Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Harbal]

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?

Well I think I've given you a good run for your money, considering I'm just saying the first thing that comes into my head, and don't really know what I'm talking about. I often wonder how formidable I would be if I took the time to find out what I was talking about before I said it.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Well I think I've given you a good run for your money, considering I'm just saying the first thing that comes into my head, and don't really know what I'm talking about. I often wonder how formidable I would be if I took the time to find out what I was talking about before I said it.

You might do very well. Still, not bad for making-it-up-on-the-fly.

[Harbal]

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?

Well I think I've given you a good run for your money, considering I'm just saying the first thing that comes into my head, and don't really know what I'm talking about. I often wonder how formidable I would be if I took the time to find out what I was talking about before I said it.

You might do very well. Still, not bad for making-it-up-on-the-fly.

So we're still pals, even though we agree on virtually nothing?

[Immanuel Can]

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

You're right!

It's time we ended things like opening doors for women, or paying for dates, or favouring women in child custody and spousal support cases, or talking about "violence against women," when it's really "violence against anybody." Instead of "Believe women," we can advocate "Believe people." We can raise the cry, "People to the lifeboats!" and let the women get in as they may. Women should be in active combat, in equal numbers and vulnerability to men. And it's certainly past time we ended all forms of "affirmative action" for women, since they now enjoy more than full equality in that department. And they can pay for their own birth control, like men do, and we can let their sports stand on their achievement of financial viability rather than as special programs funded from men's sports...it's all so "infantalizing," according to you...how have we let this go on so long?

Or am I losing you on some of that?

[Immanuel Can]

Well I think I've given you a good run for your money, considering I'm just saying the first thing that comes into my head, and don't really know what I'm talking about. I often wonder how formidable I would be if I took the time to find out what I was talking about before I said it.

You might do very well. Still, not bad for making-it-up-on-the-fly.

So we're still pals, even though we agree on virtually nothing?

Heck, yeah.

[Alexiev]

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

You're right!

It's time we ended things like opening doors for women, or paying for dates, or favouring women in child custody and spousal support cases, or talking about "violence against women," when it's really "violence against anybody." Instead of "Believe women," we can advocate "Believe people." We can raise the cry, "People to the lifeboats!" and let the women get in as they may. Women should be in active combat, in equal numbers and vulnerability to men. And it's certainly past time we ended all forms of "affirmative action" for women, since they now enjoy more than full equality in that department. And they can pay for their own birth control, like men do, and we can let their sports stand on their achievement of financial viability rather than as special programs funded from men's sports...it's all so "infantalizing," according to you...how have we let this go on so long?

Or am I losing you on some of that?

NO, It's not ALL infantilizing. But "women and children first" clearly is. Nor need we do away with chivalry. But it's reasonable to recognize it for what it is, and to admit that the advantages women accrue from it fail to suggest that a patriarchy (rule be men) does not exist. In fact, they suggest that a patriarchy DOES exist.

[Immanuel Can]

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

You're right!

It's time we ended things like opening doors for women, or paying for dates, or favouring women in child custody and spousal support cases, or talking about "violence against women," when it's really "violence against anybody." Instead of "Believe women," we can advocate "Believe people." We can raise the cry, "People to the lifeboats!" and let the women get in as they may. Women should be in active combat, in equal numbers and vulnerability to men. And it's certainly past time we ended all forms of "affirmative action" for women, since they now enjoy more than full equality in that department. And they can pay for their own birth control, like men do, and we can let their sports stand on their achievement of financial viability rather than as special programs funded from men's sports...it's all so "infantalizing," according to you...how have we let this go on so long?

Or am I losing you on some of that?

NO, It's not ALL infantilizing.

Ah. I see. If it's something you like, something that gives you an advantage, it's not "infantilizing." If it's something you don't like, or something that takes away some advantage, it is.

Have I understood you aright?

[Alexiev]

e]
Ah. I see. If it's something you like, something that gives you an advantage, it's not "infantilizing." If it's something you don't like, or something that takes away some advantage, it is.

Have I understood you aright?

You appear incapable of understanding much of anything.

Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it:

It is possible to value children, or women, and to provide them with certain advantages yet remain patriarchal. Words have actual meanings. They are not merely vague sounds freighted with emotional resonance. You may not like it that the particular advantages traditionally enjoyed by women fail to suggest that a patriarchy does not exist, but, in fact, that is exactly the case.

Try not to be so dense. Women have certain privileges. One of those is NOT (more in the past than today) holding political power in our system of government. Think! You can do it (maybe)!

[Immanuel Can]

e]
Ah. I see. If it's something you like, something that gives you an advantage, it's not "infantilizing." If it's something you don't like, or something that takes away some advantage, it is.

Have I understood you aright?

You appear incapable of understanding much of anything.

I'm asking. You don't seem to be telling me anything different from that.

Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it:

Yeah, I know the alleged "definition." Unreal words have definitions, too...like "unicorn."

It is possible to value children, or women, and to provide them with certain advantages yet remain patriarchal.

And? Is that good, or bad? Why?

Words have actual meanings.

You mean like the word "woman"? Yes, I agree. Since we're on that subject, why don't you define that one for me, but without using the word "woman." Give me a non-circular definition of what a "woman" is.

You may not like it ...

Utterly irrelevant to the question of the truth of the claim. The fact that I find "patriarchy" a dumb word has to do with the fact that it's unrealistic, not to how I feel about it.

Women have certain privileges.

You say "words have actual meanings." Let's see what "privilege" means.

Cambridge says, "...an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich." That's not perfect, but it will do. We can certainly say that a "privilege," by definition, is an extra benefit, not an entitlement. So why do women deserve "privilege," but men are to be considered evil for having "privilege"? You'll have to explain that feature of the Feminist narrative to me. It looks unjust.

In contrast, I would argue that both sexes have certain rights and responsibilities, and they're not the same ones.

[Alexiev]

e]
Ah. I see. If it's something you like, something that gives you an advantage, it's not "infantilizing." If it's something you don't like, or something that takes away some advantage, it is.

Have I understood you aright?

You appear incapable of understanding much of anything.

I'm asking. You don't seem to be telling me anything different from that.

Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it:

Yeah, I know the alleged "definition." Unreal words have definitions, too...like "unicorn."

It is possible to value children, or women, and to provide them with certain advantages yet remain patriarchal.

And? Is that good, or bad? Why?

Words have actual meanings.

You mean like the word "woman"? Yes, I agree. Since we're on that subject, why don't you define that one for me, but without using the word "woman." Give me a non-circular definition of what a "woman" is.

You may not like it ...

Utterly irrelevant to the question of the truth of the claim. The fact that I find "patriarchy" a dumb word has to do with the fact that it's unrealistic, not to how I feel about it.

Women have certain privileges.

You say "words have actual meanings." Let's see what "privilege" means.

Cambridge says, "...an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich." That's not perfect, but it will do. We can certainly say that a "privilege," by definition, is an extra benefit, not an entitlement. So why do women deserve "privilege," but men are to be considered evil for having "privilege"? You'll have to explain that feature of the Feminist narrative to me. It looks unjust.

In contrast, I would argue that both sexes have certain rights and responsibilities, and they're not the same ones.

Perhaps you consider men to be evil for having privileges, but I don't and neither does anyone else (as far as I can tell). It is not evil to have privileges, unless those privileges deprive other people. "Women and children first" clearly deprives other people, and some people consider it evil both for infantilizing women, and for conferring unfair privileges. However, "women and children first" is a rule established through the chivalry of men. If it is evil, it is not the women who have unfairly conferred privileges on themselves; instead it is men who desire to be chivalrous and noble.

The idea that there have never been patriarchies is asinine. Did you ever hear of male primogeniture? Isn't that the sign of a patriarchy (per the definition)? Isn't the fact that women couldn't vote in liberal democracies until 100 years ago indicative of patriarchy?

Now, as we know, voting is no great privilege. IN some countries, we elect nauseating Presidents (all of whom, in my country, have been men). Nonetheless, when men get the vote, and women do not, that constitutes a patriarchal system per the definition.

The idea that "unicorn" is an "unreal word" is idiotic (like most of what you write). The word is real; it has a clear and well-known meaning. The beast may not be real, but that has no influence on the reality of the word. Or perhaps you mean that words can describe things that are unreal, but are too illiterate to actually write what you mean. I suppose that is the likely explanation.

I, on the other hand, am able to write clearly. It annoys me when you respond not to what I have written, but to something else for which you incorrectly think you have a rebuttal.

[Immanuel Can]

You appear incapable of understanding much of anything.

I'm asking. You don't seem to be telling me anything different from that.

Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it:

Yeah, I know the alleged "definition." Unreal words have definitions, too...like "unicorn."

It is possible to value children, or women, and to provide them with certain advantages yet remain patriarchal.

And? Is that good, or bad? Why?

Words have actual meanings.

You mean like the word "woman"? Yes, I agree. Since we're on that subject, why don't you define that one for me, but without using the word "woman." Give me a non-circular definition of what a "woman" is.

You may not like it ...

Utterly irrelevant to the question of the truth of the claim. The fact that I find "patriarchy" a dumb word has to do with the fact that it's unrealistic, not to how I feel about it.

Women have certain privileges.

You say "words have actual meanings." Let's see what "privilege" means.

Cambridge says, "...an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich." That's not perfect, but it will do. We can certainly say that a "privilege," by definition, is an extra benefit, not an entitlement. So why do women deserve "privilege," but men are to be considered evil for having "privilege"? You'll have to explain that feature of the Feminist narrative to me. It looks unjust.

In contrast, I would argue that both sexes have certain rights and responsibilities, and they're not the same ones.

Perhaps you consider men to be evil for having privileges, but I don't and neither does anyone else (as far as I can tell).

So you don't believe in the "patriarchy" narrative? Good.

It is not evil to have privileges, unless those privileges deprive other people. "Women and children first" clearly deprives other people, and some people consider it evil both for infantilizing women, and for conferring unfair privileges. However, "women and children first" is a rule established through the chivalry of men. If it is evil, it is not the women who have unfairly conferred privileges on themselves; instead it is men who desire to be chivalrous and noble.

Oh. So the men who lay down their lives for women and children are "infantalizing" and "conferring unfair privileges" on women, which "deprive other people"?

Well, you certainly know how to make the heroes the villains.

Did you ever hear of male primogeniture?

Yes. It was the feudal system that kept estates from being split up by each generation. And it discriminated against all male children except one, as well as any female children, except the firstborn.

Isn't the fact that women couldn't vote in liberal democracies until 100 years ago indicative of patriarchy?

Is the fact that women can never be drafted a sign of matriarchy?

IN some countries, we elect nauseating Presidents (all of whom, in my country, have been men).

Well, now, we agree about that. The current crop of "leaders" is certainly a rotten bunch. But it's primarily women who have voted them in, we must note.

The idea that "unicorn" is an "unreal word" is idiotic (like most of what you write).

What I actually wrote was:

Unreal words have definitions, too...like "unicorn."

...which means that like "patriarchy," "unicorn" is a REAL word, in that it is a word -- but refers to a fictional concept. How could I mean anything else? For if I use the word at all, it makes it really a word, really an utterance; but it does not mean that the idea the word expresses is real.

[Alexiev]

]The idea that "unicorn" is an "unreal word" is idiotic (like most of what you write).

What I actually wrote was:

Unreal words have definitions, too...like "unicorn."

...which means that like "patriarchy," "unicorn" is a REAL word, in that it is a word -- but refers to a fictional concept. How could I mean anything else? For if I use the word at all, it makes it really a word, really an utterance; but it does not mean that the idea the word expresses is real.
[/quote]

I knew what you meant. It's unfortunate that you were not sufficiently literate to write what you meant.

You continue in this mode. Are you silly enough to suggest that ideas are not "real"? The idea of a unicorn is real, even if the animal is not.

[Immanuel Can]

I knew what you meant. It's unfortunate that you were not sufficiently literate to write what you meant.

You knew what I meant, you say...but then you say I didn't write it well enough. Well, apparently, it was enough.

But I get what you're doing. You're shifting to the ad hominem again. Anytime you're not winning points in arguing the subject of the debate, you resort to it. But it's a distractor. Now, I could list a bunch of things I've already asked you. And some of them, as it happened, really bothered you. When asked about any of those things, you dodged immediately, and I pretended not to notice, in order to be kind. But I did notice. And I let you off the hook.

I'm not going to return to them because that would be spiteful and petty. And I'm not like that, nor am I going there. But you shouldn't either. The ad hominem is irrelevant to issues. And just as I will not use it against you, so I will not waste time on responding to that tactic.

So did you want to discuss gender philosophy, or did you wish to take personal snipes at people you don't even know? I guess you have to decide. But I can't see any point in us wasting time on the latter.

[Walker]

Assuming she is a woman, a woman’s view.
The leftist war against women’s yearning for a family
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... amily.html

She makes other good points at the link.

At this point in the development of the Elites’ plot to rule the planet, we understand the essence of their strategy is to make us all dependent upon them. As Cheryl Chumley points out, this means destroying all existing economic and cultural institutions, including food production, so the slate is clean for the Masters to scribble on.

In this strategy, the family is a special target for destruction because every human being is born by a man and out of a woman, and thus is born into a family, even if only a one-parent family. Since every association of people is a society, and every society with some form of governance is a polity, every family is a polity. The Elite Masters absolutely cannot abide any polities among their subjects. Instead, they must have their subjects completely fragmented into “one is the loneliest number.”

[Alexiev]

I knew what you meant. It's unfortunate that you were not sufficiently literate to write what you meant.

You knew what I meant, you say...but then you say I didn't write it well enough. Well, apparently, it was enough.

But I get what you're doing. You're shifting to the ad hominem again. Anytime you're not winning points in arguing the subject of the debate, you resort to it. But it's a distractor. Now, I could list a bunch of things I've already asked you. And some of them, as it happened, really bothered you. When asked about any of those things, you dodged immediately, and I pretended not to notice, in order to be kind. But I did notice. And I let you off the hook.

I'm not going to return to them because that would be spiteful and petty. And I'm not like that, nor am I going there. But you shouldn't either. The ad hominem is irrelevant to issues. And just as I will not use it against you, so I will not waste time on responding to that tactic.

So did you want to discuss gender philosophy, or did you wish to take personal snipes at people you don't even know? I guess you have to decide. But I can't see any point in us wasting time on the latter.

Since you ask, I don't want to discuss gender philosophy with you, because nothing you write is enlightening. Also, you keep telling me my motivations, of which you are unaware. Given that you enjoy explaining my motivations (which you make up), it's reasonable turnabout to demonstrate that your writing ability is at about a third grade level. Your constant use of the Latin ad hominem is another example. The only excuse for switching from English to Latin is to show fallacious reasoning. To label mere insults ad hominem is pretentious, bloated writing that pronounces ignorance and illiteracy on the part of the writer.