In the not so distant future, women may be "farmed" for the purposes of pleasing men, according to Angry Harry, a men's right activist.


if anything, the chances are not so much that women will take over the planet and exterminate the men, but that men will start to 'farm' women for their very own purposes - just like they currently do with cows.

And, quite frankly, unless women in the west get their act together and start supporting men rather than making enemies out of them by supporting divisive feminists who do little more than continually stir up hatred toward them, and who, therefore, also undermine the whole well-being of their very own societies, then they shall surely deserve to be tamed, domesticated and harvested for the good of the planet, and, of course, for the contentment and happiness of the men who dwell upon it!

Source: http://www.angryharry.com/esKirstyWarkGlows.htm




His reasoning?


Listen carefully. Basically, women were designed by Nature to taste good to men when they are hungry; and that, fundamentally, is the end of the matter. The Universe does not seem to have figured out any other long term purpose for them. And even the ancients clearly recognised this by emphasising the important bits of women in their sculptures...

Realistically, women have only got one hope when it comes to having a happy future. They will have to taste good to men. And if they do not do this, then they are toast; because they will have nothing else to offer.

The converse, however, is not true. Men do not have to taste good to women to be of value to them. Without men - nothing. No houses or factories would be built or maintained. No roads would be constructed.

It is men who create, construct, develop, operate and maintain just about everything that represents the progress of humans on this planet.

This all suggests that women are going to have to behave more like women than like men, or they will find themselves heading for a fall.

Source: http://www.angryharry.com/esAreWomenBecomingRedundant.htm






So I guess women will have to act like Barbie again? Or if men want to live like the monks, they will just engineer artifical wombs and women will go extinct. I don't have an opinion on this, it just scares me.

:rofl:

This guy is entertaining.

It's kind of funny that I can kick his ass. Or blow him away with my revolver.

:|

In the not so distant future, women may be "farmed" for the purposes of pleasing men, according to Angry Harry, a men's right activist.



Source: http://www.angryharry.com/esKirstyWarkGlows.htm




His reasoning?



Source: http://www.angryharry.com/esAreWomenBecomingRedundant.htm






So I guess women will have to act like Barbie again? Or if men want to live like the monks, they will just engineer artifical wombs and women will go extinct. I don't have an opinion on this, it just scares me.



lolololol great shit! :nice:

Yeah, good luck with that. :|

Talk about a first post from way out of left field. That first article is like 5 years old.

Sounds like a winning idea to me. I'm all for it! Any idea when they plan to open, and what the cost of a grade-A head of this new cattle will be? (I need to start saving now, 'cause I'll want two or three head.)

Conversely, I read another article -- one not from a whack-job (albeit a whack-job with great ideas) -- suggesting that men will be evolving larger penises, and taller, slimmer and more muscular frames in order to "taste good" to women. I personally hate that idea, because it's too late for me to evolve that stuff. Women should evolve to like plumper, shorter, and moderately impressive men, instead. At least from my point of view.

Oh, as an aside, does Russia (http://russianbridesanddating.com/)count as the first women farm?

This is absolutely hilarious. :rofl:

Realistically, women have only got one hope when it comes to having a happy future. They will have to taste good to men. And if they do not do this, then they are toast; because they will have nothing else to offer.

Never happen in a million years...men will never physically submit to anything remotely related to undergoing the experience of childbirth. Women hold that trump card firmly. The species would just become extinct without them.

I think we need to get back to the original premise where women made the societal decisions and maintained the structure - educating and nurturing the children to assume the leadership duties - while men farmed, hunted and protected the community. Men are only good at short term duty. Tasks that require strength, aggression and the competitive nature that they suffer from. Women, on the other hand, excel in all that involves social involvements and knowledge maintenance. While there are those women with a rabid competitive streak, they are in the minority and easily identified and marginalized. The larger percentage have the ability to think in terms of the good of the whole, and therefore are overwhelmingly superior to men in terms of actual leadership and governance.

Men would be eating their own crap if they didn't know that the women they want to bang are repulsed by sh*t breath. They think in terms of what they want at the moment and not very far beyond that. Even when they "plan" for the future, it's more of an intellectual exercise as opposed to a natural extention of their basic nature. Men suck at what this society has handed them to manage. They'd do better to let it go and give women a shot at running things.

I think we need to get back to the original premise where women made the societal decisions and maintained the structure - educating and nurturing the children to assume the leadership duties - while men farmed, hunted and protected the community. Men are only good at short term duty. Tasks that require strength, aggression and the competitive nature that they suffer from. Women, on the other hand, excel in all that involves social involvements and knowledge maintenance. While there are those women with a rabid competitive streak, they are in the minority and easily identified and marginalized. The larger percentage have the ability to think in terms of the good of the whole, and therefore are overwhelmingly superior to men in terms of actual leadership and governance.

Men would be eating their own crap if they didn't know that the women they want to bang are repulsed by sh*t breath. They think in terms of what they want at the moment and not very far beyond that. Even when they "plan" for the future, it's more of an intellectual exercise as opposed to a natural extention of their basic nature. Men suck at what this society has handed them to manage. They'd do better to let it go and give women a shot at running things.

Although this is a very interesting and certainly unorthodox male "take" on the female psyche, it may be skewed to an overly-favorable "earth-mother" kind of opinion of the gender.

So, should women like Hillary, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Cindy Sheehan be "marginalized" because they show more "masculine" traits?

Unfortunately, it's not as easy as your simplified assessment of the female in general not being as susceptible to raging testosterone as the male of the species.

Your refreshing compliments are appreciated, however.

Angry Harry seems like a jerk with Mother issues...

Although this is a very interesting and certainly unorthodox male "take" on the female psyche, it may be skewed to an overly-favorable "earth-mother" kind of opinion of the gender.

So, should women like Hillary, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Cindy Sheehan be "marginalized" because they show more "masculine" traits?

Unfortunately, it's not as easy as your simplified assessment of the female in general not being as susceptible to raging testosterone as the male of the species.

Your refreshing compliments are appreciated, however.

"Best fit" is the phrase here. A hetero-oriented woman who develops natural tendencies toward leadership may choose a partner who is comfortable or even submissive to her leadership. Her man (or men, as Catherine the Great would have it) reigned in their testosterone as a rule.

"Best business practice" is another phrase that fits. While the teenage boy who has concentrated his talents in athletics would be the best choice for a co-ed dodge-ball team (sorry girls), the outgoing bookworm-girl would likely be a better choice than the jock for class president. One could reverse the genders in this scenario, with the same results. These are fun scenarios to spring on people one suspects of "isms". Important to separate the gangsters from those who are truly interested in advancing civilization.

Although this is a very interesting and certainly unorthodox male "take" on the female psyche, it may be skewed to an overly-favorable "earth-mother" kind of opinion of the gender.

So, should women like Hillary, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Cindy Sheehan be "marginalized" because they show more "masculine" traits?

Unfortunately, it's not as easy as your simplified assessment of the female in general not being as susceptible to raging testosterone as the male of the species.

Your refreshing compliments are appreciated, however.

Anyone, male or female, who exhibits the traits of power lust for power's sake should be marginalized for the good of the whole. More women than men would be capable of handling the power given to them, no doubt due to general hormonal balances and the impact of the brain of those balances. To keep us from having to keep tossing *******s into big friggin' woodchippers all day long, it'd be easier to just reduce the potential percentage of power-mad jerks by restricting the entire male population from positions of ultimate authority. Then, if a Hillary slips through, she can be easily identified and dispatched appropriately. The leaders serve the public. Only way to get that little balance established is to cut down on the testosterone in the halls of government. Oh...and castrate the asshats that run the big companies.

Maybe castrating those f-kers should be the first thing we get to. The rest we can phase in as we go along.

Sorry, I don't readily fall for all this "aren't women great because they are so caring and sharing" bullshit rhetoric meant to conceal the inherent misogyny in popular science's somewhat dubious claims that gender inequity is biologically determined, part of our evolutionary destiny, as it were, and thus immutable and ultimately resistant to social change. I consider this stuff little more than a highbrow interpretation of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". In other words, more Pop-Psychology clap-trap, tarted up as "science" to justify the oppression of women on the grounds that evolution has created us as inconvenient adjuncts to our wombs, while giving men a renewed sense of entitlement and privilege by citing their "traditional" roles as hunters and gatherers to prop up the argument that they are "natural" leaders and decision makers.

While there is a grain of truth in many of the hypothesis put forward by evolutionary scientists, they tend to downplay, or overlook altogether how these so-called gender-based power structures are shaped by external forces, namely the ones men have put into place to ensure that their domination over women (and just about everything else on the planet) remains unchallenged.

Men and women will behave in ways that will reap at least short-term benefits for them, and are more often than not, rewarded for conforming to gender stereotypes as opposed to confounding expectation by rejecting them. Imagine the conviviality and friendship I could engender on these boards alone if I stuck to the unofficial script that women are expected to follow and limited my participation to making squealy, conciliatory comments along the lines of "can't we all just get along, guys?" My failure to appease men on demand by not adhering to the "girl rule" implicit on such forums does not mean I am operating under the influence of a defective womb, but rather with the acquired knowledge that adhering to gender stereotypes is a worthless and ultimately, dangerous endeavor.

Suzuran - Rookie of The Year. No contest.

Sorry, I don't readily fall for all this "aren't women great because they are so caring and sharing" bullshit rhetoric meant to conceal the inherent misogyny in popular science's somewhat dubious claims that gender inequity is biologically determined, part of our evolutionary destiny, as it were, and thus immutable and ultimately resistant to social change. I consider this stuff little more than a highbrow interpretation of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". In other words, more Pop-Psychology clap-trap, tarted up as "science" to justify the oppression of women on the grounds that evolution has created us as inconvenient adjuncts to our wombs, while giving men a renewed sense of entitlement and privilege by citing their "traditional" roles as hunters and gatherers to prop up the argument that they are "natural" leaders and decision makers.

Interesting. I see the "hunter/warrior" mentality as being that which prevents men from being competent leaders and decision makers at the macro level. Competition is anathema to sound judgment. You can't have a vision of the future if you're always looking over your shoulder. Testosterone causes aggressiveness in human beings. That's just plain biology. There are women who have decided to be hyper-aggressive as a result of having to compete with way testosterone affects men who suffer from too much of it. Leaders should be above aggression and competition. Not encumbered by an overabundance of it. If aggresively dominant and competitive women want to work with the men to provide their society with the kinds of service that profit from that kind of activity, then they should be welcomed within the ranks. If a man is capable of truly controlling his biological urge to dominate, then he should be allowed to join in with the larger matters of governance. This isn't about stereotype advancement. This is about the utilization of general biological tendencies for the good of the society. Like not putting midgets on your basketball team.

While there is a grain of truth in many of the hypothesis put forward by evolutionary scientists, they tend to downplay, or overlook altogether how these so-called gender-based power structures are shaped by external forces, namely the ones men have put into place to ensure that their domination over women (and just about everything else on the planet) remains unchallenged.

In more primitive tribal cultures, women often have the leadership position, and their authority is backed up by the physical strength of the men of the tribe. This is likely the most healthy arrangement, and likely the most natural arrangement for human communities.

Men and women will behave in ways that will reap at least short-term benefits for them, and are more often than not, rewarded for conforming to gender stereotypes as opposed to confounding expectation by rejecting them. Imagine the conviviality and friendship I could engender on these boards alone if I stuck to the unofficial script that women are expected to follow and limited my participation to making squealy, conciliatory comments along the lines of "can't we all just get along, guys?" My failure to appease men on demand by not adhering to the "girl rule" implicit on such forums does not mean I am operating under the influence of a defective womb, but rather with the acquired knowledge that adhering to gender stereotypes is a worthless and ultimately, dangerous endeavor.

When in Rome.....

What I am suggesting is not what would work in this society as it is structured right now. The reason is because men structured this society, and women who are tired of being shat on by this society can only see that being like men will give them the ascendance that they know they deserve. It's like when I grew up as an Irish/French boy in an Italian section of the city. You either acted Italian (as in NYC Italian) or you were shut out of everything around you. It didn't mean that the only right way to act was to act like an Italian in NYC. It meant that since you were living in an Italian section of NYC, it'd probably be best to try and fit in.

The whole "short-term benefit" notion is masculine in essence. It's flawed and myopic, and is why both western culture and our society in particular is so damaged. The leaders think in 3 month intervals, (financial quarters for the most part) and then race around to adjust for the next 3 months once that 3 months has played itself out. Meanwhile, the east and the middle east thinks in terms of decades and centuries, and chuckle to themselves at how aimless and frantic we are when we try to deal with them. Women in the east and middle east are oppressed, but the feminine concept of the extended community is very strong there. Here, it's every man for himself - with the largest unit of communal identity being the nuclear family. We all battle each other for survival and wonder why we feel so alienated. Over there, they kill others over violations against the least of their own kind - their ethnic tribe, in most instances. No one is alone there. No one is seeking the short term benefit. We haven't won a war since reaching beyond the confines of the western world for conflict, and we won't. We're like a sprinter in a marathon race that doesn't understand why the others let him run ahead in the beginning. He thinks he's winning until he drops from exhaustion and the rest run past him and on to the rest of the race. That's a very masculine way of seeing things. Sheer power and no stamina.

Biology is what it is. Masculine and feminine are the result of hormonal influences on the developing brain. Hate it if you wish, but there's nothing you can do about it.

Actually Nor would be my other vote for ROTY.

Actually Nor would be my other vote for ROTY.

By the time this little dust-up of ours clears there may be a rookie champion to emerge. Not that I, as a pretty typical guy with all the requisite warts and pimples of my gender affliction, feel overtly competitive in the matter. :D

"Best fit" is the phrase here. A hetero-oriented woman who develops natural tendencies toward leadership may choose a partner who is comfortable or even submissive to her leadership. Her man (or men, as Catherine the Great would have it) reigned in their testosterone as a rule.

"Best business practice" is another phrase that fits. While the teenage boy who has concentrated his talents in athletics would be the best choice for a co-ed dodge-ball team (sorry girls), the outgoing bookworm-girl would likely be a better choice than the jock for class president. One could reverse the genders in this scenario, with the same results. These are fun scenarios to spring on people one suspects of "isms". Important to separate the gangsters from those who are truly interested in advancing civilization.

What I would really like to have evolve is that the average Western civilization male ( I have no background in Eastern civilizations, and so can't make an informed comment about that ) would cease being so aggressively defensive and actually afraid of women being on a more equal footing with them. It seems that so many of these men still feel like they're somehow less "male" and thereby personally diminished if a woman shows intelligence and has the actual thinking capacity qualifying her for a co-leadership role on equal footing with him.
This internal and ingrained male prejudice is something that most women have had to work around constantly in their lives, always aware of it and thereby walking a personal tightrope, both seeking to develop their own intelligence, yet not appearing too capable in order to appease this pervasive male fear.
Partners on equal footing, where each of them appreciates and enriches the other's gender strengths, is the ideal symbiosis between men and women. In other words, working in tandem. I have no idea why this basically simple concept is so difficult to achieve. And yes, I don't believe it's entirely about testosterone, but more pervasively cultural, as discussed above.

What I would really like to have evolve is that the average Western civilization male ( I have no background in Eastern civilizations, and so can't make an informed comment about that ) would cease being so aggressively defensive and actually afraid of women being on a more equal footing with them. It seems that so many of these men still feel like they're somehow less "male" and thereby personally diminished if a woman shows intelligence and has the actual thinking capacity qualifying her for a co-leadership role on equal footing with him.
This internal and ingrained male prejudice is something that most women have had to work around constantly in their lives, always aware of it and thereby walking a personal tightrope, both seeking to develop their own intelligence, yet not appearing too capable in order to appease this pervasive male fear.
Partners on equal footing, where each of them appreciates and enriches the other's gender strengths, is the ideal symbiosis between men and women. In other words, working in tandem. I have no idea why this basically simple concept is so difficult to achieve. And yes, I don't believe it's entirely about testosterone, but more pervasively cultural, as discussed above.

Why do you make the Baby Jesus cry?

Shit, Que sera, sera is another really neat poster. Some very cool n00b's this year.

Why do you make the Baby Jesus cry?

Huh.

So, is that your stock quote, or something? :D

These are good times for the progress of gender issues. It is likely that now we (Western Civ) are better balanced than at any time since the hunter-gatherer times. We have a long ways to go, but minimizing the influence that ignorant people have on who attains power will give the human race a chance to make that final step towards a true meritocracy. You achieve your position based on your talents, rather than base genetic traits.

100 years ago many people would have said this was a utopian pipe dream.

"Biology is what it is. Masculine and feminine are the result of hormonal influences on the developing brain. Hate it if you wish, but there's nothing you can do about it."

Again, my point is not to dismiss the posited theories of evolutionary science, but to caution against blindly embracing such notions as verifiable truths. After all, it wasn't so long ago that "science" was used to advance the cause of colonialism, conveniently assigning the "other" attributes specific to their "race". Brutal practices such as slavery became more palatable to otherwise "enlightened" people when science could assure them that Africans, for example, were a sub-sect of humanity, and as such, incapable of real suffering. Today similar methods are applied to gender as a way for men to negotiate a world that is no longer delineated in the clear, stark terms of the old patriarchal order. I would argue that gender, not unlike race, is a largely false construct; one that has been put in place to uphold Western male conceptions of themselves as in control and dominant over those they deem inferior or "less developed". Contemporary discourse on so-called gender differences cleverly conceals its misogynistic underpinnings, but the message is still the same. "Women are wired for child rearing" and men are more suited to tasks that pay better".

"Biology is what it is. Masculine and feminine are the result of hormonal influences on the developing brain. Hate it if you wish, but there's nothing you can do about it."

Again, my point is not to dismiss the posited theories of evolutionary science, but to caution against blindly embracing such notions as verifiable truths. After all, it wasn't so long ago that "science" was used to advance the cause of colonialism, conveniently assigning the "other" attributes specific to their "race". Brutal practices such as slavery became more palatable to otherwise "enlightened" people when science could assure them that Africans, for example, were a sub-sect of humanity, and as such, incapable of real suffering. Today similar methods are applied to gender as a way for men to negotiate a world that is no longer delineated in the clear, stark terms of the old patriarchal order. I would argue that gender, not unlike race, is a largely false construct; one that has been put in place to uphold Western male conceptions of themselves as in control and dominant over those they deem inferior or "less developed". Contemporary discourse on so-called gender differences cleverly conceals its misogynistic underpinnings, but the message is still the same. "Women are wired for child rearing" and men are more suited to tasks that pay better".

The science of testosterone is fairly well established in the sports world where athletes illegally use testosterone boosters to increase their competitive aggression and physical strength. Women and men are biologically different from each other. It's not like the difference between men of different races, or women of different races. There is a difference in the fundamental brain mapping structure between the male and the female that is detectable in brain scanning and MRI technology available to us. When triggered by external stimuli, the differences between the average male brain and the average female brain, in direct response to that stimuli, are palpable and measurable at a physiological level. This is not to suggest that either brain structure is superior. This is only to suggest that they are unique to gender.

Gender differences do exist. The entire anatomical structure is different between males and females. It's holistic in nature, and the brain is not somehow detached and unaffected by these wholesale differences between the male and the female. The brain is just one part of the whole and is what runs the entire anatomy. It's impossible for it to be separate from the maleness or femaleness of the rest of the body. That notion just doesn't make sense.

This does not imply that males are superior in any manner to females. It does suggest, however, that there are certain realities concerning tendencies that may relate to the physiological differences between the two genders as expressed in the homo sapien. These tendencies may have been isolated and promoted by societies to the advancement of males and the detriment of females, but that has been to the detriment of societies as a whole - at least in my way of seeing things. In my view, women and men each have contributions to make to the community, and either amplifying or diminishing either's contribution, to the level of distortion, hurts the community and the contributors equally.

I keep making the statement that men have damaged this society through their belligerent efforts to dominate the women who share this society with them. I agree with you that women deserve equal treatment and consideration for what they contribute to the whole. It is the society itself that determines the value of each person's contribution, and with 50% of the composition, maybe it's time that women just take what is rightfully theirs and finally put men in their place. It's no longer about brute strength. Women have the available technologies to make them as "strong" and impactful as men. As a man, I would be happy to see the patriarchal bullshit of this society finally blown to hell.

That doesn't mean that I'd want to see women acting like men. In fact, if they did, nothing would improve at all for us. Women are women, acknowledging the various expressions of the individual within each gender pool, and men are men. I just happen to believe that women have a more refined genetic aptitude for societal maintenance than men do. From that initial point, it (of course) comes down to the individual, and their own unique expression.

I just want to see grown-ups in charge of things for a change. God knows, it's been a complete clusterf-k so far.

If Western women, most of whom have the relative freedom and standard of living not afforded to females in many developing "third world" countries, would also begin setting aside their own male stereotypes when raising their male children, this also might go a very long way toward the emergence of a more tolerant, and also more confident male, who has less need to view women specifically as the general "homemaker" while assuming the exclusively dominant role in heterosexual relationships.
Male children should be expected to learn to pick up after themselves, do their own laundry, and cook, for example. There is absolutely no specific gender-based reason why men cannot do these tasks, these are not "female duties".
The mother is the first close adult in almost every child's early life, and if they show their sons nurturing love, yet do not treat them as entitled and somehow superior citizens, these sons will not carry those attitudes into adult life, and view women specifically as just mothers or homemakers, or feel threatened by them, either. Women must teach their sons compassion, tolerance, and the ability to logically think through any conflict. Of course, physical violence at times has its righteous place in this world, but not as the only option in settling a dispute.
I think this idea follows along with Nor's idea of women in general being more able to see the larger picture about events than men in general do.
I firmly believe that the child's mother is the key to any possible emergence of such an "enlightened" male of the future.
Women should be aware of their own perpetuation of both male and female stereotypical behaviors. Of course there are inherent and obvious physical and mental-process differences between the genders, but Western society has in general re-emphasized the most counterproductive of these in recent history.

Just as "weapons of mass destruction" became the buzzword of the corporate media in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq as a means to shore up public support for Shock'n'Awe, proving that the US media serves as the propaganda arm for the corporate/military complex, you have to ask yourself what is behind the same establishment's relentless and uncritical embrace of all things gender-based?

Again, I am not disputing the physiological differences between men and women. Nor do believe that humans (or animals for that matter) come into this world as "blank slates". The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker argues quite convincingly against the notion that certain traits of personality, behavior and intelligence are wholly determined by external factors ("nurture" trumping "nature" if you will). But that's not to say that a genetic pre-disposition towards, say, violence, can't be ameliorated by circumstances and influences that could minimize the chances of such an individual acting upon the impulses inscribed in his/her DNA.

The Colombine shooters, for example, might have shared a genetically determined propensity for violence - a tendency that was arguably brought to the fore by their easy access to weapons, constant exposure to violent materials, not to mention the failure of their parents and the medical profession to address their apparent psychological problems. The statistically remote probability of two such individuals being in such close proximity to one another, feeding off the other's pathologies, may have also played a role in the ensuing massacre. Call it the perfect storm, if you will; a seemingly random confluence of factors that ignited these killer's internal incindiery devices. Had circumstances been different, who's to say if these boys couldn't have led "normal" lives, despite the inherent flaws in their genetic make-up. Unfortunately, science has had a long history of ascribing such flaws to "race" and "gender". The only thing that has changed is the condescendingly flattering tone in which these theories are put forth. (Same sh*t, different a**h**e might be a more succinct analogy.) By the same token, education and overall awareness play an equally critical role in alleviating the sometimes devastating effects of the what could potentially be a ticking time bomb wired into our genetic codes.

No doubt extreme mood swings in women can be attributed to the surging hormone levels brought about by ovulation and pregancy. But these can be minimized with the knowledge that the sudden urge to say, go all Lizzy Borden on the spousal unit's ass for the slightest transgression, is merely a physiological phenomonen and once acknowledged as such, is easily controllable, and more or less insignificant in the larger scheme of things - namely how the body's basic physiological functions (particularly how they pertain to women) are twisted and interpreted to serve the interests of the patriarchal establishment.

Again, I would argue that both concepts of race and gender are largely superficial constructs manufactured to maintain the primacy of the white male establishment whenever their authority is challenged. The glut of recent media attention to every gender-based hypothesis put out by the corporatocracy (and the adjunct self-help industry that has spawned countless titles devoted to reminding women that their brains aren't wired to read maps) gives impetus to the notion that there is indeed "intelligent design" behind this sudden fascination with the "gender gap", particularly in light of the current media-led backlash against feminism and the ascendency of the "frat-pud" asswipe male as an iconic, "maverick" figure in popular entertainment. Don Imus, David Duchovny, Dennis Leary (to name just a few) have earned countless awards and kudos for portraying (or in the case of Imus et al giving voice) to the existential dilemmas faced by the contemporary pale male coming to grips with the loss of his entitlements, while women in popular entertainment are largely pre-occupied with wedding planning and have no intellectual or interior lives to speak of. This is just one example of our society's growing pre-occupation with all things "Venus and Mars", from "chick lit" and "chick-flicks" right down to the ever expanding production lines of Princess-themed toys for girls. And let's not forget the media's constant scapegoating of perennial girl/women like Britney Spears for proving that conforming to pornulated, male-driven ideals of sexuality is a worthless and ultimately self-destructive endeavor. Then again, it's serves the higher purpose of science to attribute "bad behavior" in girls to an innate, evolution-based inability to drive and handle large sums of money.

Women should not worry their pretty little heads about such things...


*leaves board, rapidly*

Women should not worry their pretty little heads about such things...


*leaves board, rapidly*

Stick around, Z-Man. Your honesty is refreshing. ;)

Again, I would argue that both concepts of race and gender are largely superficial constructs manufactured to maintain the primacy of the white male establishment whenever their authority is challenged.

this is false, and the prevalence of this belief among ostensibly educated people probably stems from the utter intellectual bankruptcy of american schooling, higher ed., especially.

angry harry's response to the current gynocracy/gerontocracy is typically feminine, since 'women' are not to blame; emasculated older men are (the greatest generation, which should be more honetly called the WORST GENERATION) to blame.

mediocrity and submissiveness are valued for both males & females, so that better cubicle drones will donate more of their waking hours to the corporation and indulge in mindless consumerism, sex, and idiotic pop culture.

the amerikwan dream.

:not:

this is what millions of american soldiers died to secure. too bad it will soon be eclipsed with the rise of china.

Women were not "oppressed" in the past. Domesticity was just a bigger job, so they could not join the men. Remeber women had more babies in the past? More babies in the past died as well. Plus, as Angry Harry reasons, most of the men's jobs are not much fun, as in weight lifting and hauling lumber, which broke down men's bodies by the time they were in their 30s. So women acutally had it easier in the past than men and I suppose that explains the misogny.

Just as "weapons of mass destruction" became the buzzword of the corporate media in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq as a means to shore up public support for Shock'n'Awe, proving that the US media serves as the propaganda arm for the corporate/military complex, you have to ask yourself what is behind the same establishment's relentless and uncritical embrace of all things gender-based?

There is no doubt that stereotypes are amplified by our media to the benefit of those people who own that media structure. I totally agree with you on this.

Again, I am not disputing the physiological differences between men and women. Nor do believe that humans (or animals for that matter) come into this world as "blank slates". The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker argues quite convincingly against the notion that certain traits of personality, behavior and intelligence are wholly determined by external factors ("nurture" trumping "nature" if you will). But that's not to say that a genetic pre-disposition towards, say, violence, can't be ameliorated by circumstances and influences that could minimize the chances of such an individual acting upon the impulses inscribed in his/her DNA.

The Colombine shooters, for example, might have shared a genetically determined propensity for violence - a tendency that was arguably brought to the fore by their easy access to weapons, constant exposure to violent materials, not to mention the failure of their parents and the medical profession to address their apparent psychological problems. The statistically remote probability of two such individuals being in such close proximity to one another, feeding off the other's pathologies, may have also played a role in the ensuing massacre. Call it the perfect storm, if you will; a seemingly random confluence of factors that ignited these killer's internal incindiery devices. Had circumstances been different, who's to say if these boys couldn't have led "normal" lives, despite the inherent flaws in their genetic make-up. Unfortunately, science has had a long history of ascribing such flaws to "race" and "gender". The only thing that has changed is the condescendingly flattering tone in which these theories are put forth. (Same sh*t, different a**h**e might be a more succinct analogy.) By the same token, education and overall awareness play an equally critical role in alleviating the sometimes devastating effects of the what could potentially be a ticking time bomb wired into our genetic codes.

Again, no argument. The rarity of Columbine style events - considering just how violent our society is in its choices of entertainment and foreign policy focus - is evidence of just how unusual it is for wholesale mayhem to be "hardwired" into a person's brain, regardless of genetic predisposition. Then again, the smaller - less spectacular - expressions of that genetic predisposition, in the form of bullying and certain forms of fanaticism, are plentiful across the entire planet. It may just be a case of how ambitious the individual in question happens to be. The Columbine twins were nothing if not ambitious.

No doubt extreme mood swings in women can be attributed to the surging hormone levels brought about by ovulation and pregancy. But these can be minimized with the knowledge that the sudden urge to say, go all Lizzy Borden on the spousal unit's ass for the slightest transgression, is merely a physiological phenomonen and once acknowledged as such, is easily controllable, and more or less insignificant in the larger scheme of things - namely how the body's basic physiological functions (particularly how they pertain to women) are twisted and interpreted to serve the interests of the patriarchal establishment.

My brother in-law is gay. As he gets older, it's become more and more of a burden to him and his ability to put together a personal life that he can feel confident will serve him well into his later years. He would so much rather not be a gay man, but it's not something he has a choice over. He's been a gay male since he first began maturing enough to become sexual.

For him, the "gender" thing is very real and very much a part of his life. He's not just a guy who "likes to bang guys". He's basically a middle age woman in a man's body and he's not happy with how that ended up being the case for him. It's not something he can "get over" and straighten out from. It's who he is at the core of himself. There is research that has been able to actually see the difference between straight males and males like him with MRI imaging of the brain. It's real and it's not a case of choice or conditioning.

Again, I would argue that both concepts of race and gender are largely superficial constructs manufactured to maintain the primacy of the white male establishment whenever their authority is challenged. The glut of recent media attention to every gender-based hypothesis put out by the corporatocracy (and the adjunct self-help industry that has spawned countless titles devoted to reminding women that their brains aren't wired to read maps) gives impetus to the notion that there is indeed "intelligent design" behind this sudden fascination with the "gender gap", particularly in light of the current media-led backlash against feminism and the ascendency of the "frat-pud" asswipe male as an iconic, "maverick" figure in popular entertainment. Don Imus, David Duchovny, Dennis Leary (to name just a few) have earned countless awards and kudos for portraying (or in the case of Imus et al giving voice) to the existential dilemmas faced by the contemporary pale male coming to grips with the loss of his entitlements, while women in popular entertainment are largely pre-occupied with wedding planning and have no intellectual or interior lives to speak of. This is just one example of our society's growing pre-occupation with all things "Venus and Mars", from "chick lit" and "chick-flicks" right down to the ever expanding production lines of Princess-themed toys for girls. And let's not forget the media's constant scapegoating of perennial girl/women like Britney Spears for proving that conforming to pornulated, male-driven ideals of sexuality is a worthless and ultimately self-destructive endeavor. Then again, it's serves the higher purpose of science to attribute "bad behavior" in girls to an innate, evolution-based inability to drive and handle large sums of money.

You make good points, but there is a limit to how much is nurture in a person. Two brothers grow up together and one becomes a normally functioning member of society and the other becomes a serial killer, driven by demons to kill and that urge completely out of control in his life. Same nurture - very different results. Two children growing up in Germany in the 30s. One spends his youth in relative comfort and security and the other spends his youth as a prisoner in a concentration camp, and yet both go on to become recognized world leaders, bringing positive contribution to the world. How are these explained? My brothers are extremely capable men who completely lack any artistic or creative ability at all. I, on the other hand, while not as capable in "traditional" endeavors, excel in the creative arts that I've embraced since childhood. So, where is the logic in that? We were all raised exactly the same and only separate from each other by one and one half years in age at the most.

Nature and nurture is unevenly balanced in all of us. That said, I agree that women are dismissed by this - and all - patriarchal societies. And why wouldn't it be? If men are in charge of these societies, then where is the surprise in the designed-in structure to advance men?

Wome should just take what they need and force men to accept it. Men desperately need women in order to anything to sustain in any society. Women need to leverage that need for their own advancement and stop expecting that men will allow them that advancement. They won't. Women will have to take what they want if they really want it. No one, who has power, will ever give that power away. It must be taken.

My brother in-law is gay. As he gets older, it's become more and more of a burden to him and his ability to put together a personal life that he can feel confident will serve him well into his later years. He would so much rather not be a gay man, but it's not something he has a choice over. He's been a gay male since he first began maturing enough to become sexual.

For him, the "gender" thing is very real and very much a part of his life. He's not just a guy who "likes to bang guys". He's basically a middle age woman in a man's body and he's not happy with how that ended up being the case for him. It's not something he can "get over" and straighten out from. It's who he is at the core of himself. There is research that has been able to actually see the difference between straight males and males like him with MRI imaging of the brain. It's real and it's not a case of choice or conditioning.

Just a note: He sounds like he's not only gay, but probably also transgendered. This is an important distinction. Transgendering is, as you mention, is the feeling as if the individual is in a body which does not "match" their own internalized gender identity. Just a small point to be made concerning this: Not all gay men feel as conflicted to this extreme genderwise in their physical attraction preferences.
However, I do agree with you concerning the MRI brain imaging and the inherent unique processing capabilities of this kind of brain. It definitely has nothing to do with any kind of "will" to "straighten out", as is physically apparent in these brain scans.

You make good points, but there is a limit to how much is nurture in a person. Two brothers grow up together and one becomes a normally functioning member of society and the other becomes a serial killer, driven by demons to kill and that urge completely out of control in his life. Same nurture - very different results. Two children growing up in Germany in the 30s. One spends his youth in relative comfort and security and the other spends his youth as a prisoner in a concentration camp, and yet both go on to become recognized world leaders, bringing positive contribution to the world. How are these explained? My brothers are extremely capable men who completely lack any artistic or creative ability at all. I, on the other hand, while not as capable in "traditional" endeavors, excel in the creative arts that I've embraced since childhood. So, where is the logic in that? We were all raised exactly the same and only separate from each other by one and one half years in age at the most.

Nature and nurture is unevenly balanced in all of us.

Personal anomalies aside, I must disagree somewhat with your assertion. I believe that a nurturing, consistant, and loving "mother" presence goes a long way towards neutralizing any aberrant inherent genetic tendencies. If a child, any child, does not have a consistent and reassuring response from either, and preferably both, parents, they are more likely to "act out" later on in their own maturation, because they do not have that positive base of perceptional feedback that nurturing parental guidance provides.
It's also very possible that children, even within the same family, and also having the same parents, may have a very different environment from one another, due to familial circumstances which can change and shift throughout the history of that particular family. This is why birth order appears to have some validity in adult personality tendencies.
Please understand that I'm not implying that in all cases this "nurture" aspect can negate the "nature" inherent within the individual, but that it may "soften" the already inherent biological influence.

That said, I agree that women are dismissed by this - and all - patriarchal societies. And why wouldn't it be? If men are in charge of these societies, then where is the surprise in the designed-in structure to advance men?

Women should just take what they need and force men to accept it.


Oh no, you must understand that this would be extremely dangerous. It would only "set off" those particular already insecure males who are already feeling diminished concerning their own masculinity, and only invoke a defensive and violent response.

Men desperately need women in order to anything to sustain in any society.

In some respects true, but most men, in Western society at least, would never fully admit this to themselves. It's become culturally taboo to relinquish their masculinity and perception of inherent male "superiority" in this way.

Women need to leverage that need for their own advancement and stop expecting that men will allow them that advancement. They won't. Women will have to take what they want if they really want it. No one, who has power, will ever give that power away. It must be taken.

No, I must stringently disagree with you here. This is a typically "male" notion you invoke with this idea. There will be absolute hell to pay if the women attempt to take it in such a forceful way. These overly-assertive females will be victimized, because these men, already feeling vulnerable and diminished in stature, will fight back, and brutalize women if any confrontation came about in this manner. This is not the solution, by any means.