What's Left for Men?

[Awar]

Correct. Women, on the whole, are no more "peaceful" or "nurturing" than men. Accordingly, "alpha females" can be every bit as ruthless as "alpha males." In some contexts, the former are often infinitely more so.

All in all, however, this is a trite thread spawned by an equally trite article. *snore*

I'm really surprised that an intelligent girl like you still doesn't comprehend the difference between exception and the rule.

If 99.9% of women have a certain nature, and 0.01% has a different nature,
that doesn't really mean anything. I know that 0.01% is more capable, more aggressive, and less nurturing etc. but, society should not be tailored to fit
a small minority.

In fact, society should be tailored to be mature enough to recognize exceptions and respect and honour them, but these exceptional women ( or men ) should also learn to recognize the limitations of ordinary people.

If SOME women are 'Alpha-females' and happy with it, MOST women shouldn't be made to conform to the rules of the FEW. It leads to unhappiness, and ultimately it returns to chaos, and back to square one.

If YOU are intelligent enough to try not to fit yourself into some mold,
why do YOU expect other women to be the same like YOU?
People are different, everyone has their limits set not only by society but also by biology.

The majority of both men and women are weak-minded. They follow the leader, and the leader is usually an exceptional individual.
The worst such individuals are those who want to "set everyone free",
freedom is not for everyone, it's not for majority, the majority actually needs to know limitations, because the majority doesn't have the capacity to
fill that vast empty 'freedom'.

It's easy to convince a dumb man or woman to follow the leader.
It's easy to convince a woman that she'll be happier without a child,
it's easy to make her believe that all she needs is a career, basically,
it's easy to sweet-talk her into believing she's fit for the lifestyle of exceptional individuals.

But, unfortunately for her, reality is different, and these rosey humanistic
"you're all special" fairytales become a nightmare of loneliness and biologically unfulfilled lives.

[Huzar]

[QUOTE=Horagalles]Die Auschwitz-Lüge
. The problem is that women are often directed by their mother instincts so they fall far the cute, weakling guy , QUOTE]


URGHH !!!!!!

[Awar]

[QUOTE=Northern Tiger]

Die Auschwitz-Lüge
. The problem is that women are often directed by their mother instincts so they fall far the cute, weakling guy , QUOTE]


URGHH !!!!!!

I think it's all regulated nicely by nature. The only things which may and do go wrong are from our society.

[Huzar]

I think it's all regulated nicely by nature. The only things which may and do go wrong are from our society.

Yeah, on this you're right.............

[Abby Normal]

I'm really surprised that an intelligent girl like you still doesn't comprehend the difference between exception and the rule.

If 99.9% of women have a certain nature, and 0.01% has a different nature,
that doesn't really mean anything. I know that 0.01% is more capable, more aggressive, and less nurturing etc. but, society should not be tailored to fit
a small minority.

I was referring to 'alpha females' within the context of all-female groups. Several books have been written about this recently. They refer to power-structures within groups of females being more complex than those found in groups of males, with 'alpha females' employing some pretty ruthless tactics to exert power over their 'followers'. A society led by only women would be led by such women; this renders 'matriarchal' societies no more benevolent than 'patriarchal' ones, as was pointed out earlier regarding the Minoans.

On a side note:
Though it is certainly found in a greater percentage of men than women, there is no doubt that the 'different nature' to which you refer is found in more than 0.01% of women.

In fact, society should be tailored to be mature enough to recognize exceptions and respect and honour them, but these exceptional women ( or men ) should also learn to recognize the limitations of ordinary people.

I agree.

If SOME women are 'Alpha-females' and happy with it, MOST women shouldn't be made to conform to the rules of the FEW. It leads to unhappiness, and ultimately it returns to chaos, and back to square one.

If YOU are intelligent enough to try not to fit yourself into some mold,
why do YOU expect other women to be the same like YOU?
People are different, everyone has their limits set not only by society but also by biology.

The majority of both men and women are weak-minded. They follow the leader, and the leader is usually an exceptional individual.
The worst such individuals are those who want to "set everyone free",
freedom is not for everyone, it's not for majority, the majority actually needs to know limitations, because the majority doesn't have the capacity to
fill that vast empty 'freedom'.

It's easy to convince a dumb man or woman to follow the leader.
It's easy to convince a woman that she'll be happier without a child,
it's easy to make her believe that all she needs is a career, basically,
it's easy to sweet-talk her into believing she's fit for the lifestyle of exceptional individuals.

But, unfortunately for her, reality is different, and these rosey humanistic
"you're all special" fairytales become a nightmare of loneliness and biologically unfulfilled lives.

1) I hold no views involving 'forcing the majority to conform to the ways of the exceptions'; however. . .

2) Identifying 'exceptions with the 'rule' and forcing them to conform to the majority can be more destructive than the opposite. Surely you agree, as in the above post you exhibit an understanding that the 'exceptions' are integral as they are the ones who point the 'unwashed masses' in whatever direction they see fit.

[Awar]

I was referring to 'alpha females' within the context of all-female groups. Several books have been written about this recently. They refer to power-structures within groups of females being more complex than those found in groups of males, with 'alpha females' employing some pretty ruthless tactics to exert power over their 'followers'. A society led by only women would be led by such women; this renders 'matriarchal' societies no more benevolent than 'patriarchal' ones, as was pointed out earlier regarding the Minoans.

Indeed... benevolence never was a prerequisite for a succesful society, or anything. Fact is though that a matriarchate is a matriarchate, it's not
a reverse patriarchate.

On a side note:
Though it is certainly found in a greater percentage of men than women, there is no doubt that the 'different nature' to which you refer is found in more than 0.01% of women.

I just took a random number, it's still a minority.

2) Identifying 'exceptions with the 'rule' and forcing them to conform to the majority can be more destructive than the opposite. Surely you agree, as in the above post you exhibit an understanding that the 'exceptions' are integral as they are the ones who point the 'unwashed masses' in whatever direction they see fit.

Not really... the 'unwashed masses' have everything they need for survival,
while the 'exceptionals' are a small flaw of nature, ones who the basic society could do without, but, also ones who make the events happen.

If an exceptional conforms to the mass, it's just destructive to him/her, personally. He will die, but the mass will go on, and later produce more such individuals, until the right 'mix' of personality is created... for example, an
exceptional, creative alpha male/female, who will use his leadership powers to further advance the society. ( I'm speaking in prehistoric terms, because it's simplified, today the right mix would be slightly different probably ).

Exceptional individuals are creative, they made all the advances humanity has ever had... but, that doesn't mean they lead happy-happy lives, just like it doesn't mean that the masses would be happy-happy or succesful if they had all the freedom and information an exceptional has.

[Awar]

I was referring to 'alpha females' within the context of all-female groups. Several books have been written about this recently. They refer to power-structures within groups of females being more complex than those found in groups of males, with 'alpha females' employing some pretty ruthless tactics to exert power over their 'followers'. A society led by only women would be led by such women; this renders 'matriarchal' societies no more benevolent than 'patriarchal' ones, as was pointed out earlier regarding the Minoans.

Indeed... benevolence never was a prerequisite for a succesful society, or anything. Fact is though that a matriarchate is a matriarchate, it's not
a reverse patriarchate.

On a side note:
Though it is certainly found in a greater percentage of men than women, there is no doubt that the 'different nature' to which you refer is found in more than 0.01% of women.

I just took a random number, it's still a minority.

2) Identifying 'exceptions with the 'rule' and forcing them to conform to the majority can be more destructive than the opposite. Surely you agree, as in the above post you exhibit an understanding that the 'exceptions' are integral as they are the ones who point the 'unwashed masses' in whatever direction they see fit.

Not really... the 'unwashed masses' have everything they need for survival,
while the 'exceptionals' are a small flaw of nature, ones who the basic society could do without, but, also ones who make the events happen.

If an exceptional conforms to the mass, it's just destructive to him/her, personally. He will die, but the mass will go on, and later produce more such individuals, until the right 'mix' of personality is created... for example, an
exceptional, creative alpha male/female, who will use his leadership powers to further advance the society. ( I'm speaking in prehistoric terms, because it's simplified, today the right mix would be slightly different probably ).

Exceptional individuals are creative, they made all the advances humanity has ever had... but, that doesn't mean they lead happy-happy lives, just like it doesn't mean that the masses would be happy-happy or succesful if they had all the freedom and information an exceptional has.

[Horagalles]

I think it's all regulated nicely by nature. The only things which may and do go wrong are from our society.

"matriarchy" is the absence of male rulership - Actually its no -archy at all. Women are forced to take over some male roles, as males do not perform them efficiently.
On the effects of feminism and the absense of patriarchy:
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream...mneus/garbage/
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream...atriarchy.html

[Abby Normal]

"matriarchy" is the absence of male rulership - Actually its no -archy at all. Women are forced to take over some male roles, as males do not perform them efficiently.
On the effects of feminism and the absense of patriarchy:
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream...mneus/garbage/
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream...atriarchy.html

Ooooh, great links. I haven't heard any of it before, and it is. . .uh. . . what's that word. . . enlightening. This is some deeeeeeeep stuff:

"Women," wrote Ramsey Clark in l970, in his celebrated book Crime in America, "are not a threat to the public."

I am officially a convert: as no woman is a "threat to the public," all female criminals, including child-murderers and sex-abusers, committed their abhorrent acts solely due to the influence of men. Kim Tran, for instance, severed her boyfriend's penis not out of rage after a fight but out of compliance with his bizarre castration fetish.


. . . . .Fooled you [in fact, I likely did fool you. The foolishness of my fellow humans knows no bounds.].