those terms that need definition. ....

We can say that even the products of the human intellect and human ingenuity are natural consequences of evolution.

I exclude all products of the human mind.

Human interventions within pre-existing (to mans appearance) systems I consider unnatural or artificial.

For example:
If a cow is sick and man injects said animal with chemicals that would otherwise not be available to it thusly saving it from a natural death, I call this an unnatural intervention.

For instance, mans need for resources required vast population that had to be taken out of the natural selection system, through which populations and population health is regulated, and placed in a manmade social/cultural system, we call civilization.

Now we all know the benefits of civilization, but how many have considered the detrimental ramifications and the prices for them?

When we protect the weak and we allow them to propagate, we may be ensuring working hands to collect resources, even if we may tell ourselves it is out of strictly ultruistic motivations, but we are also allowing weakness itself to propagate.

I believe cancer and most mental and physical ailments today are a direct result of overpopulation and the nurturing of flaws within our genetic code.

They are a result of mans intervention upon nature.

Nature has a method of weeding out flaw and weakness, usurping her methods demands further genetic interventions to undo the results; something currently occurring.
The feminization of man is but a symptom of this genetic degradation.

Those most insulted by the implications are the ones most benefiting from the current system and so have an invested interest in maintaining things the way they are.

Comfort and ease are attractive to the human mind weary of suffering and struggle and unsure if it could measure up to natures more stringent and unforgiving standards.
That means you, my 'latin using' friend.

Quote:

This has a base emotional appeal but in logic it's simply not more than clever wordplay, more prose than critical thought.

You can construct a null hypothesis by making a reverse wordplay that is just as good:

"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its unwillingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."

Perhaps you need to think it through first.
I would say the accuracy or inaccuracy of the two phrases can be deduced by how well they adhere to perceivable phenomena.

Anything weak gets assimilated into something stronger by necessity.

The fact that there needs to be a sacrifice made at all, only speaks of weakness.

Now I will recognize that you are realizing the personal implications of what I'm saying and it insults your conformist sensibilities.

This is why you are so forcefully and insultingly objecting to them.

For you the sacrifice of part of your self to survive proves adaptability and therefore superiority when in essence it does the reverse.

By the way isn't it a contradiction to "sacrifice a piece of" and "save an entirety"?

How can you save an entirety and sacrifice a piece of, at the same time?

But you're obviously smarter than me so I'm sure there's a logical explanation

Quote:

Do you consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal?

Yes.

For our species, at least.

Quote:

Define "quality" in your accessment.

All measurements are comparisons of a specific unit to another or of a specific unit to a perceived average.

Quote:

Yet objectionable to you?

When morons get into authority positions simply because they are morons, yes.

When positions of power are inherited and passed down with no effort on the part of the one inheriting, yes.

When idiots hold the same political power as intellectuals, yes.

When this means that individuality will become a thing of a bygone era and the super-organism will replace the organism, yes.

When my individual interests are threatened, by masses of idiots, yes.

When quality takes a back seat to quantity, yes.

Quote:

The leap from thought to behavior should be more carefully examined.

There is a causative link, but in proximity it is largely the behavior that is the issue, not mere thought.

Denial is a terrible thing.

As affluence increases so does complacency.
Human nature.

I appreciate your desire to display your intellectual fortitude by sprinkling Latin amongst your very insightful commentary, but, if I'm not mistaken, this conversation is using the English language.

If you wish to respond by only using Latin, that would be fine with me if you also allow me to show-off my knowledge of Greek by answering you using it.

Now your job, your knowledge of Latin, your car, your portfolio or the labels of social and cultural compliance you place before your name to prove worth, do not interest me and should only be used to wow those in your immediate environment.

I'm sure that towards them a few Latin remarks are enough to make them wonder at your superior mind but towards me they are just a cause of boredom.

I would say that you have replaced religious dogma with the modern scientific dogma, which requires just as much unquestionable faith as the previous one.

You find strength in numbers and your safety and comforts are the things you relish the most.

I believe that because, in our time, science is totally dependant on public funds that its objectivity must be questioned.

Public funds come from public coffers under public control.

We all know what the average public quality of mind is, now don't we?

When science is reliant on moneys that come from a population still believing in ghosts and UFO's, one must wonder at how many theories are denied utterance because they lack absolute substantiation.

When one considers the effects of scientific specialization and the state of the educational system that teaches what to think but not how, one wonders at the objectivity and critical thinking of those engaged in science.

Scientists are human as well and so subject to the same psychological pressures and cultural influences, everybody else is.
Furthermore science is under the jurisdiction of the state, with its own motives and prejudices.

This is one of Craven's "hot buttons.

So, pray tell, what is your definition of "product of natural selection" which, in turn, holds the key to the definition of "natural".

I don't think you do. Nor do I think you can. But I'd be happy to hear how you think you do this.

Afterward, I'd be interested in knowing the basis on which you deem this exclusion worthy. After all, the next question is whether the mind is unatural.

I know, but I am asking for the basis for this distinction.

And upon what do you base the validity of this distinction? This is a textbook naturalistic fallacy, and you need to be able to demonstrate the validity of your construct, simply calling it "natural" and "unatural" according to an arbitrary definition does not make your case.

It's not an axiomatic delineation, as it's eminently arguable that it is simply impossible to escape natural selection. It only evolves to work on different criteria.

Person A = physically strong
Person B = beautiful

Person C = Protects person B, because of Person B's beauty

Person D may describe the transaction as protecting the weak and a divergenve from "natural selection", but the metric of beauty and its influence is part of nature and is a power unto itself.

I'd love to hear your substantiation for this claim. Do note that said ailments occur at a lesser rate today than in less populated ages.

Population density can contribute to many ailments merely because of its relationship with proximity, but to make the case for a causative link of the nature you describe is to ignore more significant causative links.

Man is a part of nature, as are mans' interventions. Mans' interventions can be shown to have lessened said ailments so you will have a hard time making such a simplistic case.

In short, your test of the null hypothesis fails because it again relies on the interpretation of "weakness" in the perception.

You have proposed an axiom. You need to substantiate it or ad qualifiers to address its flawed absolutism and reliance on your interpretation of weakness.

Only if you think sacrifice is always the opposite of save.

By realizing that sacrifice does not always constutute the opposite of save.

See, now we are getting a clear outline.

1) You consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal in the human species.

2) Why do you consider the paternal construct an ideal?

By its nature, individuality is always threatened by masses Wanderer.

The opposite is also true. Think of the "keeping up with the Joneses" soundbyte in comparison to the soundbyte you used.

I like substantiation, and have been asking you for yours only to be met with ranting and insults.

"Who" is this ancestor to whom you compare us?

We might also say that cooporation was found to be superior to the lack thereof...

Whence does this "individuality" come, if not from the above-mentioned socialization?

Why is it a weakness to sacrifice a part to save the whole? Or to change and adapt? Is it not equally weak to accept alien ideas into your own belief system as it is to let your own ideas join another?

Why are the creations of man "artificial"? Is man "artificial"?

Since when do human beings have a predisposition for "peace and stability"?

If it is the fault of the modern world and Judeo-Christian ethics that this "degredation," as you say, has happened, than why would the same "degredation" exist in third-world countries? I thought you were going to nostalgicly remenisce about the "noble savage" archetype.

Is man not still the dominant animal in the world today?

There have always been cultural constraints on sexual expression, most notably on incest, even for the "noble savage".

Not our personal quality, but our social place. I would think you would have known the difference by now.

By this, do you mean "the natural world around us" or "the world that we have built around us"? In the one case, I don't see why you're unhappy, and in ther other, isn't it only natural that we should mirror the things we have built?

Whence come the "natural rules" that ownership has "usurped"?

Are you saying that we are reshaping our own nature? If you are, than who are you to say that that is a bad thing?