Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:21 am**

"Adam Smith’s invisible hand has two serious drawbacks: it makes our selfishness seem respectable, and it encourages us to seek out and profit from the selfishness of others."

No, state capitalism does that: the unrestrained market doesn't.

The Keynesian approach does that: the Austrian approach doesn't.

What you describe, Duncan, is the twisting of the communal worm and is utterly impossible when individuals transact without restriction AND without protections (beyond the wits of the individual transactors).

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:00 pm**

Where have all the ladies gone?

When I first started posting on this forum only women talked to me; but now, two weeks later, I am only talking to men. Don’t get me wrong: I was hoping that men would pay attention to me, but for all the women suddenly to go silent on me is a bit of a shock. Ladies, are you all dismissing me because you think me a hopeless case? Or perhaps you think I have become so wise that I no longer need your assistance? Yes, that must be it. Skip, Lacewing, Greta, Kayla … where have you gone to? I miss you -- I’d much rather discuss with a mixed audience.

Here’s my real analysis. I think all you ladies know that I am quite mad, but you have decided that I am not dangerous enough to need suppressing. You men, in turn, did not dare touch me with a barge pole at the start -- I was far too sexist -- but after the ladies had sort of given me their seal of approval (by not outright destroying me), you decided it might be safe to probe a little.

Which makes my point again: men can’t criticise women in public (if they do they get the sack), whereas women can criticise men all they want (blaming men for the patriarchy, for example, will get a woman promoted in Women’s Studies). The knot of female logic tightens its stranglehold evermore.

Does any one of you, lady or gentleman, see any truth in this?

my website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

Posted: **Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:03 pm**

Review the thread, Duncan.

I think you'll find the entry and exit points of various players instructive.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:59 am**

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- Sorry I’m upsetting you. I will try to keep this short. All this sex stuff is a bit theoretical for me: I am 71 years old, and divorced twenty years ago, so I am afraid that the occasional visit to porn sites is about all I can manage, nowadays. However, in my youth I had a good time, and my wife did also -- she was capable of multiple orgasms in one session. We used toys occasionally, and a fair bit of oral sex. My experience is that young girls are very proud of being able to perform oral sex, but married women (sample size of 2) go off the idea quite quickly. They still like to receive it, but not to give it. We even had the very occasional threesome (my wife was bi-sexual), and two of the girls (!) are still in touch with me.

So, if anything, I was too preoccupied with my wife’s enjoyment, not too little. The sex gradually fell off as the years went by, to my dismay.

No, I don’t scorn slut walk ladies -- in fact until recently I counted the leader of the 2016 London slut walk as a friendly acquaintance. (I sent her a rude letter by mistake, and she now won’t talk to me). I think I know what they are up to and I almost approve -- they will taunt men until men react and bring them back under control.

Over the years I’ve attended several feminist functions (including one anti-porn one!) and nearly always I have been well received -- even while wearing my anti-feminist sweatshirt (the artwork is on my website). I’ve met, very briefly, three more of the UK’s leading feminists: Fay Weldon, Antonia Byatt and Helen Haste. I doubt they remember me, but each time it was an enjoyable encounter, for both parties. Helen Haste spotted my sweatshirt at a science conference, strode over to me, put her arms around me, gave me a big hug, and said, “I’ve got to have one of those!” I was overwhelmed.

You are right about the ‘nanny state’, but our local communities are so weakened these days that I fear some of their social control functions have to be taken over by the government through the law. We need to be controlled by other people much of the time, and if civil society and the church can no longer fulfil this function, something else must replace it. A lot of our evolved behaviours are for group control of individuals, rather than for individuals’ control of themselves. That’s what I believe, anyway. Sorry it’s turned out so long.

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:23 am**

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:59 amSir-Sister-of-Suck --- Sorry I’m upsetting you.

I don't think you're really upsetting me. It's more like you're making me cringe.

I will try to keep this short. All this sex stuff is a bit theoretical for me: [snip]

You just seemed to be saying that a large part to play for the reason that women don't have sex is because of the orgasm disparity. I was responding specifically to that sentiment. I wasn't trying to question your prowess oh goodness gracious.

My experience is that young girls are very proud of being able to perform oral sex, but married women (sample size of 2) go off the idea quite quickly. They still like to receive it, but not to give it.

...Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. But unfortunately I'm going to have to disagree with your experience, and say that women generally become less infatuated with oral sex as they get older. Take my opinion as you will.

No, I don’t scorn slut walk ladies

Well whatever word you want to use; The point is that these women probably do desire sex more, and it seems like you discourage them from doing so.

You are right about the ‘nanny state’, but our local communities are so weakened these days that I fear some of their social control functions have to be taken over by the government through the law. We need to be controlled by other people much of the time, and if civil society and the church can no longer fulfil this function, something else must replace it. A lot of our evolved behaviours are for group control of individuals, rather than for individuals’ control of themselves. That’s what I believe, anyway. Sorry it’s turned out so long.

I want a government separation from something like this for a principle greater than my own moral philosophy. I'm not just against government sanctioned marriage and your expanding of that simply because I dislike the idea. As I said, the government's role is not to protect society, it's to protect our individual liberties - I just have more faith in the outcome of that than you do. To establish more laws that try to do more than that, you change the government's role at a fundamental level and that isn't a precedence I'm willing to set.

If you made some sort of cogent argument that a husband has a greater right to sex than the wife has to deny it, then you would be going down the right path to fit that into what my government is actually suppose to do. But I don't think there's a good argument for that, by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:32 pm**

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:00 pmHere’s my real analysis. I think all you ladies know that I am quite mad,

not so much mad as boring and pompous

Which makes my point again: men can’t criticise women in public (if they do they get the sack), whereas women can criticise men all they want (blaming men for the patriarchy, for example, will get a woman promoted in Women’s Studies).

you have to do a bit more than just repeat the same old stuff to get anywhere in the academia including womens studies

men cannot criticize women!?

imagine the most vocal man-hating womens studies professor you can.

ok you are imagining her?

now imagine a bunch of beer-soaked frat boys and their conversation about women - the womens studies professor has nothing on them when it comes to hatred and contempt for the other gender

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:31 pm**

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:50 pm Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- You are very perceptive. Yes, I spent a lot of time trying to get other people to discipline my wife on my behalf -- I even tried to get my brother to come all the way over from America to do it. And yes, for all our marriage I was a coward of the first degree. Nevertheless, in a mass society which has a media that spreads ideas all round the world in seconds, I think we need some assistance from a higher authority to keep us couples on the straight and narrow. I see the justice system as an extension of government, and I think the laws against murder, rape, domestic violence and verbal abuse are a good idea (sexual harassment goes too far). It’s just that we need laws against female-type misbehaviour in a marriage too: divorce, betrayal of agreements (your special contracts sound like a good idea), and the biggy, withdrawal of sex.

Women’s sex drive in a heterosexual relationship is far less than a man’s. If they are upset they can go without sex for months or even years (not every woman, of course -- just on the average). Sex used to be a requirement of marriage -- the punishment for frigidity was excommunication -- and it is the main reason men get married. It sounds like a big ask -- demanding that a wife yields to her husband, even when she does not feel like it -- but she does this to an amazing extent already. Fully forty percent of women do not have an orgasm in the course of regular sex, here in the UK. A prostitute can do it several times a night, if she wants to, so it can’t be that big of a demand for a loving wife.

I think the lack of orgasm is very sad, by the way, and I am very disappointed in mother nature, if that’s the way she intends it. In this instance, if it really is natural behaviour, we can change it by judicious training. Men must make sure a woman orgasms first -- in this way multiple female orgasms can be accommodated, if desired.

In other words, I believe in the restitution of conjugal rights, so unwisely taken away under the advice of the UK law commission in 1970. The feminists will cry ‘marital rape’, but that is a nonsense if the wife willingly cooperates out of love for her husband.

SpheresOfBalance --- The subject of group differences between the sexes is very touchy. As you say, there are often individual differences: some women will outperform the average man and some men will outperform the average woman. Nevertheless, particularly in the sexual sphere, the differences are dramatic. A recent paper in ‘Science Advances’ shows that women are at their most attractive at 18, and their attractiveness declines forever after. Men are at their least attractive at 18, and become more and more attractive up to the age of 50. This is a very stark difference indeed.

Your belief in equal opportunities is very common. Many right-thinking people think equality of outcome (equity?) is a nonsense, but nearly everybody (including Jordan Peterson) subscribes to equal opportunity -- especially between the sexes. I think that belief is a sham. To tell a young girl that she has the same probability as a young boy of succeeding in a programming career is a lie. Even with decades of boosting girls into STEM subjects, ending with diversity (positive discrimination) programmes in the workplace, women still only represent 20% of the workforce.

For a start, a girl is far less likely to maintain her interest in the subject: at ‘A’ level only 10% of programming students are female. After they are employed, their chances of promotion are less than a man’s. This is because they have to bear and then take care of children; partly as a result, they work shorter hours; and they seek promotion less aggressively than men. In addition, in certain STEM fields, the female brain is, on the average, inferior to the male brain at performing the allotted tasks -- especially at higher levels. All these factors mean that, if you tell a young girl she has the same opportunity as a boy to succeed in a STEM career, you are lying. The only way to get equality is to damage the boys’ education so their performance degrades, and force managers to preferentially promote less qualified women. Both these policies are now in place, and both are working -- but at what cost? Are you sure that this is what you want?

my website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

I disagree with you Duncan. What you're missing is the importance of evolution, or time spent over several generations of something being the case. You infer that statistics bear out these things you say about women's inabilities opposed to men's abilities. I say that it's the case, because of what's been in place historically. You've put the cart before the horse. If the horse had historically pushed the cart instead of pulled it, it's physique as well as it's psyche would have evolved entirely differently. You seem to be unfamiliar with the true causes of the differences between us, which the field of epigenetics has shown us. It's all environment. If when you, a man, were born we continually told you, that you were bad, kept you in the closet, and fed you thorough a crack, you'd be a blooming idiot. A women would run circles around you in any task. And so from the beginning, women, being subservient to men because of men's strength alone, seeking shelter in the arms of those men that cared the most about their welfare, against all possible threats to their life, they were programmed for millennia. Enter the Law, enforced by pain of incarceration or death, a woman can find support and protection without the arms of men. A relatively new concept, thus the reason for the 'supposed' accuracy of your statistics. They need time to rule as long as men have, before they can perform either the same or better than men. At 70, I expect you to see the greater picture. The wisdom that comes with considering 'all' that is and has ever been the state of humanity.

Again, I believe in equality across the board, so that 'all' may reach their fullest potential, even if it takes a millennia of new ways, so as to 'allow' their growth. The bonds of slavery must be broken for "everyone!"

P.S. Have I asked you yet? What man doesn't prefer a women to be waiting, at the ready for their beckoned call? Bucks have harems after all. Testosterone and estrogen, the chemicals between us. The playing field shall be leveled, once we understand it all.

Posted: **Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:18 pm**

henry quirk --- I asked the question, ‘why was it only women who talked to me to start with, and why is it now only men? You advised me thus:

Review the thread, Duncan. I think you'll find the entry and exit points of various players instructive.

Try as I may I cannot see any rhyme or reason for people joining and leaving the threads -- other than my own sexist analysis. I have spent a long time trying to see what you are talking about. Could you please explain to me further?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- You say I make you cringe, not upset -- well, sorry I’m making you cringe, then. Sorry as well if I went to far in my confessions. No, I don’t think women’s failure to orgasm drives the lack of sex in marriage. But I do think things would be much improved if the convention became that gentlemen make sure their partners orgasm first. Ladies receiving oral sex: is your assessment based on more than a sample of two? And two bisexuals at that. If so I am prepared to modify my opinion.

I don’t know if the slut walk ladies are more interested in sex. I myself feel turned off when they start to preach to me. It may be true, however -- once you’ve conquered them and got them to behave!

Now for the ‘nanny state’. I see cohabitation, divorce and single mothers as increasing forms of child abuse -- that’s why I want to make them a criminal offence -- to be treated as mild forms of murder. You don’t want to get rid of the courts entirely, do you -- murder and all?

The woman’s right to refuse sex. Could you explain why giving the man the right to sex, over the woman’s objections, is ‘your kind of government’? I hope I have you right?

Kayla --- How lovely to have you back … and not over-critical, either. Thanks. Oh dear, did I repeat myself? I am writing to several other people at the same time and it’s hard to keep track. Sorry about that. For feminist vitriol try this, from professor Suzanna Danuta Walters:

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this … Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

Please supply a quote to match that for hatred and contempt (even one you just make up), from ‘a bunch of beer-soaked frat boys’. They’re normally just being sexually crude and disrespectful, aren’t they? Surely they are lusting after women, rather than dismissing them as a species?

You didn’t say if you were impressed or not with my misogynist/misandrist analysis. If you remember, I claim it supports the idea that women are 250 years ahead of men in the sex war, and that women have 50 times the verbal fire power. Did you find it persuasive?

SpheresOfBalance --- To claim that human behaviour is ‘all environment’ -- i.e. our genes have no effect -- is very common. It is the feminist position, after all. It’s a little less common to mention ‘evolution’ in the same paragraph. I wonder if you are questioning your belief? The latest data to really blow my mind on sex differences has come from dating websites: the differences are so stark it really is quite difficult to stick to the ‘only environment’ argument. This is from okcupid website. Measured by propositions received, women are at their most attractive to men at 18, and it falls off for the rest of their life. Men are the most UNATTRACTIVE to women at 18, and become steadily more attractive until they reach 50.

The most extraordinary difference is how men and women rate each other’s attractiveness (from photographs) on an absolute scale. Assuming attractiveness is distributed throughout the population on a Bell curve, men are quite accurate: they find the average woman averagely attractive, as shown below.

How Men Rate Women.png

(Reading the columns from the left they are: very unattractive, unattractive, slightly unattractive, average, slightly attractive, attractive, very attractive.)

Women, on the other hand, find the average man quite unattractive! They find precisely zero men very attractive!! The word ‘misogyny’ needs to be thrown out the window, and ‘misandry’ needs to move in. Physically, women judge men most unkindly -- they find very few of us attractive. It’s not only unkind, it’s totally inaccurate as well.

How Women Rate Men.png

But we are training our children just the opposite. We are trying to teach them that older women are just as attractive as younger women; that women should indulge themselves with toy boys; that men will chase anything in skirts and must learn to control themselves. Since the behaviour is the opposite of what we are training, surely it must mainly arise from the genes? I cannot see how it can ever square with your belief in equality between the sexes. I eagerly await your answer.

[url]Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/[/url]

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:04 am**

Try harder (or not).

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:39 pm**

henry quirk --- Boy have I struggled with this one. Adam Smith’s invisible hand and the free market have been a preoccupation of mine for some time. I have tried very hard to encapsulate my ideas in a succinct post, but I have failed. I don’t know whether you can be bothered to read the linked 1993 Economist article and my reply below, but it’s the best I can do. Sorry.

In brief, the article said economic students (uniquely) became less moral, the more they studied the subject. They became less able to judge fairness, worse at cooperating, and less generous in giving to charity. My letter in reply pointed out that the Economist was having the same effect on the world, through their excessive promotion of market solutions. Here they are:

Economist article: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... GY2MWY1MTE

My reply: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... WUyM2I3NDI

I end up saying:

Some market discipline will always be desirable — just as will the military
kind — yet hopefully both can play a shrinking role. In the meantime we must
guard against a business take-over just as carefully as a military one. The
businessman must know his place, and his market solutions should be viewed with
skepticism. He may be the horse that pulls the cart, but he still needs to be shown
the democratic whip, once in a while!

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Austrian school and Keynes to comment.

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

Posted: **Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:38 pm**

"I don’t know whether you can be bothered to read the linked 1993 Economist article and my reply"

I will once I get to a machine that does google docs...this old ipad I'm using doesn't.

#

"economic students (uniquely) became less moral, the more they studied the subject. They became less able to judge fairness, worse at cooperating, and less generous in giving to charity."

Might be the study of economics (in particular the Austrian strains) teachs that resources are not, cannot be equitably distributed, that individual actors in the market (suppliers, demanders) are responsible for the success of their ventures, that success is not guaranteed, that failure typically can't be safguarded against, that parasites will always look to profit offa your successes.

Simply, these students, if they're lucky, learn: life ain't fair so defend yourself.

#

"Some market discipline will always be desirable"

True market discipline results from the healthy tension between 'supplier' and 'demander', and the healthy competition between 'suppliers'.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:48 pm**

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:18 pmHow Men Rate Women.png

i think the most likely explanation might be with how men and women see themselves

a man may look like a walrus and dress like a bum and and yet think of himself as being almost as a attractive as brad pitt

a woman could be gorgeous and yet worry that her slighly out of control hair make her look like a harpy

this has obvious bearing on how much men and women make sure that they put their best pictures on tinder and similar apps

heck you even see that at middle school dances

boys look like messy slobs

girls actually put an effort into looking attractive

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:59 pm**

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:18 pm henry quirk --- I asked the question, ‘why was it only women who talked to me to start with, and why is it now only men? You advised me thus:
Review the thread, Duncan. I think you'll find the entry and exit points of various players instructive.
Try as I may I cannot see any rhyme or reason for people joining and leaving the threads -- other than my own sexist analysis. I have spent a long time trying to see what you are talking about. Could you please explain to me further?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- You say I make you cringe, not upset -- well, sorry I’m making you cringe, then. Sorry as well if I went to far in my confessions. No, I don’t think women’s failure to orgasm drives the lack of sex in marriage. But I do think things would be much improved if the convention became that gentlemen make sure their partners orgasm first. Ladies receiving oral sex: is your assessment based on more than a sample of two? And two bisexuals at that. If so I am prepared to modify my opinion.

I don’t know if the slut walk ladies are more interested in sex. I myself feel turned off when they start to preach to me. It may be true, however -- once you’ve conquered them and got them to behave!

Now for the ‘nanny state’. I see cohabitation, divorce and single mothers as increasing forms of child abuse -- that’s why I want to make them a criminal offence -- to be treated as mild forms of murder. You don’t want to get rid of the courts entirely, do you -- murder and all?

The woman’s right to refuse sex. Could you explain why giving the man the right to sex, over the woman’s objections, is ‘your kind of government’? I hope I have you right?

Kayla --- How lovely to have you back … and not over-critical, either. Thanks. Oh dear, did I repeat myself? I am writing to several other people at the same time and it’s hard to keep track. Sorry about that. For feminist vitriol try this, from professor Suzanna Danuta Walters:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this … Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Please supply a quote to match that for hatred and contempt (even one you just make up), from ‘a bunch of beer-soaked frat boys’. They’re normally just being sexually crude and disrespectful, aren’t they? Surely they are lusting after women, rather than dismissing them as a species?

You didn’t say if you were impressed or not with my misogynist/misandrist analysis. If you remember, I claim it supports the idea that women are 250 years ahead of men in the sex war, and that women have 50 times the verbal fire power. Did you find it persuasive?

SpheresOfBalance --- To claim that human behaviour is ‘all environment’ -- i.e. our genes have no effect -- is very common. It is the feminist position, after all. It’s a little less common to mention ‘evolution’ in the same paragraph. I wonder if you are questioning your belief? The latest data to really blow my mind on sex differences has come from dating websites: the differences are so stark it really is quite difficult to stick to the ‘only environment’ argument. This is from okcupid website. Measured by propositions received, women are at their most attractive to men at 18, and it falls off for the rest of their life. Men are the most UNATTRACTIVE to women at 18, and become steadily more attractive until they reach 50.

The most extraordinary difference is how men and women rate each other’s attractiveness (from photographs) on an absolute scale. Assuming attractiveness is distributed throughout the population on a Bell curve, men are quite accurate: they find the average woman averagely attractive, as shown below.

How Men Rate Women.png

(Reading the columns from the left they are: very unattractive, unattractive, slightly unattractive, average, slightly attractive, attractive, very attractive.)

Women, on the other hand, find the average man quite unattractive! They find precisely zero men very attractive!! The word ‘misogyny’ needs to be thrown out the window, and ‘misandry’ needs to move in. Physically, women judge men most unkindly -- they find very few of us attractive. It’s not only unkind, it’s totally inaccurate as well.

How Women Rate Men.png

But we are training our children just the opposite. We are trying to teach them that older women are just as attractive as younger women; that women should indulge themselves with toy boys; that men will chase anything in skirts and must learn to control themselves. Since the behaviour is the opposite of what we are training, surely it must mainly arise from the genes? I cannot see how it can ever square with your belief in equality between the sexes. I eagerly await your answer.

[url]Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/[/url]

You seriously need to look up epigenetics. The scientific study shows that genetics is nothing, that it's all epigenetics (Environment!) And so is evolution! Look at human diversity of culture, now know that we all have a common origin, somewhere in Africa, resting on the latest archeological finds. Proof indeed! Your facts hold no water that isn't grounded in epigenetics and years of female programming by men.

Sorry my friend, I'll not budge when it comes to scientific study.

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:48 pm**

henry quirk --- Reference the market, not sure you need to read the original article and my letter, now you have replied to me on the basis of my summary. You comment:

Simply, these students, if they're lucky, learn: life ain't fair so defend yourself.

All three of the ‘morals’ identified (at which the students did worse) -- judging fairness, cooperating, and giving to charity -- are all ways of relating to people. If acting in the market inhibits these behaviours, both the ‘suppliers’ and the ‘demanders’ are going to lead impoverished lives. Yes, they will, on the average, be very well off, materially -- but not socially. Their relationships will be weakened.

Kayla --- I think what you say is true -- until recently, men were less concerned with their looks than women -- but the underlying force is women’s preference for a powerful man. In other words, women are not so concerned with what a man looks like, it’s his social position and money they are after. This is why men don’t bother to dress up so much, and why women put up with it.

SpheresOfBalance --- I’m sorry, but I don’t know much about epigenetics. I was not aware they negated genetics. Are you saying that epigenetics built our DNA?

As for ‘years of female programming by men’, yes I agree, except I think it is hundreds of millions of years. But equally women have been programming men for hundreds of millions of years too -- all through Darwin’s second method of selection, sexual selection. Natural selection generates the species, sexual selection generates many of the differences between the sexes.

I believe that many of the influences the feminists call environmental actually arise from our genes. A child’s upbringing, for example: much of the parents’ behaviour towards their child is programmed into the parents’ genes. And, contrary to feminist theory, parents instinctively exaggerate sex differences. They choose prettier clothes for their girls, for example, to help them learn how to attract attention. Grownup girls use fancier clothes to attract the attention of men. Men attract the attention of girls by approaching them (though they’ve been known to show off too). Sexist clothes are exciting, unisex clothes are not. Accordingly, I think we should keep on dressing our boys and girls differently. That’s where the programming starts: blue and pink, as in the charts I used in my previous posting.

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

Posted: **Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:13 pm**

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:48 pm henry quirk --- Reference the market, not sure you need to read the original article and my letter, now you have replied to me on the basis of my summary. You comment:
Simply, these students, if they're lucky, learn: life ain't fair so defend yourself.
All three of the ‘morals’ identified (at which the students did worse) -- judging fairness, cooperating, and giving to charity -- are all ways of relating to people. If acting in the market inhibits these behaviours, both the ‘suppliers’ and the ‘demanders’ are going to lead impoverished lives. Yes, they will, on the average, be very well off, materially -- but not socially. Their relationships will be weakened.

Kayla --- I think what you say is true -- until recently, men were less concerned with their looks than women -- but the underlying force is women’s preference for a powerful man. In other words, women are not so concerned with what a man looks like, it’s his social position and money they are after. This is why men don’t bother to dress up so much, and why women put up with it.

SpheresOfBalance --- I’m sorry, but I don’t know much about epigenetics. I was not aware they negated genetics. Are you saying that epigenetics built our DNA?
Here you go:

The role of epigenetics in human evolution --Oxford Academic - BioscienceHorizons--

"Abstract

This review aims to highlight the key areas in which changes to the epigenome have played an important role in the evolution and development of our species. Firstly, there will be a brief introduction into the topic of epigenetics to outline the current understanding of the subject and inform the reader of the basic mechanisms and functions of the epigenome. This will lead on to more focussed detail on the role played by epigenetic changes in the rapid evolution of our species and emergence from our ancestor species, as well as the Human Accelerated Regions that played a role in this. The discussion highlights how epigenetics has helped and hindered our species’ development via changes to the epigenome in more modern times, discussing case examples of documented instances where it is shown that epigenetics has played a role in the evolution of humanity."

"Author biography

As a genetics graduate from the University of Glasgow my interests began to focus on the field of epigenetics quite late in my academic career. However, after delving into epigenetics and the sheer number of questions and theories raised by the topic that turn genetics on its head, epigenetics has captivated me. I hope to one day either conduct research into the influence of epigenetics on human evolution or become a journalist focused on the subject."

Not that I'm searching for glory, but uninformed by any such research, I said such years ago in this very forum.

As for ‘years of female programming by men’, yes I agree, except I think it is hundreds of millions of years.
Of course I agree with you, my friend, I was just writing in a hurry, not considering accuracy as much as I should have.

But equally women have been programming men for hundreds of millions of years too -- all through Darwin’s second method of selection, sexual selection. Natural selection generates the species, sexual selection generates many of the differences between the sexes.

Well I hate to tell you this Duncan,
but men had the upper hand:

I believe that many of the influences the feminists call environmental actually arise from our genes. A child’s upbringing, for example: much of the parents’ behaviour towards their child is programmed into the parents’ genes. And, contrary to feminist theory, parents instinctively exaggerate sex differences. They choose prettier clothes for their girls, for example, to help them learn how to attract attention. Grownup girls use fancier clothes to attract the attention of men. Men attract the attention of girls by approaching them (though they’ve been known to show off too). Sexist clothes are exciting, unisex clothes are not. Accordingly, I think we should keep on dressing our boys and girls differently. That’s where the programming starts: blue and pink, as in the charts I used in my previous posting.

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

Duncan, men have always had more strength than women.

Philosophy Now Forum

A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

A new question for everyone

"Does any one of you, lady or gentleman, see any truth in this?"

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A new question for everyone

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

"Try as I may I cannot see any rhyme or reason for people joining and leaving the threads"

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind