can men be feminists

[Satyr]

The argument for human rights in general is different from the argument for equal political rights for men and women. Women, being as human as men, are capable of demanding these rights, discussing them, or indeed inventing them, just as much as men are able to discuss, consider, invent.

Dear boy, these "rights" were male inventions, handed over to women as ideas/ideals.
Females simply adapted them as their own, as they easily conform to any prevailing norm.
They know not from whence these "rights" come from or what their justification is, they simply know that they must have them tob e normal, New age, modern females; enlightened and progressive.

Given that you agree that rights are human inventions you propose to live in a fantasy scenario where we all rpetend, but none dare speak his mind, as if the fantasy were real.
This I why i say that much of civilization is based no hypocrisy.

Furthermore, dear fella, when you enforce a strict code of behavior you create uniformity....which adds to the illusion that label are the same, when in fact they are not but they are forced to act as if they are.
For example,if we harken back to an earlier age when atheism was punishable by death then all acted as if God were real...and it did not matter if he were or not.
In monogamy, where adultery is punished or has social repercussions, all act as if monogamy is natural, when in fact it is not, and that marriages are happy, when in fact most are miserable within them.

The idea of 'animal rights' is completely different. Animals could have rights only insofar as some humans might 'grant' them rights. Animals may be owned, hunted, cooked and eaten by humans, and at the same time some humans may campaign for some perhaps limited 'rights' for animals without claiming that they are in any way as 'human' as us.

Dear boy, if you follow your own principles to their logical conclusion then you have an obligation tog rant these creatures, who cannot demand them, their rights.

To do otherwise is to contradict your own morals.
Your assessment of them is based on appearances, which you must declare irrelevant if you should hold females as being no different than males, and your judgment ignores the unity of nature, which you propose to be your founding ideal, which makes you no different than a pig or a dog, even if it cannot speak. It can bleed and feel pain...and so given that life is sacred and deserves a moniker of dignity,as you understand it, animals deserve respect and dignity.

Dear boy, to claim that the difference is one of degree, animals being more different to man than a woman is, or an ape, then you must justify what level of difference is deemed irrelevant and which should be taken account of.

Furthermore, your assessment that humans are not resources, is highly problematic. It offers a de facto essence which is not easily rationalized.
for you all otherness is a resource...as it is for me.

My dear boy. You need to realise that women are not asking you for anything.

Oh but they are boy...every time they botch and complain and ask for special rules to be applied so they can be allowed entrance where they cannot meet the established criteria for entering.
Feminism, boy, is asking.

I wonder if the blacks asked to be freed or were they given freedom; it being part of the white man's new Judeo-Christian principles, and a logical conclusion of a way of thinking.

Thanks for your grammatical corrections, I bet they fill you with some pride.

This is just an unfocussed rant, AFAICS

Which makes it easy for you to ignore, dear boy.

[Kayla]

Would she feel the same if he told her his ideology was that a womens place was in the home caring for her man, keeping the place clean and not working? If she agrees then I'd guess she's not a feminist and just goes to show how even beautiful(?) successful professional women have a short grasp of political history.

obviously since that is in brief and lacking nuance his ideology

but i dont see what grasp of political history has to do with it

if she wants to be a housewife that is her choice

[Kayla]

I took my little male chauvinist and molded him with love into a man I could tolerate .

the prevailing view i hear from my mom aunts grandmothers etc is that marrying a man with the intent of changing him is a height of folly and doomed to failure

my greatgrandma says that it is possible but only if one marries young

she and her husband were 14 when they married she says they both changed and that made for a good marriage

[Kayla]

getting laid is the main drive behind almost everything they do or say in the presence of a desirable female.

if i go out with a conservative religious boy i know that i can just hang out with him and have fun without worrying too much whether at some point i will either have to do sexual things with him or deal with the awkwardness of saying thanks but no thanks

[Arising_uk]

...

but i dont see what grasp of political history has to do with it

if she wants to be a housewife that is her choice

Exactly what I mean. Where did she get this choice? I said if his ideology was "women", all women, no exceptions whether she thinks she has a choice or not.

[Arising_uk]

...
Get it yet?
So, when a beaver builds a damn on a river it does not affects its own fate more than the river or the forest that surrounds it. It is still naturally inclined.
Humans, on the other hand, build a dam and then homes and then wires and then they producer electricity, intervening on natural processes to an extent that the intervention itself exceeds the effects of the river and the forests around it. Man, in effect, creates an artificial environment within which he cocoons himself. ...

In effect exactly what the beaver does, as a beaver fundamentally effects the river and the forest around it.

[Satyr]

...
Get it yet?
So, when a beaver builds a damn on a river it does not affects its own fate more than the river or the forest that surrounds it. It is still naturally inclined.
Humans, on the other hand, build a dam and then homes and then wires and then they producer electricity, intervening on natural processes to an extent that the intervention itself exceeds the effects of the river and the forests around it. Man, in effect, creates an artificial environment within which he cocoons himself. ...

In effect exactly what the beaver does, as a beaver fundamentally effects the river and the forest around it.

Little girl, it is about degree.

Same with power.
There is no omnipotence and so strength is a measurement of weakness...just like you are stupid in degree.

In this case the degree to which the organism, in this case the beaver, affects its environment and then how this affects it in turn, is what I am talking about.

So, one more time, because you are as thick as molasses on a hot Alabama night, when we are talking about artificial environments we are talking about a degree of intervention upon the environment which then reflects back to the intervening organism in excess to the conditions that preceded this intervention.

Humans, for instance, have intervened upon natural processes to such a degree that man, in effect, begins affecting himself, his own development, with his interventions in excess to natural processes.

[Notvacka]

If we agree, you and I, to pretend that you can fly, this is a right granted to you, by a mutual agreement that may have nothing to do with reality.

This example is rather silly, since we are all slaves to reality in the first place. We can agree to pretend all we want, and people do, but that has nothing to do with rights.

Ownership is a better example. It's possible to own property due to a common agreement about what is yours and what is mine. The right to own property is something we grant each other. There are people who don't honour this agreement. They are called thieves. Of course, in reality, there are no rights and no property. Everything is on loan and you don't even own the molecules which make up your body, as they must be returned one day. Dust to dust and all that. But while we are all slaves to reality in the end, we live most of our lives in a set of shared illusions.

What is artificial? ... We call something artificial when willful intervention, namely our own, constructs an environmental effect which begins to affect us more than what preexisted it. ...in time this intervening crates so much collateral effects, that intervening itself becomes a practice of correcting not nature but the consequences of earlier interventions. This is where the slide down decadence begins...you see...because nature is self-correcting.

The notion that humanity can rise above nature is an illusion. We are part of nature no matter what we do. It's quite possible that humanity could bring about its own end, that we could destroy our environment beyond repair and make our entire planet unlivable. But that would be a natural occurrence, because, as you say, nature is self-correcting. There is nothing unnatural about unlivable planets, our solar system has several already.

...but in fact man does try to rise above his nature. This is the masculine spirit... Science, dear boy, is man rejecting natural processes intervening to "correct" or to bring about a more preferable situation.

Try is the key word here. Man does try to rise above his nature, because to do so is in man's nature.

A free-man, if we can imagine one...

Sure, we can imagine, but freedom is the greatest illusion of all.

[Notvacka]

Rights can only be granted by others. Nothing is ever right unless it's agreed upon. ...

Depends what you mean by "grant"? As my opinion is that rights can only be demanded and fought for, that those who they are demanded from 'give' them is because they know they are going to lose.

Yes, there are many ways to reach an agreement.

[Satyr]

This example is rather silly, since we are all slaves to reality in the first place. We can agree to pretend all we want, and people do, but that has nothing to do with rights.

It is rather silly to pretend there is such a thing as rights outside human contexts.
So, stop proposing it as being part of philosophy.
Sociology, perhaps.

Ownership is a better example. It's possible to own property due to a common agreement about what is yours and what is mine. The right to own property is something we grant each other.

Exactly, so we are role-playing. We tell each other:"You rpetend i am this and I'll reciprocate in kind"...while outside this agreement our agreement is nonsense.

Your "equality" is really a pretense.
No matter how stupid or deformed or weak the other is, you will pretend he is just like you, and he will turn a blind eye to your deficiencies.

The notion that humanity can rise above nature is an illusion.

Perhaps, but then you propose to rpetend that you have.
Equality and ownership does not exist in nature. One appropriates, manipulates, exploits in accordance to his differentiation.

Evolution works on differences.
Granting equality, or pretending to, is anti-natural. And given, as you said, one cannot rise above nature, then it is a shared delusion, a fantasy.
it is a disconnection from reality.

Try is the key word here. Man does try to rise above his nature, because to do so is in man's nature.

Yes, it is a masculine trait.
Man projects a preferred state, an ideal, order, and then strives towards it, in opposition to nature which is a flow towards entropy.
The feminine trait is to surrender to the flow towards entropy and its ideal state is absolute chaos....the Greeks associated the character with Dionysus and his female priestesses the hysterias.
The eastern philosophies project this absolute nothingness as emptiness. Nothingness....this is the feminine type of nihilism.
Somethingness is the projected masculine nihilistic ideal.
Man, in effect tries to control his feminine side, his nature, He dominates it or tries to, so as to resit entropy.

The balance is a control, not a denial of the feminine side, by the masculine.

The hatred of woman is always only the not yet overcome hatred of one's own sexuality.

It is why females are more pragmatic and look down upon men as being childlike, dreaming...their minds in the clouds...idealists...inventors, explorers, challengers of nature and the status quo.
A man either reaches the level of genius or tumbles to the level of fool...females are always in the middle, mediocre...neither falling to foolishness but neither raising themselves to the level of genius.
As such my thesis on The Feminization of Mankind is about this mediocrity, uniformity, taking over in human systems.

Sure, we can imagine, but freedom is the greatest illusion of all.

No, dear boy, the absolute is the illusion...it is what does not exist.
This absolute is given many titles, such as: one, thing, freedom, particle, here, now, self, and most obvious of all God.
These are all human projection of what is missing...what they think will fulfill them, complete them.

Freedom is a level of independence, which never attains the absolute. Like strength or power, it refers to a relationship, a comparison...one is either more or less free than another...never absolutely so.
The masculine seeks total independence, the female total dependence.

[Notvacka]

It is rather silly to pretend there is such a thing as rights outside human contexts.

It's even sillier to pretend that we could possibly understand anything outside human contexts. The notion of rights, like everything else, must be understood in a human context, because we can't view the world or ourselves from the outside.

Your "equality" is really a pretense.

Yes. But it's a good one.

Granting equality, or pretending to, is anti-natural. And given, as you said, one cannot rise above nature, then it is a shared delusion, a fantasy. It is a disconnection from reality.

You keep using the word "natural" as if it was an ideal, something desirable, rather than something inevitable. There is nothing "anti-natural" and disconnecting from reality is a human speciality. Sharing illusions is what we do best. You can't go against "evolution" or "nature". Evolution has brought us to this. You might believe in competition, but cooperation is a defining feature of mankind and probably the most important factor in our success as a species.

[Satyr]

It's even sillier to pretend that we could possibly understand anything outside human contexts. The notion of rights, like everything else, must be understood in a human context, because we can't view the world or ourselves from the outside.

I never attempted to, dear boy.
But neither did I take your equality as anything more than a human arrangement based on hypocrisy.
It was you who spoke of "rights".

Now, if you can prove rights are universal forces, then I'm listening, if you simply repeat how we must all pretend that we are all the same, for the sake of comfort, then that is not philosophy.

Yes. But it's a good one.

Good/Bad are your delusions, boy. You share them with the vast majority, so do not be troubled.
You've taken up philosophy to comfort yourself, to rpetend like you are interested in reality, when all you wish is to reaffirm your the common myths.

I wouldn't suspect nature gives a shit about your human rights or your delusions about equality or your humanistic sympathies, since it functions using criteria that often contradict your idealism.

You keep using the word "natural" as if it was an ideal, something desirable, rather than something inevitable. There is nothing "anti-natural" and disconnecting from reality is a human speciality.

As always, deep.

Listen, I've explained it to you.
The masculine strives to correct, towards the ideal, the absolute, which has no presence in reality...otherwise he would not strive for it.

Sharing illusions is what we do best. You can't go against "evolution" or "nature". Evolution has brought us to this. You might believe in competition, but cooperation is a defining feature of mankind and probably the most important factor in our success as a species.

Yes, and when you glorify and idealize cooperation you must first define it and explore the costs, dear boy.
For every benefit there is a price.

In these days under the influence of democracy, the virtue of co-operation has taken the place formerly held by obedience. The old-fashioned schoolmaster would say of a boy that he was disobedient; the modern schoolmistress says of an infant that he is non-co-operative. It means the same thing: the child, in either case, fails to do what the teacher wishes, but in the first case the teacher acts as the government and in the second as the representative of the People, i.e. of the other children. The result of the new language, as of the old, is to encourage docility, suggestibility, herd-instinct and conventionality, thereby necessarily discouraging originality, initiative and unusual intelligence. Adults who achieve anything of value have seldom been “co-operative” children. As a rule, they have liked solitude: they have tried to slink into a corner with a book and been happiest when they could escape the notice of their barbarian contemporaries. Almost all men who have been distinguished as artists, writers or men of science have in boyhood been objects of derision and contempt to their schoolfellows; and only too often the teachers have sided with the herd, because it annoyed them that the boy should be odd.

I, cannot just sit back and pretend that all is well, with the world, just because mommy told me so or it feels good.

The beneficial synergy offered by cooperation or unities is both a symptom if individual weakness, seeking compensation in groups, and it comes with a price.
Look at your body, made up, as it is, by billions of individual cells that were once independent.
Think about specialization and what this means.
Look at the ants and bees and termites.

Contemplate how the size of the group affects the independence or the leeway offers to the individual.

Now, dumbing-down might be a price worth paying for such as you, but I imagine that it is that you haven't much to sacrifice.

See therein lies the difference between more disseminating minds and mediocre ones. It differentiates the social strategies of a pack and a herd.


You see, for some love and loyalty and friendship and trust are so valuable that they cannot just give them away to everyone, like they er cheap trinkets.

Your Christian, now secularized into humanitarian or liberal, ideals are universal...in that they are whorish.
You are not allowed to discriminate, because it is bad, evil, a sin, hateful etc.
So your respect, your kindness, is given to everyone, superficial and duplicitous that it is.

I, on the other hand, cannot lower myself that much.
It's a matter of self-respect.

[Arising_uk]

...
I wouldn't suspect nature gives a shit about your human rights or your delusions about equality or your humanistic sympathies, since it functions using criteria that often contradict your idealism. ...

But you are anthropomorphizing "nature" in exactly the way you deride in others? You are making it some ideal that 'gives a shit' but there is no such thing giving or not giving a shit or having criteria for 'functioning' to some purpose.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




feminist:

1. A person who supports the equality of women with men.
2. A member of a feminist political movement.
3. One who believes in the social, political, and economical equality of the sexes.







.............................






Based upon the definition of the word feminist I would conclude that yes men can be feminists.




.

[Kayla]

Exactly what I mean. Where did she get this choice? I said if his ideology was "women", all women, no exceptions whether she thinks she has a choice or not.

well no one is forcing her to marry this guy and i rather doubt he would be financially or physically capable of forcing his way