Feminist preoccupation with power

Post Reply New Topic

Both very high levels of testosterone, normally associated with strength and very low testosterone levels normally associated with weaker individuals are associated with lower intelligence levels.

Steroids and abnormally elevated levels of testosterone have been shown to kill brain cells, result in violent behavior, as well as increase suicidal tendencies.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/52813.php

Nature does not care if human beings are strong or weak.

Humans create culture and culture provides the ability for physicality no longer to be the main determining factor in survival, or reproduction, as was the case before agriculture, civilization, and the domestication of homo sapiens, through these cultural devices.

Someone brought up Bill Gates. That is an excellent example of the prowess of intelligence over any alpha male advantage provided by physicality.

Bill Gates, in school, by physicality alone, was measured as a wimp, however, his intelligence provided the ability for him to express alpha male behavior, through intelligence, and intellectual bullying of his subordinates on his rise to become a billionaire. It required no "strong armed" tactics, by either him or his associates.

It wouldn't have worked as well on the construction crew, but modern culture provides many opportunities where physicality runs second to intellectual prowess.

Steve Jobs is another good example. Nothing about his physicality suggested physical strength. His mind, his determination, and creativity did not require any time in the gym.

Both individuals became Billionaires without biceps, and both were alpha males, by strength of their minds, not their bodies.

The laws of the jungle never completely disappear, but mental strength has surpassed physicality as the major factor for success in modern culture. The fact that many woman lead corporations and run countries, even a few undeveloped countries, is evidence that brute physicality is not a requirement for ultra success, with the addition of culture in the human primate mix.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the norm among political leaders; one need look no further than 70 year old Nancy Pelosi, and see that this alpha male thing, is nothing like what it was in the past. However there is no doubt that Pelosi was the alpha individual, in what she was able to accomplish, regardless of physical prowess.

Strength is a relative issue among primates; put a 250Lb black belt champion up against a grown male chimpanzee, naked, toe to toe in a fight, and the chimpanzee will more than likely cause great bodily harm as a much smaller,much stronger and more agile primate, with no fancy martial arts training. The difference, the chimpanzee is a wild primate; not a domesticated primate.

However that strength and agility, means nothing in surving as a primate in culture, where intellect has become more important than physicality, in many subsistence opportunities.

Adolph Hitler, for all practical intents and purposes was a wimp in terms of physicality, but as a human being he inflicted an astronomical amount of damage on stronger individuals, through ideology, that has no requirement for muscular strength. An incredible human tool, where the only cultural requirement is language and knowledge, that can be of benefit or danger for others.

Per my previous posts the cultural device of the pill and legal elective birthcontrol has become the great equalizer for women. Culture already provided the opportunities for subsistence generating jobs that did not require physicality, as it relates to strength. The ability to escape caring for a child, a 24-7 activity, made the difference.

Cooperation among human beings is evidenced in prehistory as what made the difference in human survival.

There is evidence that those whom were extremely aggresive as man became domesticated, and further cooperative as a social animal, were destroyed, because cooperation was the requirement for success with the advent of agriculture. This resulted in a level of selective breeding through these cultural changes, that demasculinized human beings as a species.

The prison system continues this unwitting purpose, although, people that do not cooperate with the norms of society, are locked up, rather than killed, at least for the most part. One cannot reproduce in jail, so this has an unwitting impact on selective breeding as well.

There is evidence everywhere one looks that the domestication of human beings continues; now as extensions of machines where very little physical activity is required to the evidenced detriment of basic human health.

Nature could care less if humans are healthy, wealthy, strong, weak, or wise, or destroy the rest of the world, with their technological advances through culture. It is what it is and what we make of it.

The only answer to return to physicality as a sole means of dominance, is to move back in with our primate cousins, and see how that works out, after 12,000 years of domestication.

The prison population might be more likely to surive, but until culture disappears, physicality as it relates to strength is no longer the overall determining factor for success, for either women or men.

If one cares more about the rest of nature, than human beings, giving up culture would be the appropriate thing to do. But it's too late, humans as a species are no longer cut out for it, as a result of cultural influenced breeding for domestication for the last 12,000 years, that continues as we speak.

The greatest evidence of continued domestication in the US, is all types of crime have been steadily decreasing since 1991. Even with evident economic stresses, the tendency towards crime and violence, per the agressive nature of human beings, is continuing to decrease.

I don't think TM or AspieRouge can denie the fact that this girls could knock them or me out with just one hit she is a very good MMA fighter.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAUwcLB1Z_A[/youtube]

I'm not griping about your arrangement, I'm pointing out that you held your marriage arrangement up earlier in this thread as morally superior, stating that feminists (the subject of this thread) are "choosing to openly defy God" by not following your reading of the Christian text on the topic of marriage and men being the "head of the household." I am countering your argument.

And I'm sure plenty of male MMA fighters could knock her out with one hit! But she'd be no match for one of those huge beefcakes on the cover of Musclemag.

As far as the Glamazon goes, WWF is totally fake. Nothing but a spectator sport.

Last edited by AspieRogue on 15 Apr 2012, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, I didn't. I hold the Bible as morally superior to human wisdom. And my statement about feminists "choosing to openly defy God" was a general one about the way they behave and the way they recommend others behave:

Andrea Dworkin:
"Marriage is an institution developed from rape as a practice."
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
"Every woman's son is her potential betrayer, and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks."

Ti-Grace Atkinson:
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist."

Catharine Mackinnon:
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
"All heterosexual intercourse is rape, because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."

Hillary Clinton:
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, fathers, and sons in combat."
(Not the dead soldiers.)

British Labour Party politician Harriet Harman:
"There are not enough airports in the country for all the men who would want to leave if I were Prime Minister."
(Imagine the backlash if this was said about a particular ethnicity, or about women.)

The only problem with that is that the bible God sucks at morality.

Feminists have earned morality points.

Well, abortion-on-demand is a major issue for feminists, but that doesn't earn any morality points IMO.

To say someone "openly defies" something implies that they recognize the moral authority of that thing.

The people who made the statements you list aren't openly defying God because they have not professed to recognize the moral authority of the Bible and certainly not of your reading of it that you take to mean that men are superior and heads of household.

You have made statements throughout this thread denigrating feminists without a willingness to understand the core beliefs of feminism. From wikipedia:



Equality for a group which has less than equality, basically.

Notes on the following statements, aside from the fact that they cannot be evaluated by imposing religious beliefs the speakers do not hold on the speakers:



From the wikipedia page on Andrea Dworkin:




She was apparently a lesbian woman (I just looked her up, having never heard of her) and this was part of her discourse on lesbianism. Most feminists who are not (exclusively) lesbian would probably not find this statement of hers to be relevant to their understanding of feminism.

Your relationship with your wife is indeed a private affair and it is great when people can be happy but you have mentioned it during this thread along as part of your denigration of feminism (the topic of the thread), so I am responding to the information you present as part of your argument against the morality of feminism.



The following link explains that both the Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon quotes listed her are NOT things they said.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp



The point being made in this statement is that the dead are dead, it's the survivors that suffer. A common point about death and not exclusive to feminism. She is pointing out that since the majority of soldiers throughout history have been men, the able adults who did not go to war but who are affected by the men's deaths have been, inordinately, women. Among other points that you cut off about them being rape victims, which they inordinately are in war also. I looked up the speech and it was a speech to an international audience about domestic violence. She was using the allegory of domestic violence being like war in order to draw political support in a way that everyone would find relatable, no matter how bad the situation in their country was, to the cause of stopping domestic violence (I am assuming because she was concerned that in light of more public problems like war going on in some countries, issues like domestic violence which are "secret" wars played out in the walls of houses might not be given the attention they sorely need.)



The "imagine the backlash of this was said about a particular ethnicity or women" does not work in cases where the situation is as shown by this chart:

http://www.ukpolitical.info/female-memb ... iament.htm

"There are currently 145 female MPs, out of a total 650 members of parliament.."

There is gross inequality along gender lines in politics and the opposition that a female politician faces simply being a female politician, let alone one who points out the gross gender inequality that exists (i.e. feminist), is a fact.

The disgusting beefcakes on the cover of muscle mags are so hypertrophied that they can't walk across a parking lot without getting out of breath. She wouldn't have to fight them; she'd just have to walk away.

It's a step up from 'kill everyone in the city except for the young girls, and keep the young girls (whose families you killed in front of them) as sex slaves.'

The right to life ends at birth

Not all of 'em! The point is that there are a lot of really huge guys who are both physically strong as well as heavy. Martial arts are NOT magic. And if the difference in strength and body weight between the assailant and the intended victim is sufficiently great, the victim will lose. Which is what would happen if she tried to fight Mike Jenkins(who is 6'6 and 388lbs), winner of the 2011 Worlds Strongest Man contest, he could easily put her in the ER if he chose to do so.

Beth Pheniox made a career wrestling men in high school and was never pinned plus I know it is fake and it's called WWE they had to change it because the WWF animal rights group made then change to WWE because of copy right infrigment but still she would own you girl power fa life.

he accused me of having a double standard and accused me of speaking in platitudes. did you want there to be something more to it?

it's good that you know how a healthy relationship should work. so you would also understand that dominating your wife does not fit into your description of a "healthy" relationship.

if she wanted you to shave all your body hair off, would you do it?

your gonna give me nightmares D: