can men be feminists

[mtmynd1]

Let the circus continue.

You are the circus, fool. Enjoy yourself for nobody else does, clown.

[Satyr]

I think I might cry over that.

I think I shall.

Jeez, what an idiot you are.
Let's love each other and expand our horizons. Let's learn what it truly means to be human.

[mtmynd1]

I think I might cry over that.
I think I shall.
Jeez, what an idiot you are.
Let's love each other and expand our horizons. Let's learn what it truly means to be human.

save your breath, scary guy, for your next assault on hu'manity.

[Satyr]

Are you a representative of this race called hu'man?

I'm no racist but it seems odd that such a weak specimen would be representative of an entire race.

[mickthinks]

LOL - it's probably worth pointing out that many of us (most of us, I think) find Satyr's style of communication unsatisfactory and don't bother with him. By all means try and make it work for you but don't feel bad if you come to the same conclusion as we did.

Mick

[Satyr]

Ha!!!

[Arising_uk]

I don't know what you're talking about. TJH? "detergents forum"? No clue.

You think I am the the guy writing your obituary? The Jesus Head? Why the hell do you think that? ...

Because you said 'We've been over this before' and I can't remember when we'd been over you being banned before? The only person I've been over this being banned before was TJH.

Its my pet-name for the Dissidents Forum, I assume you are of that ilk.

[chaz wyman]

I don't know what you're talking about. TJH? "detergents forum"? No clue.

You think I am the the guy writing your obituary? The Jesus Head? Why the hell do you think that? ...

Because you said 'We've been over this before' and I can't remember when we'd been over you being banned before? The only person I've been over this being banned before was TJH.

Its my pet-name for the Dissidents Forum, I assume you are of that ilk.

So a person has actually ben banned here?
One?
Just one?
WHooahh - don't start a trend!

[Thundril]

What a pile of shite this forum descends into sometimes.
Think I'll take a break. There are some real good discussions going on elsewhere. Regrettably, sooner or later, adolescent senescent ego-wankers squirt their slime all over an intelligent thread, and it dies.
If there was some sort of point, some dark humour, self-mockery, iconoclasm, anything with the whiff of human intelligence about it, I could put up with it.
Bored now.
Laters!

[Satyr]

One of the most important, in my view, aspect of males becoming feminists or supporting social causes that flatter and offer an advantage to females is the beta-male strategy.

The beta-male in the wild unable to dominate a troop, in primates, or a group, adopts a more indirect sly strategy to get the female to give-in to his sexual advances.
We can call this strategy the "Nice Guy strategy".

Under the watchful eyes of the dominant male, in this case the system itself, the beta-male attempts to seduce the female by bringing her gifts of food (resources) trying to bribe her - this can be considered a foundation for later developing prostitution within human social structures - or the beta-male will try to make himself useful to the female, helpful, at times taking care of the female's offspring (one she's had with the dominant male) so she can go off and forage or copulate with the alpha-male or with another male - a form of babysitting...or the beta-male will support the female in her competitive struggles with other females or come to her if when unwanted sexual attention is given to her by other beta-males - in this last case the unwanted attention and the female's ability to avoid unwanted copulation (rape) constitutes her retention of her sexual control or her sexual power.
With time the female will grow attached, in other words, dependent, upon this beta-male and therefore to retain his services she will engage in copulation with this beta-male, in secret because if seen by the dominant male or the other beta-males there will be violence.

In this manner the beta-male gains the possibility of passing on his genes even though he is not carrying the fittest genes.
We see here the start of social selection in relation to natural selection. The inferior, genetically, male compensates for his less fit genes by adapting his strategy to a perceived need in the object of his desires. He, in fact, seduces her by taking advantage of her vulnerabilities, as a female raising an offspring within competitive circumstances.

With effete, beta-human, males the circumstances are a bit more complex, but the general principles apply and are continuation of this more primal primate behavior.
With humans being as helpful, king, docile, nonthreatening, useful to the female makes up for any genetic failings...and so such an inferior, genetically, male will compensate by adopting behaviors and attitudes and thinking which benefit the female this male wishes to seduce in the hopes that his utility will eventually result in her giving-into his sexual desires.

This is why we frequently find that many males are the most vehement and aggressive defenders of feminism and such social ideals and conventions which support female safety and flatters female vanity and retains female sexual power, her power of selection.

With the unconditional support of female social causes, as these have been given to her and as these have been accepted by her as the highest of all ideals, the beta-male signals the female, or the general female population, that he is a male they can count on, that he is useful to them, and that he is completely committed to their side, thusly increasing the possibility that one of them will, in the hopes of retaining his services and loyalties, give into his sexual needs.

[mickthinks]

In this manner the beta-male gains the possibility of passing on his genes even though he is not carrying the fittest genes.

lol There is no scientific basis for asserting that a set of genes which are passed on are unfit. This is your unpleasant ideology showing through.

[chaz wyman]

In this manner the beta-male gains the possibility of passing on his genes even though he is not carrying the fittest genes.

lol There is no scientific basis for asserting that a set of genes which are passed on are unfit. This is your unpleasant ideology showing through.

Actually many genes are unfit. Selection works on individuals which have survived for a range of reasons, not all of them due to 'fit' genes.
The bottom line is reproductive success, not good genes (though this can be similar). In any given incidence of an individual organism having viable progeny, they can carry with them a range of genes, behaviours and traits that are negative, neutral and positive. Selection is not based on specific genes, behaviours or traits, but on the simple fact of survival to mating and offspring.
The assertion that there is no "scientific basis" for this is an example of Darwinitis.. A position Darwin was too smart to accept.

[chaz wyman]

What a pile of shite this forum descends into sometimes.
Think I'll take a break. There are some real good discussions going on elsewhere. Regrettably, sooner or later, adolescent senescent ego-wankers squirt their slime all over an intelligent thread, and it dies.
If there was some sort of point, some dark humour, self-mockery, iconoclasm, anything with the whiff of human intelligence about it, I could put up with it.
Bored now.
Laters!

I have to agree. This Forum has so much shit shovelling that it is full of shit.

[chaz wyman]

What a pile of shite this forum descends into sometimes.
Think I'll take a break. There are some real good discussions going on elsewhere. Regrettably, sooner or later, adolescent senescent ego-wankers squirt their slime all over an intelligent thread, and it dies.
If there was some sort of point, some dark humour, self-mockery, iconoclasm, anything with the whiff of human intelligence about it, I could put up with it.
Bored now.
Laters!

May I recommend
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
It is strictly moderated for insults, and the justice can be a bit summary. But you can really have a proper argument there.
Unlike this shit storm of moronic bollocks on Philosophy Now.

[Satyr]

In this manner the beta-male gains the possibility of passing on his genes even though he is not carrying the fittest genes.

lol There is no scientific basis for asserting that a set of genes which are passed on are unfit. This is your unpleasant ideology showing through.

"Unfit", dear moron, is an evolutionary designation describing genes that inhibit reproduction.

Thanks for offering the nervous "lol" to remind me of how pathetic you are.
I guess two retards copulating and having a child cannot be considered a passing on of unfit genes, especially since their existence, and then their subsequent copulation and the aiding od the offspring in survival, are all heavily dependent on human interventions which are governed by needs other than choosing the most fit genes.

Your beta-male strategy is noted...you just have a problem with being reminded about how unfair natural selection could be if man does not butt-in to change the rules.

------------------------------------

Actually many genes are unfit. Selection works on individuals which have survived for a range of reasons, not all of them due to 'fit' genes.

"Fit" in evolution means genes, or combinations of them, offering an advantage in the survival game.

Yes, many genes are, little man....and that's why sheltering accumulates unfit genes to the point where the individual is unable to function properly.
To be unfit, boy, is an accumulation of genes that burden survival or lead to genetic dead-ends.

The bottom line is reproductive success, not good genes (though this can be similar).

If they can be similar then why do you avoid any indication of value?

In any given incidence of an individual organism having viable progeny, they can carry with them a range of genes, behaviours and traits that are negative, neutral and positive.

In relation to the environment.
There is no equality of genes or gene combinations, boy.
Some genes, in relation to survival (reproduction being an aspect of survival) are neutral, in that they offer no measurable advantage or disadvantage; others offer a disadvantage and are eliminated through culling or by being excluded from the gene-pool by the female's sexual role, unless some other factor shelters them or alters the female's value judgments, in other words intervene upon the female's standards for filtering out unfit genes; whereas others offer a distinct advantage, slight as it might be.

Selection is not based on specific genes, behaviours or traits, but on the simple fact of survival to mating and offspring.

And what is survival and mating dependent upon?
Magic?
An organism is the (inter)action of its genes, and whatever traits these manifest as, with the environment.

The assertion that there is no "scientific basis" for this is an example of Darwinitis.. A position Darwin was too smart to accept.

And yet you do not comment on the strategy described but are concerned with the implication that certain genes or gene combinations offer an advantage to an individual which is called "fitness" or "superiority".

The combination of genes resulting in lower intelligence is also non-specific but decisive.
In your case the beta-male strategy drives you to defend any notion that promotes internal herd harmony - which is advantageous to female reproductive roles - and any idea which makes your own inferior fitness recognizable.
This is expected.

Here's a test for your "unspecific" gene disadvantage:
Imagine the laws, and rules, and morals governing modern human behavior were gone tomorrow, and allow for a period for their aftereffect to dissipate in the psyche of the individuals...how "fit" would you be?
What argument about genes would suffice to prevent the inevitable?
How much would denial be successful in this area?