631
General Misc. / Re: Aphorismata
« on: May 10, 2013, 12:12:03 am »Sinners praise in others the virtues they find least threatening to themselves.Indeed, this is why it is most profitable (and flattering) to dispense the label of sinner.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Sinners praise in others the virtues they find least threatening to themselves.Indeed, this is why it is most profitable (and flattering) to dispense the label of sinner.
Seemed relevant to the topic. I think most people suffer from confirmation bias, and it's a good idea to explore why men are so resistant to feminism.Depends if one side forgets it's also vulnerable to confirmation bias as it focuses entirely on the other side?
I'll also say I find the EkyannusIII references to accepting biology to be dubious, as there's no reference to any peer reviewed journals to clarify/support his points.I think he's trying to say men are more physically powerful, so women can't fight them off and feminism is hiding that gender strength disparity/that women can't fight them off and so leaving them vulnerable. I don't really agree a bit of upper body strength is a defining issue myself (as I partly noted with my comments about a bread knife between male ribs). Nor do I agree that some "men defending women or women can only move around in groups of two or three" culture is a solution. Though, rather than upper body strength, it might do well to look into male psychosis. You can't treat upper body strength (if it somehow mattered), but you can (self) treat psychosis.
I am glad to see Meyna here, as I believe that makes at least one actual female who is interested in discussing such issues around these parts. I know Three Pound Brain largely reads as biased figures all agreeing with each other, so it would be good to have some female perspectives here.I'm stuck in two camps, wanting a less skewed demographic, but at the same time people are just people here.
eta: If you're interested I'd link this thread to Westeros as I'm curious to see the reactions.Depends on whether you can describe the argument I'm putting forward (you don't have to agree with it, just be able to describe the idea of it correctly). Otherwise I'd be giving permission to link a missinterpretation of my argument, which would be all sorts of train wreck.
each word a weapon and all of that.Hope not. There are weapons and there are scalpels.
It's more like the bishops are unhappy that the rooks are treated as more valuable simply because the subjective rules have given the rooks a move-set that, all other variables constrained, is objectively more advantageous to "chess-tern" society. The revelation is this: having a rook is more advantageous to a player in real-world chess than having a bishop -- but most people who know the rules of chess don't know that. Only those who are interested in the game and have looked into chess theory and want to approach the game with a serious and humble demeanor will learn that fact. And, only those who show an even greater interest will go beyond just knowing that fact; they will actually comprehend it and see it for themselves.Yeah, but what good does comprehending it do if the rules of the game then go on being the exact same as before?
Males have it, it's bad that they have it, and they must accept this badness, but even if they do their opinion about women's rights carries no weight.Like 'Mansplaining'? Such a hypocritical term - because some men demand to be heard but wont listen, this abhorent term advocates for women demanding to be heard, but women not listening at all to men (not even a little bit). Two wrongs making a right, all wraped up into one stupid made up word. Of course it started with some men being belligerant and not listening, I totally grant. I guess I should blame the most those who started the fire, rather than those who fan it. I guess that the term will potentially lock me out from putting out fires shits me as well.
The "male advantage," whatever that may be, is still being realized. The "privilege" part, to me, resides in the fact that so many people, male and female alike, participate in it without even realizing it.
Just because the bully feels bad inside or that he introduces chaos into the system doesn't mean that, as far as those who suffer from his outbursts are concerned, he is not above them in the hierarchy they occupy.Just because someone is a victim, does not mean that their first thought and every thought that comes into their head about their victimisation is accurate.
In our culture, as it stands having evolved to the point it is now, we still see an ingrained superiority of men over women.If it's ingrained in our culture, and you are in that culture, why aren't you cowtowing to the concept right now and saying men are just so the boss of women, Meyna?
Women are expected to respond a certain way in the face of the initiation of this dynamic. There is a lack of empathy towards the submissive, and because the expected roles are different "just because", they become unempathizeable. Women can't be respected until this area of culture evolves past the point of this dynamic.Why not just NOT respond a certain way?
men are still positioned above women in hypermasculine subcultures.Do you want to say that if we can just get women respected in these hypermasculine subcultures, then these hypermasculine subcultures would be fine?
The point is, while in relation to other men, men are at a disadvantage because "womanly" feelings like compassion and empathy are discouraged, men are still in a position above women.I'm trying to understand the crux of the conversation here - I'm almost reading a subtext here that men are always in a position above women? And men have to 'stay their hand' or something in regards to that?
Callan, not intending to further Baztek's descriptive point, per say, how do you respond to the simple statistic that most violent offenders are male?Weve kind of cross posted. Does my reply to Baztek give some responces on that matter?
Not to get personal, but I was in a very brief relationship with a woman prone to extremely violent outbursts. I only got a few slaps and loogies in my face for my trouble, but her next boyfriend she stabbed. The difference here is if I laid a hand on her I could have probably very seriously injured her, while that might not have been the case in reverse. Men can physically overpower women, so I'm not so inclined to start the waterworks for some poor 200 lb. guy who got chased around the house by a girl half his size.This is your story, your life. But to me, you were a victim of domestic violence - and you covered it up. Normalised it. Maybe because you feel your supposed to be tough - not sensitive, not able to be hurt, not soft. Ie, none of the attributes we often associate with women. Because it'd be bad to sensitive...or something.
I absolutely totally agree that if you subconsciously operate on the assumption every man you meet is out to get you, it will show, and that will turn people off from you, thereby feeding that hateful world view and fostering a very vicious cycle.I'm not really talking about a womans POV, but a mans point of view, in regards as to whether he's worth something. Past all the jokes and posturing, I think if a survey looked into it, a terrible amount of men don't feel they have much self worth. The worst cases tend towards violence as a way of taking self worth by force.