Feminism

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

It's because you, in your heart of hearts, do not want to walk on his dreams, but to be put in them.
Put in your place, not on a pedestal.

You are such a romanticist. Heart of hearts?

I adapt to the one I am engaging, sweetie.

HA!  You always need to be in charge.

In charge does not mean 'in control'.
I read the room and adapt, real-time.
Like a dance.
I hear the rhythms....I see the patterns.

Quote :

I read the room and adapt, real-time.

Why?

It is environment. I am organism.
if I choose to enter an environment, populated by a variety of 'creatures' I am forced to adapt or face the consequences.
If I choose not to enter an environment, I do not care. I can watch, from 'outside', like an aquarium.

Consequences?

For a 'strong', 'independent', 'smart' woman, like you, what consequences can deter her from expressing her true spirit?
For us mere mortals, every environment, if entered, if there's a desire or need to enter it, exacts costs, and offers benefits.
Humans are social organisms. Some are more and some less social - this establishes the degree of dependency.
Some are more and some are less discriminating, either because they are social whores, or because they are imbeciles who see no details, or reject the validity of what they perceive.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

In charge does not mean 'in control'.

A synonym for 'in charge' is 'controlled' and from what you write risk taking would not be on your agenda.

I'm in charge of myself....not in control over everything and everyone else.
You insinuated that I 'felt' that I was in control of others, because in control of myself cannot be an accusation.
I can say that you 'feel' in control, as well.
I take charge, indeed. But I am never entirely in control of the outcome.

Every act, choice, entails a risk.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

You insinuated that I 'felt' that I was in control of others, because in control of myself cannot be an accusation.

Actually I was not insinuating at all. It occurred to me from what you wrote that there is a strong need for you to be in charge or in control of yourself, at all times. In fact I would go as far as saying, not insinuating, that you may find it difficult to lose that control of yourself in most if not all situations you encounter.

Losing control of myself has proven costly.
It has happened many times.
Less so in my old age, more so in my youth.

We idealize what we are less like, the strange, the exotic, the other than.

Thank you for your honesty.

Did I give you 'control'?

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Did I give you 'control'?

What do you think.  Did you?

So many birds of prey with sharp beaks.

One gives of his excess, his abundance his wealth, not of his penury, his lack.

Satyr wrote:

We idealize what we are less like, the strange, the exotic, the other than.

Wouldn't this make any objective evaluations impossible and render us all just mindless contrarians, in that we prefer something just because it's different?

And if the rule is that we idealize what we are less like, does it mean we are sometimes condemned to a constant back and forth? F.e. if we are skinny and we idealize being fat because it is less like us, then we become fat and being skinny is less like us so we idealize that. A banal example, but I think it gets the point across.

I think we idealize something because we perceive it as superior, it doesn't necessarily have to be too different from us. In some cases we may have very good foundations to realize our ideals so they are more of an improvement than a negation.

If something is too different and strange to me I'm more likely to dislike it or be indifferent than idealize it.

Idealization means we over-under-estimate it.
Convert to a pure noetic idea(l).
Doesn't mean we prefer or like it.

What is less intimate, less known, is more prone to embellishment.

Most idealize in the positive sense. They inflate what is less like anything they can relate to, imbuing it with everything they lack, and wish they were.
They project into the mysterious, the unknown, everything they wish for.
It's why occultism is never terrifying, for the modern....it is always a source of power, freedom etc.

But this has to do with that rule I once posted:
If you like yourself, you are attracted to what is most like you.
For females what is like her, but superior.

If you hate yourself you are attracted to what is least like you.

Satyr wrote:

Idealization means we over-under-estimate it.
Convert to a pure noetic idea(l).
Doesn't mean we prefer or like it.

Nevermind then, I just used the word with the second definition in mind.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Why do you say that, what do you mean poetry cannot exist without.......

Poetry requires a cultivated mind of past nurturing. Such talent doesn't just appear from the void as many feminines seem to want to believe but is mostly the result of the potentials of a maintained bloodline, which would not be possible if not for several previous men who preceded the genius of such a man.

It is telling indeed when we speak of singular individuals in history without reference to their Families, to their Traditions, to their Fathers.

Maud Gonne appreciated Poetry without contributing herself to the cultivation of a Poet's children, what greater hatred of Poetry can there be? She reduces Poetry to a masturbatory act as a result, where people only give birth to men like Yeats only to live solitary lives and suffer on the behalf and amusement of women like Maud Gonne.

Perhaps Georgie Hyde Lees' intent in marrying Yeats might not have been the most noble, but she did manage to put her body where her mouth is and preserve the Poet's bloodline.

Here's something to get your blood boiling
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It would be a great idea to at least have a monetary compensation (by a woman) for injured pride caused by a break-up, because by default man is just supposed to give up everything his invested his entire life on and mating opportunities and is supposed to blame everything on himself and be left with nothing

Jarno wrote:

Here's something to get your blood boiling
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

16:09 "Boys are encouraged to develop their emotions" by engaging in activities for girls (like painting their nails)...As if engaging in masculine activities doesn't lead to to a healthy emotional development. As if the strongest emotional bonds are not developed there.

White girls in feminism have confused the ignorance, or cowardice, of their fathers and grandfathers for the approval and permissiveness of foolishness. Every father saying they want what's best for their kids, ignorantly allowing degenerate acts and providing for a degenerate curriculum, not knowing what the consequences and the results have been, has given the white daughter the impression that what she's been 'enriched' with, what she's 'experienced' and been indoctrinated with in college is the will of her father that helped pay her way to, and said he's enabling/giving her, a 'better life'. When you attack the college education she received, she perceives you as attacking her father.

As a child who received an education, it's my duty to be more responsible instead of less so, than my parents. That is, to take on the increased costs of knowing what our 'leaders' are actually taught and required to be indoctrinated with. It's my duty to inform my parents, or make-do without their knowing, of what's taught. A female will never, and should never, take on increased costs for her father's sake - some may argue even in old age. A son has a different interest in education: to establish a perimeter, a zone of dominance, where he can control the resources to curry favor with a female and to be invested in something, to build. This approach puts all masculinity at odds with a system of the communist and hyper-effeminate. The only kind of masculinity which is not at odds with it, are those that seek dominance through subversive means of the native population, or those who are already foreign, or even eternally perceive themselves as foreign. The feminization of education (in both the material and, primarily, ideological sense) has led to the proliferation of foolishness and negligent social destruction today.

A girl does not challenge her father, as she will not win, but instead runs away with another male. She is, or believes she has been given all the tools by collegiate communist indoctrination, to destroy her father - but she knows that destroying him would only mean destroying her own opportunity. She would rather flee, burn the bridge but not the castle, than leave behind a destroyed home for what she knows is a minor infraction compared to the massive amounts of compassion her father gave her (in the back of her mind she knows, if she pleads pathetically enough, her father will build that bridge again for her). But what infraction? She was taught a new frontier, when she was introduced to a new boy, or she received an education - she was shown, or perceived she had been shown, a greener pasture and now, her father, is perceived as limiting instead of protecting her freedom.

Jarno wrote:

It would be a great idea to at least have a monetary compensation (by a woman) for injured pride caused by a break-up, because by default man is just supposed to give up everything his invested his entire life on and mating opportunities and is supposed to blame everything on himself and be left with nothing

Agreed. If a woman shows interest or says romantic or sexual things, but then decides to be fickle and abandon someone it should be a crime. Because it causes PTSD, and PTSD is real. Some would think what I am saying is a joke, or sarcastic, but society has been so brainwashed to only care about women's emotions and not care about male emotions that nobody cares about male emotions. If a male gets heartbroken, or gets PTSD from rejection, litterally noone cares, meanwhile feminists demand that everyone walk on eggshells and that it's a global travesty if a woman feels uncomfortable.

Also, the idea that women who walk around with tops showing their boobjobs and cleavage and exposing their bellies and abs, is not inviting catcalls...is about as absurd as a man walking around with a giant boner, claiming women's sexual remarks about him is some kind of sexual harassment.

A day, a month,a  year, thirty years....as soon as you have sex with a female you are liable to her whims.
She can accuse you of rape, at any time after that.
Feminization of Man implies that the female is the preferred sex to a system that has abstracted masculinity and permits no competitors and no challengers to its alpha status.
It does, however soften its authoritarianism by allowing anyone to become its representative face.
In Democracies this is changed every four years.
The masses are made to feel that the changing face of the authority means that it is 'open' to amending its absolute power.
In fact all is permitted if it is superficial or within the allowed parameters of its unquestionable authority.

The so-called, 'deep state', or the military-industrial complex, as it was once referred to by previous Presidents themselves...also referred to as the Illuminati, to discredit insights questioning the official doctrine, and so on...
All allude to a 'true power' behind the apparent 'face of power'.  
If you challenge it you are taken out....either like Kennedy, or like Nixon, if you manage to trick them into allowing you to ascend, after meticulous vetting processes.
Females are more malleable, less resistant to dominance, more willing to adhere to the status quo, for obvious reasons rooted in their role in the reproductive cycle.
At the same time they are also less capable and willing to pay the price to attain such a coveted position.

What we are witnessing with the Kavanaugh vetting process is a capable male held to a feminine standard.
A standard no male can pass, due to the very nature of copulation and mating.
Any jilted female can now hold the male's future in her hands.  
Rejection, a wrong word, a gesture, an unpleasant tone of voice, can become a tool to threaten his social status, now completely regulated by feminine methodology.
Gossip, hypocrisy, reputation, prostitution, feelings etc.
All part of the social game. You can[t become the face of power without prostituting yourself.
To speak the right words, in the proper order, with the correct tone; to know the right people, in the right places, at the right time - to be convincing and seductive to female psyches. To never appear threatening in any manner, even in that you display superior intellect.
Not merit, but social etiquette.  

One of the signs that Rome was in decline was the ascent to its seat of power by a non-roman.
That part has already occurred, in the US.
The first time, was a catholic, who was quickly taken out....the second was a half-negro that showed the right demeanour and submission to the elites.
Now we are seeing a 'correction', a venting of accumulating internal resistance and anger.
Trump is that venting compromise. But how far will they let him go?
So far he's payed homage to the elites, though he mouths improper challenges to their interest.
He acts in contradiction to what he speaks...one directed outward, towards an international audience, the other to the internal audience.    
Nevertheless, his sudden and severe 'correction measures' have caused internal stress, after decades of arrogant veering the other way.
I suspect the Russian emergence as a challenger, and the growing alliance with China, has something to do with this severe, almost insane, Trumpean 'reality check'.
They underestimated the masses, and are now afraid of going too far, too fast, causing an internal splintering....particularly with so much world reaction to US dominance.
The turn towards conservatism is now faced with the left's habituation with particular new 'norms'. How can they 'go back' after having tasted so much 'freedom' to delude themselves? How do they awaken after falling into a pleasant slumber, full of such wonderful dreams?
The slow decline towards oblivion. The elites became cocky....and went too fast, too far, too soon, with their Nihilistic adaptations.

Women in government fulfilling the 'sexist' stereotype of using gossip and bullshit emotions to run the country. No one is surprised.

The next feminist subject/target may very well be the concept of 'hearsay' itself, or the 'bad association', AKA 'patriarchal association' of gossip with dumb prattle. I imagine the assertion by feminists to end up being that 'gossip was a woman's means of knowledge transfer in female-only spaces which allowed intellectual discussion, blah blah empowerment blah blah'.

The evolution of such phenomenon as the rumor mill would be an interesting subject to research. Where was its origins? Is it a product of Semitic or Modern influence? How did it benefit the woman, and did it benefit the state/nation or patriarchs?

How do you bridge the void between idealism and realism?