Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

You know I can't be bothered with all that "evidence" nonsense...

Then you'll make a great advocate of "the patriarchy" nonsense.

I'm not an advocate of anything. I was just pointing out what you, I, and everyone else here knows.

I think you've been lied to. The evidence is not there.

Even though you might fervently believe in "the patriarchy" story, neither you nor these alleged "everyones" are apparently able manufacture the evidence that women are oppressed today...or even that they were substantially worse off than the equivalent men -- far less that some "hegemonic" and "tyrannical" regime called "the patriarchy" existed. If they could produce such evidence, they surely would. And if it were so true that "everybody knows" it, then it shouldn't even make you break a sweat to do it.

So why is it so impossible to do?

[Harbal]

Then you'll make a great advocate of "the patriarchy" nonsense.

I'm not an advocate of anything. I was just pointing out what you, I, and everyone else here knows.

I think you've been lied to. The evidence is not there.

Yes, and you are doing the lying.

Before 1870, any money earned by a woman automatically became her husband’s property upon marriage, and before 1919, women were not allowed to be solicitors or barristers. There were numerous things that women were either legally or socially prevented from doing. It is hard to believe, but nevertheless true, that women found it difficult to open a bank account in their own name before 1975. All this stuff, and loads more, is very easy to research.

[Immanuel Can]

Before 1870, any money earned by a woman automatically became her husband’s property upon marriage, and before 1919, women were not allowed to be solicitors or barristers.

During the same time, men were being slaughtered in the Great War. Women didn't vote, but they also weren't drafted. So who was privileged?

...women found it difficult to open a bank account in their own name before 1975.

And men were the primary providers during that same time, and worked, while women had the children and home. Then men were fighting a second world war, while the women also stayed home. And when, for example, the Titanic sank, who went to the lifeboats first, and who had to stay on board? So tell me: under the early-modern paradigm, which one was really privileged?

To quote a very wise man I once knew, "All this stuff, and loads more, is very easy to research."

I think you've never really thought about what men had to do. You seem to suppose that because women couldn't do some things, that men had easy lives. But they didn't. As I said, the rule for both sexes throughout history was tragedy.

This whole debate, in fact, is a product of modern privilege: for only after things like the major wars, welfare and the pill could women afford to think of themselves as free to dispense with men. And when the next upheaval comes, whenever it does, it will again be men upon whom those same women call to defend them and the children against tyranny, and to head into the battlefield.

[Walker]

In other words, women weren't free to be owned by the system in the way men were owned by the system.

Neither could they wear pants in the old days. They had to ride side-saddle, which must be difficult. Wouldn't be proper to straddle the saddle.

However, women do mold the minds of men when men are young and impressionable. Women teach men their first view of the world. This is why The State, the system, wants to get its paws on the children’s minds as soon as possible, to mold them rather than allow amateurs like mothers to wield that kind of power, to shape a mind. Control the food, control the children’s minds, control the nurturing, and you control the society. For example, the October March kick-started the French Revolution because women got pissed off over food.

This is but one reason women are pushed out of the house, with expectations. Let the state tend to the children while the women verk.

More verk requires and stimulates more consumption: verk clothes, another car, some form of specialized education or degree, childcare, earned vacations to decompress because we deserve it, and of course multiple taxes on all the stuff including income, taxes for the authorities to spend on social engineering projects that lie beyond the perview of the government.

No wonder the USA needs a slave class. Someone has to do the chores while all that work is being done.

A lot of women have bought into it to prove by golly, they’re just as good as and better than men (big ego trip) … but men aren’t hardwired to nurture and raise the youngins, which is good, because before women were pushed out of the house men didn’t have the time to be taking maternity leave since there weren’t free breakfasts and lunches at the schools, or reliable birth control, and men have a thing about not letting the little youngins starve*.


* By feeding the children, the state undercuts the primal role of fatherhood.

[Immanuel Can]

Let the state tend to the children while the women verk.

The State is not actually caring whether or not the children are "tended," or the women "verk." All they're really concerned about is that both are unhappy, disoriented, and dependent on the State. Severing the relationship between parents and children, and between men and women, serves that specific purpose. Everybody has to be made miserable and dysfunctional first. Only then, will the will exist among them to be "saved" by the State.

The goal is an excuse for the State elite to re-engineer the whole system. That means that everybody -- men, women and children -- needs to be made so discontent within the status quo that a desperate turning to the State to remedy it becomes unavoidable. Then the State can prescribe the solution it wants. Private property, secure and healthy families, normal relations between the sexes, real public education, independence, free enterprise, mental health, self-sufficient provision, small government, self-defense, a mutually respectful populace, personal ownership of transportation, a living wage, harmonious local communities, home ownership, faith, academic freedom...these are all the things they hate, because they render State intervention totally optional, and then less and less necessary. Racism, poverty, mental illness, domestic fracturing, welfare dependency, abortion, assisted suicide, shattered communities, low incomes, confusing and empty public education, state ownership, homelessness, public transport, food shortages, lockdowns, a vulnerable populace...these things are the things they love, because they serve the grand purpose of increasing State dependency.

For the elite's plans, the State must be made mandatory, and then empowered to take control of every aspect of life. And the "proles," the public, the "deplorables," the "ignorant masses" who must be led, are just not co-operating quickly enough, so they must be made more an more poor and miserable, and more and more dependent on government largesse, until they do co-operate. And they must be told things are going to only get worse, if the State is not given more power. The world will become overpopulated. We'll run out of resources. The polar bears will all die.

That's the current plan, so clear in the WEF, the Brussels bullies, the Leftist regimes in North America, and the Socialists in the UK: torture people economically, socially and mentally, until they turn in abject dependence to the almighty State. Big business, big government and big media are massed together against the ordinary citizen, with the common project of milking them.

Anyone can see it. They just have to open their eyes. But there are truly many people who are so utterly addicted to the feeling of being watched over and loved by the State that they will never believe that the State could turn on them...even when they are being tortured in this way. They would rather die than think they had to mistrust "the powers that be." For them, the big media cannot lie. The Democrats cannot be undemocratic, and the Republicans cannot be corrupted. Public education always works. Universities make us smart and prepare us for jobs. Government always serves the people. The medical system cannot fail. And so on. That's just what they want to keep believing, and they feel that if they keep believing it hard enough, it will surely be true.

The gender war is a skirmish of this larger war.

[Harbal]

Before 1870, any money earned by a woman automatically became her husband’s property upon marriage, and before 1919, women were not allowed to be solicitors or barristers.

During the same time, men were being slaughtered in the Great War. Women didn't vote, but they also weren't drafted. So who was privileged?

How instrumental would you say women were in starting that war?

...women found it difficult to open a bank account in their own name before 1975.

And men were the primary providers during that same time, and worked, while women had the children and home.

Did women have much choice in that state of affairs? What about the women who might have preferred an alternative life to cooking, cleaning, and looking after children, how easy did society make that for them, compared to men?

And when, for example, the Titanic sank, who went to the lifeboats first, and who had to stay on board?

Yes, there has always been a tendency to patronise women, and I suppose this was an instance where they might not have minded that so much.

I think you've never really thought about what men had to do. You seem to suppose that because women couldn't do some things, that men had easy lives.

Of course I've thought about it. The roles that men and women decide upon between themselves is a matter for them, but society, and the law, should not artificially impose them. I suppose men were also imprisoned by the old fashioned paradigm, but they still had more social freedom, and more legal rights.

This whole debate, in fact, is a product of modern privilege: for only after things like the major wars, welfare and the pill could women afford to think of themselves as free to dispense with men. And when the next upheaval comes, whenever it does, it will again be men upon whom those same women call to defend them and the children against tyranny, and to head into the battlefield.

Again, from whom is the threat of tyranny most likely to come, men or women? Besides, men are more physically suited to fighting in wars, or at least to how wars have traditionally been fought. By your reasoning, anyone -men included- should have fewer social rights if they are not physically suited to go into combat.

[Immanuel Can]

Before 1870, any money earned by a woman automatically became her husband’s property upon marriage, and before 1919, women were not allowed to be solicitors or barristers.

During the same time, men were being slaughtered in the Great War. Women didn't vote, but they also weren't drafted. So who was privileged?

How instrumental would you say women were in starting that war?

You're right! If women ruled the world, we'd fight by rumours and character assassination, not bombs. But then, practically nothing in the world would ever have been invented, and the first despot to attack would win, so...

...women found it difficult to open a bank account in their own name before 1975.

And men were the primary providers during that same time, and worked, while women had the children and home.

Did women have much choice in that state of affairs? What about the women who might have preferred an alternative life to cooking, cleaning, and looking after children, how easy did society make that for them, compared to men?

What if men had preferred not to be in the coal mine?

And when, for example, the Titanic sank, who went to the lifeboats first, and who had to stay on board?

Yes, there has always been a tendency to patronise women,

I'm sure the survivors eventually got over the insult.

The roles that men and women decide upon between themselves is a matter for them,

That's a very recent perspective. For most of history, necessity, not choice, has been the rule.

This whole debate, in fact, is a product of modern privilege: for only after things like the major wars, welfare and the pill could women afford to think of themselves as free to dispense with men. And when the next upheaval comes, whenever it does, it will again be men upon whom those same women call to defend them and the children against tyranny, and to head into the battlefield.

Again, from whom is the threat of tyranny most likely to come, men or women?

It's hard to say. There have been fewer female rulers, because rule is usually held by the strong. But many women are not particularly nice...as women themselves all tell us. So maybe now that we live in a more gynocentric society, we'll find out.

Besides, men are more physically suited to fighting in wars, or at least to how wars have traditionally been fought.

And women are uniquely suited to having children. So what's your point?

By your reasoning, anyone -men included- should have fewer social rights if they are not physically suited to go into combat.

That's nothing like my reasoning. In my reasoning, rights are instrinsic to all human beings, just as Locke said. If you've got a different line of reasoning, you'll have to explain it.

But gender roles are inevitably different. Equality is an impossibility, because as you note, men and women are essentially constituted as different, and "physically suited" to different roles. A woman who wants to go into combat is not nearly as much at a disadvantage as a man who wishes to give birth.

[Harbal]

During the same time, men were being slaughtered in the Great War. Women didn't vote, but they also weren't drafted. So who was privileged?

How instrumental would you say women were in starting that war?

You're right! If women ruled the world, we'd fight by rumours and character assassination, not bombs. But then, practically nothing in the world would ever have been invented, and the first despot to attack would win, so...

I suppose that sheds light on your attitude towards women, but not much else.

Yes, there has always been a tendency to patronise women,

I'm sure the survivors eventually got over the insult.

I'm sure they did, but women don't have to be on a sinking ship to get patronised by men.

Besides, men are more physically suited to fighting in wars, or at least to how wars have traditionally been fought.

And women are uniquely suited to having children. So what's your point?

And are men expected to to have fewer rights and freedoms because of that?

But gender roles are inevitably different. Equality is an impossibility, because as you note, men and women are essentially constituted as different, and "physically suited" to different roles. A woman who wants to go into combat is not nearly as much at a disadvantage as a man who wishes to give birth.

I could have sworn you said there was no such thing as gender in the transexual thread. I may be mistaken.

[Immanuel Can]

How instrumental would you say women were in starting that war?

You're right! If women ruled the world, we'd fight by rumours and character assassination, not bombs. But then, practically nothing in the world would ever have been invented, and the first despot to attack would win, so...

I suppose that sheds light on your attitude towards women, but not much else.

It's exactly what all women say about all other women...that women have been mean to them, spiteful, and told lies about them...character assassinated them. It's far more common than girls actually being physically violent to each other.

Test it out. Choose a woman who doesn't know what you want to ask. Ask her to tell you about the time other women were cruel to her in this sort of way. They all have multiple stories.

Yes, there has always been a tendency to patronise women,

I'm sure the survivors eventually got over the insult.

I'm sure they did, but women don't have to be on a sinking ship to get patronised by men.

Well, I'm sure there are weak and cowardly persons among the males who would have been quite happy to abandon patronizing those who got the lifeboats. But I think we can see where the real privilege lay.

And that's the point: traditional culture was limiting to women; it was also privileging to them, protective of them, and deferential to them, in some other ways. So it's all a trade-off. It's certainly not the case that yesterday was oppressive and today is free. And there was no "patriarchy."

Besides, men are more physically suited to fighting in wars, or at least to how wars have traditionally been fought.

And women are uniquely suited to having children. So what's your point?

And are men expected to to have fewer rights and freedoms because of that?

No man can "have the right" to have children. So again, I don't see your point. I hear echoes of Monty Python's "Loretta" again.

But gender roles are inevitably different. Equality is an impossibility, because as you note, men and women are essentially constituted as different, and "physically suited" to different roles. A woman who wants to go into combat is not nearly as much at a disadvantage as a man who wishes to give birth.

I could have sworn you said there was no such thing as gender in the transexual thread. I may be mistaken.

Show me the word "gender" in what I said.

What I said in the other thread is that sex is the differentiator. "Gender" is nonsense, when the word is applied to human beings; and especially when applied in the PC way it is today, as if somebody could have a different inner nature that is totally contradictory to their physical constitution.

There are no non-deluded "Lorettas." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

[Harbal]

You're right! If women ruled the world, we'd fight by rumours and character assassination, not bombs. But then, practically nothing in the world would ever have been invented, and the first despot to attack would win, so...

I suppose that sheds light on your attitude towards women, but not much else.

It's exactly what all women say about all other women...

If you check, I think you'll find it was what you said about women.

.that women have been mean to them, spiteful, and told lies about them...character assassinated them.

No, that's not what women do, it's what people do; men and women.

I'm sure they did, but women don't have to be on a sinking ship to get patronised by men.

Well, I'm sure there are weak and cowardly persons among the males who would have been quite happy to abandon patronizing those who got the lifeboats. But I think we can see where the real privilege lay.

And that's the point: traditional culture was limiting to women; it was also privileging to them, protective of them, and deferential to them, in some other ways. So it's all a trade-off. It's certainly not the case that yesterday was oppressive and today is free. And there was no "patriarchy."

No, the point is that the privileges and rights that women were entitled to were imposed on them by a patriarchy, who obviously had superior judgement, rather than what women themselves would have preferred. For the majority of women, the privilege of financial independence would have been of far more use to them than that of being first in the lifeboats on a sinking ship.

I could have sworn you said there was no such thing as gender in the transexual thread. I may be mistaken.

Show me the word "gender" in what I said.

What I said in the other thread is that sex is the differentiator. "Gender" is nonsense, when the word is applied to human beings;

But you were applying it to human beings when you spoke of gender roles in this thread.


What, exactly do women want that you object to?

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose that sheds light on your attitude towards women, but not much else.

It's exactly what all women say about all other women...

If you check, I think you'll find it was what you said about women.

If you check, you'll find out it's what all women say about women. But you won't check. You don't want to know.

No, the point is that the privileges and rights that women were entitled to were imposed on them by a patriarchy, who obviously had superior judgement, rather than what women themselves would have preferred.

Necessity imposed roles on men and women. There was no "patriarchy."

For the majority of women, the privilege of financial independence would have been of far more use to them than that of being first in the lifeboats on a sinking ship.

Not for the women on the ship. And not for the women who managed not to be drafted into wars. And not for the women who didn't ever want to be bricklayers, firemen or sanitation workers.

What, exactly do women want that you object to?

"Women"? As a group, they don't do anything I'm objecting to. I'm merely objecting to the Feminist "patriarchy" nonsense. As should any sane person.

[Harbal]

It's exactly what all women say about all other women...

If you check, I think you'll find it was what you said about women.

If you check, you'll find out it's what all women say about women.

The only thing we actually have any proof of, is that you said it about women.

But you won't check. You don't want to know.

I am perfectly aware of that particular type of viciousness that only women seem capable of, but I don't see what that has got to do with the topic in hand.

Necessity imposed roles on men and women. There was no "patriarchy."

Society was set up in such a way as to make women completely dependant on men, and women were not allowed to be in a position of authority over men, unless they happened to be the Queen, or something like that. I don't think it unreasonable to consider that a patriarchal society.

And there could only be a queen if no prospective kings were available, btw.

For the majority of women, the privilege of financial independence would have been of far more use to them than that of being first in the lifeboats on a sinking ship.

Not for the women on the ship. And not for the women who managed not to be drafted into wars. And not for the women who didn't ever want to be bricklayers, firemen or sanitation workers.

How does giving women priority on sinking ships, not sending them to war, or not expecting them to do jobs they are not physically suited to, make them unfit to own property, or be in possession and control of their own finances? What is the logical connection?

What, exactly do women want that you object to?

"Women"? As a group, they don't do anything I'm objecting to. I'm merely objecting to the Feminist "patriarchy" nonsense. As should any sane person.

I'll be honest with you, I don't actually know what this alleged "patriarchy" nonsense consists of, but then I probably don't go looking for things to feel aggrieved about as enthusiastically as you seem to. But a claim, in itself, can't really hurt you, so what damage have you suffered as a consequence of it?

[Alexiev]

The notion that "women and children first" gives women advantages is, of course, correct. However, this advantage in no way argues against the notion of a patriarchy. The traditional lifeboat scheme infantilizes women, comparing them to children. We protect children, but we don't allow them to rule. Chivalry in general was designed to protect women, but it also viewed them as helpless and in need of protection. How many times did Lancelot have to save Gweneviere before she fell in love with him?

Many so called advantages that women enjoyed were the result of their lack of power and perceived lack of power.

Also, the notion that women didn't work is incorrect. Only in the privileged classes was this ever correct: 85% of the married couples both labored pretty equally. The only difference is that men's work was valued more (i.e. they were better paid).

[Immanuel Can]

If you check, I think you'll find it was what you said about women.

If you check, you'll find out it's what all women say about women.

The only thing we actually have any proof of, is that you said it about women.

Maybe. But you could find out that what I said was exactly true...if you actually asked any woman.

But you won't check. You don't want to know.

I am perfectly aware of that particular type of viciousness that only women seem capable of, but I don't see what that has got to do with the topic in hand.

It certainly shows that malevolence is not confined to one sex.

Necessity imposed roles on men and women. There was no "patriarchy."

Society was set up in such a way as to make women completely dependant on men,

It wasn't "society." It was necessity. And it was mostly a function of relative strength and the dangers of life, and of reproduction, all of which was in the interest not only of men and women, but of the species as a whole.

"Women"? As a group, they don't do anything I'm objecting to. I'm merely objecting to the Feminist "patriarchy" nonsense. As should any sane person.

I'll be honest with you, I don't actually know what this alleged "patriarchy" nonsense consists of,..

You're so funny sometimes. You've spent several messages arguing over the "patriarchy," but then have no idea what it is alleged to be?

[Immanuel Can]

The traditional lifeboat scheme infantilizes women, comparing them to children.

It doesn't, actually. If it had, they'd have just said "children."

But all the Femnists would probably have done the world a huge favour if they'd been prouder than to have accepted the privilege, it's true. Strangely, it doesn't seem that any did.

Chivalry in general was designed to protect women, but it also viewed them as helpless and in need of protection.

Which they were. Both women and children were vulnerable, and the world was much more problematic than it is today for the weak and vulnerable.

Also, the notion that women didn't work is incorrect.

You can protest that to somebody who said it.