Feminism

Would only a feminist propose that a woman could be a philosopher?

yes, imo

phoneutria wrote:

If by serving you, you mean letting your little website pick up the crumbs that fall off the table I've set for myself, due to the mere coincidence that I post here and therefore those who I engage might come here to search for me, knock yourself out. On the house.

No, dear.
I already know of your hypocritically based ego.

I only want you to come here, be inseminated, and then go about your usual routines.
Your conscious participation is not a requirement.
Your actions are.

You think this is only about me, you idiot.
You think I want to fuck you, or seduce you physically.
You do not interest me on that level.
But I know boys are seduced on that level...and so you are the perfect vehicle for me, and for what my real motives are.
You, as an individual, have a zero effect on me...you as a conduit, in this fucked up world, are a useful tool.

Now, I already know you have a son...which makes you more receptive to my masculine message.
And I know that if you didn't you would be another cunt out there.

I also know that you are nowhere close to being a Lyssa...remember Lyssa, you dumb cunt, is Lisa from Toronto, like you were convinced, by your compadre, originally.
Never doubt yourself, and your judgments, you stupid cunt.
You have zero knowledge of Lyssa, and I like it that way, because she too is MY vehicle...only she knows it, likes it, and wants it.

I want you to remain exactly as you are.

Dear...you think I chose Hannibal Lecter, as my pop-culture icon, accidentally?

perpetualburn wrote:

Would only a feminist propose that a woman could be a philosopher?

Can you offer us an example of a female philosopher that revolutionized human understanding?
One will do.

Why, is it that what dumb cunts, like feminists, matter, in what they think or do?

perpetualburn wrote:

Would only a feminist propose that a woman could be a philosopher?

Philosophy is violence.

Female violence in practice tends to be irrational and imprecise. How can such an approach yield a logical and stringent dissection of abstract thought?

Is there a possible world wherein a philosopher happened to be female? Swans were all white until we went to Australia.

The lazy may also propose that a woman could be a philosopher, but then feminists are lazy. Empiricists might propose such a thing. I am quite partial to Realist Empiricism.

Satyr wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

Would only a feminist propose that a woman could be a philosopher?

Can you offer us an example of a female philosopher that revolutionized human understanding?
One will do.

Why, is it that what dumb cunts, like feminists, matter, in what they think or do?

If truth is a woman maybe woman can't interpret themselves with the same passion as man, despite some woman being incredibly sharp and having great memories. Of course, I'm still not sure what a philosopher is. I don't understand your second question.

perpetualburn wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Why, is it that what dumb cunts, like feminists, matter, in what they think or do?

I don't understand your second question.

I believe he re-wrote his initial response and accidentally left the word "what" in his sentence. I.e. "Why is it that feminists matter?"

They matter in as far as they have exposure through popular media, due to the lazy latching onto their fallacious facade of knowledge and intelligence.

Women have plenty of passion, but it is not yet suited for philosophy.

perpetualburn wrote:

If truth is a woman maybe woman can't interpret themselves with the same passion as man, despite some woman being incredibly sharp and having great memories.  Of course, I'm still not sure what a philosopher is.  I don't understand your second question.

Is it not that feminists are female, and have a cunt, and womb - a potential, a possibility - which makes them relevant to males?

Philosophy is not about knowing, and memory, only.
It is about perceiving patterns in the data.
Knowledge is raw data....valueless unless you understand...you find patterns.
To be educated, and to repeat info, is easy...every imbecile can do it.
All that is required is an average mind.

Patterns are judged by how they refer to phenomena, and how they apply in space/time.
This determines their quality, their "value".
Time...is what value is measured by.

Not declarations of self-worth, not bullshit about value determining existence, not reducing value to code to words and numbers and make it into a commodity and consumer item all can purchase....and so on.

Satyr wrote:

Philosophy is ... about perceiving patterns in the data.

Females, even Feminists, can have high IQs, which is all about pattern recognition.

The real question, already answered in the very text to which "perpetualburn" alludes, is what would a woman do with truth?

Truth is for not only dominance but Autocracy. What woman aspires to be a Totalitarian dictator with absolute power and control over all things?

Quote :

Philosophy is not about knowing, and memory, only.
It is about perceiving patterns in the data.

Well, knowing would come about from how patterns are perceived and this probably a big difference between men and women.

phoneutria wrote:

You misjudge me grossly,

And wasn't it you in the seduction thread who stated she couldn't care about the perceptions others form of her, dream-weaver?
Appreciate that he's being honest with himself from his pov. and how you appear to him.

Quote :

throw insults that fit me like a horseshoe would fit a ballerina, and then assume that wherever our opinions meet it is because you've somehow put them in me.
You foolish oaf. Get over yourself.

All that etc. apart, he is still more superior than you. Only someone strong in themselves can afford to be openly honest with his salutations [I'll leave that latin to you]. It comes from a very precious self-severe man. And even more precious is an honest relation that doesn't have to sell itself to decorum, of all things.
He's not like you, whose security is feigned in their Inability to acknowledge. That takes strength.

I say this not because of Satyr, but because of what life is. Since there are no absolutes, one person can never complete the other; fostering relationships are a striving towards-completion, a wider order. Some happen to be selective. Raising the salut toast amongst the ones gathered comes with deep significance.

Lyssa wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I love the spirit that will not consider this a submission, on your part.

Yesss. Undeniably a powerful and irreproachable spirit.

Isnt the resisting female always attractive? Dialectics comes later to re-define.  

I forgot to add,  the above from the Apollonian perspective...

Meanwhile things are different in the Dionysian world.

That avatar has me thinking all the time you are RvE.
Needs more black leather.

What a stupid twat...I remember her from sciforums...invisible, boring, common, talking about some dull pollack and how in love they were...and here she is....

Telling me more.

As if, I'm one of those dullards, a mixed-breed twat can manipulate with words, and with her Napoleon complex arse twisting in the winds, , spreading her pheromones, wanting to find a cock to fuck her mind silly, because he's one dull pollack.
Show me your bellybutton.
An old fart, like me, might get an erection.
Ha!

Back to the Mexican's threat's, cunt.
Find there, your kind, despite the melodies you post to pretend you're not like that.

Pleasure IS an end.
I only, really, needed that statement to know YOU, totally.
And your end is all you have to offer.

I'll pass.
Thanks

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

You misjudge me grossly,

And wasn't it you in the seduction thread who stated she couldn't care about the perceptions others form of her, dream-weaver?
Appreciate that he's being honest with himself from his pov. and how you appear to him.

Still don't care. Just pointing out that his impression that he has affected me comes from a bias.

Quote :

All that etc. apart, he is still more superior than you. Only someone strong in themselves can afford to be openly honest with his salutations [I'll leave that latin to you]. It comes from a very precious self-severe man. And even more precious is an honest relation that doesn't have to sell itself to decorum, of all things.
He's not like you, whose security is feigned in their Inability to acknowledge. That takes strength.

I am not interested in being compared to him.

Quote :

I say this not because of Satyr, but because of what life is. Since there are no absolutes, one person can never complete the other; fostering relationships are a striving towards-completion, a wider order. Some happen to be selective. Raising the salut toast amongst the ones gathered comes with deep significance.

I give my salutations where they are due.

phoneutria wrote:

That avatar has me thinking all the time you are RvE.
Needs more black leather.

Even if she and I had the exact same icon,,,even a chilled-out oaf from 10 miles away can still smell the difference. It is what it is.

I know what I am, I dont fear comparisons to/with my inferiors, or whosoever. Unlike you.
I even reserve the strength to be compared, thanks.

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

You misjudge me grossly,

And wasn't it you in the seduction thread who stated she couldn't care about the perceptions others form of her, dream-weaver?
Appreciate that he's being honest with himself from his pov. and how you appear to him.

Still don't care. Just pointing out that his impression that he has affected me comes from a bias.

I could say your non-acknowledgement is your need to be desired by him as he loves that kind of spirit and that shows your real desire, and you still needn't care.

Quote :

Quote :

All that etc. apart, he is still more superior than you. Only someone strong in themselves can afford to be openly honest with his salutations [I'll leave that latin to you]. It comes from a very precious self-severe man. And even more precious is an honest relation that doesn't have to sell itself to decorum, of all things.
He's not like you, whose security is feigned in their Inability to acknowledge. That takes strength.

I am not interested in being compared to him.

Hierarchies exist whether there's someone in the forest of falling trees or if they are not.

Quote :

Quote :

I say this not because of Satyr, but because of what life is. Since there are no absolutes, one person can never complete the other; fostering relationships are a striving towards-completion, a wider order. Some happen to be selective. Raising the salut toast amongst the ones gathered comes with deep significance.

I give my salutations where they are due.

Indeed, and what is not given its rightful due becomes ugly.

Imbesil wrote:

Feminism today is the result of a mistaken interpretation of traditional human behaviour.

There exists power imbalance in any species with conviction and differing levels of ability.

What do you mean by conviction and why is it necessary?

Quote :

The proposition behind Feminism is that any power imbalance involving both male and female parties, where the female party emerges less dominant, is due to male privilege ingrained in an arbitrarily patriarchical society.
However the feminist is lazily consequentialist and superficial to take this position.

I guess being honest that men have always been in power because they're generally more powerful would be too unflattering for them, though I don't think their cause rests on the absurdity that it was arbitrary again and again in one relatively independently developed society after another.

Quote :

I purport what I deem to be a superior explanation behind such a circumstantial power imbalance as posited above. Males are pressured by one another, first by hormonal compulsion and secondly by traditional influence, to appear invulnerable or at least sufficiently powerful/dominant/capable. The male morality is hormonally dictated as "I am of the highest rank or at least not of the lowest", complete with all the competitivity that this negativity entails - to be driven at base by a refusal to be something, an insistance to not be something. Such negativity begets a valuable hostility, that may amount to great achievement when combined with great ability - and along with success in this light, almost disappears!

I don't understand at all. Firstly, males' size alone explains much. Then there are the dynamics which make it so they average a more dominating character and intellect, which relates to their specific role in reproduction.

Quote :

The female morality lacks this severity, and it is perfectly socially acceptable to appear vulnerable to the point where the submissive is even permitted to be attractive. The female has full reign and freedom in this regard to be whatever she feels like.

What you describe is the natural disposition of most women when not under paternal authority. Paternal authority has been increasingly undermined by the state, but through out history it was common.

Quote :

The male denies himself any such luxury and insists upon himself that he be limited to certain standards - and society has grown around this behaviour to insist on such an imperative, even if the male himself defies his nature and refuses his fate.

This was once the case in western civilization, now the major standard is for him to suppress his masculinity, which most modern feminized males haven't too much difficulty doing.

Quote :

Yet Feminism suggests that the freedom is in the male court, and not in the female court.

It demands both the freedom and the equal power.
It would say that the female is the victim of a lack of freedom to achieve superior power, which is of course a complete confusion of the whole process!

A female is allowed by the state to follow her most base desires, but should she want to do more than that, then just like with less subservient males, she has much opposition from the state.

Quote :

Herein lies the reason why Feminism is ridiculed - it is undeserved. Artificial. You cannot simply demand power by stamping your feet, even if you call your tantrum "Deconstructionism". The unsightly show presented thenceforth does not earn power, and this is why Feminists are incessantly bullied - even to extremes. You can have equal power if you pay the price, but only if you pay the price.

Of course they're at least secretly ridiculed by any one with any intelligence and sense of responsibility, but I don't know that they're bullied that much, being how much the state protects their charade.

Quote :

The only way around this is if we delay our instincts and allow due diligence. This is highly compatible with the use of reason and the rejection of superficial prejudice. But if one remains wanting after such civilised generosity and still fails to impress, then you shall not pass into the higher ranks of dominance and power.

Right, now having the same opportunities as any male whose completely subservient to the state, they still don't compete particularly well on a substantial level.

Quote :

I would be a Feminist if it evaluated itself and changed its name to something more consistent with what it should be about: giving the benefit of the doubt first, and belaying judgment. Women should absolutely be allowed trial just as much as men.

Perhaps you could clarify the above.

Quote :

it should be about about: giving the benefit of the doubt first.

Potentials are earned.

Satyr wrote:

Then you will appreciate the art of seducing, and impregnating, such a spirit, without making it, too, obvious...or too physical.

Hm.

Lyssa wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I love the spirit that will not consider this a submission, on your part.

Yesss. Undeniably a powerful and irreproachable spirit.

Isnt the resisting female always attractive? Dialectics comes later to re-define.  

I guess, as long as it is noticed as a ploy or pretext.

A woman can’t cancel out the possible threat of woman’s insatiableness and man’s suspiciousness of this by appealing to a “balanced” view of the feminine and masculine. It simply recreates new types of distance built around new understandings of balance(always in question, especially her “view” of this balance) and possible shared responsibilities(i.e. the world is so chaotic they come to a temporary truce to maintain a certain level of balance so that things don’t become so sloppy that culture is lost forever)...To what degree is it nonsensical for a woman to talk about order? Can she care about order more? And if she did, would this be a threat to order itself? What does it even mean anymore to place trust in order when everything moves so fast? Will traditional archetypes eventually become insignificant as reference points in such a way that new reference points/archetypes become less meaningful in terms of their power to organize and unify many people? Or is it impossible to “destroy” the meaning of the old archetype without new archetypes of equivalent or greater meaning necessarily emerging? Or will things become so individualized, so drowned out by new innovation, that it will become impossible to feel the “history” in an archetype to such an extent to inspire worthwhile movements? Or is every new innovation dependent enough on old archetypes in order to be “marketable”/novel etc that a certain feeling of history survives with every new rapid overturning of images? A certain splitting off between junk culture (that haphazardly and obnoxiously recycles) and “higher” culture, that at least tries (or so we like to believe) to incorporate “deeper” themes and be on the cutting edge of drama, without appearing at least to be “recycling” (or it’s much more careful not to appear this way).

It's not clear whether your asking these things about the perspectives of common people or above average.

Quote :

All staged apparently; with the men in the video having been misled into believing it was about a student film project.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's a funny one

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...the end result of Nihilism and its feminism offshoot.

Paternalism had to curb female sexual choice so as to integrate as many males into the system, making them investors.
Feminism releases females from biological males, retaining their submission to the institutionalized, abstraction of masculinity.

This also liberated all those males, most of which will remain excluded from the genetic pool - memetic selection.
These "men", retained in a state of adolescence (men-children) are the free radicals of the social structure.
The SuperOrganic body must deal with them, otherwise they become dangerous, destabilizing, cancerous.

How?
Entertainment (sports, movies, computer simulations, pornography etc.; chemical numbing (drugs, alcohol religion etc.); prostitution (sexual market for relieving libidinal energies); feminization (emasculation, forcing self-expression, training males to thing and behave like females etc.)

In homogeneous unities (memetic superorganic structures), integration was easier, and the loss of one male easily compensated for.
The shared genetics continues on.
In heterogeneous systems the elimination of genetic uniformity means that the particular traits of each tribal bloodline will vanish, replaced by a mix of shared lowest-common-denominator....a towards mediocrity, the median.
Intellectually speaking this only demands an average mind to work the techniques/technologies that compensate for all genetic limitations.

The natural balancing processes of nature are prevented from returning the system to an equilibrium, in relation to the environment.
Female sexual power un-bothered by male sexual power reaches the level of hyperbole.
Biological males can no longer deal with it, as it is protected, and their own advantages are criminalized.
Their only option, other than incarceration, is this MRA "turning away" - the dropping out, phasing out of the system.
Of course if they continue to pay into the system the faceless institutions do not care, in the short term.
The long-term effects is where they take notice: reduced birth-rates, lowered participation creating capital flow etc.

The most immediate effects are psychological.
Individuals alienated from each other and from the system.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...the end result of Nihilism and its feminism offshoot.

From that article:

Quote :

Never before in history have relations between the sexes been so fraught with anxiety, animosity and misunderstanding.

Nietzsche wrote:

To grasp incorrectly the basic problem of "man and woman," to deny the most profound antagonism here and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, perhaps in this matter to dream about equal rights, equal education, equal entitlements and duties - that's a typical sign of superficial thinking. And a thinker who has shown that he's shallow in this dangerous place - shallow in his instincts! - may in general be considered suspicious or, even worse, betrayed and exposed. Presumably he'll be too "short" for all the basic questions of life and of life in the future, and he'll be incapable of any profundity. By contrast, a man who does have profundity in his spirit and in his desires as well, together with that profundity of good will capable of severity and hardness and easily confused with them, can think about woman only in an oriental way: he has to grasp woman as a possession, as a property which he can lock up, as something predetermined for service and reaching her perfection in that service. In this matter he must take a stand on the immense reasoning of Asia, on the instinctual superiority of Asia: just as the Greeks did in earlier times, the best heirs and students of Asia, who, as is well known, from Homer to the time of Pericles, as they advanced in culture and in the extent of their power, also became step by step stricter against women, in short, more oriental. How necessary, how logical, even how humanly desirable this was: that's something we'd do well to think about!