Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

1568101113

Posts

  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    It does if you're really good at charging in and killing them all.
    ;-)

    No, you still don't get to claim that they never existed in the first place.

    Pfft. Like you've ever charged in and killed something.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Cat, I read this and I was wondering what you would think of it:
    On Friday I took a bus in LA (which of course I didn't pay for--tragedy of the commons my friends) and I ended up talking to one of these ladies. Miss Mercy, actually, a famous groupie from the 60's and 70's who slept with Chuck Berry, Al Green, Johnny Otis, Frank Zappa, Brian Jones (of the Rolling Stones) and a whole bunch of others. She was best friends with Pamela Des Barres who wrote "I'm With the Band" and "Let's Spend the Night Together," and a couple others. In fact, there is a while chapter dedicated to her in the latter book. As far as girls in LA and the party scene, they were IT and everyone knew so.

    But let me tell you, Mercy is haggard. Absolutely haggard. At the risk of making a straw man argument, I did a lot of thinking about her. These groupies were products--if not the idols--of the Sexual Revolution. These were the role models and exemplars for an entire generation of teachings about sex, gender and health. When we were told "women are just the same sexually as men" these are the women they used as proof, or when they said "gender is a social construct," this was the living, breathing, contrary information. "See, once we through off the yoke of sexual conservatism, we can all be happier." Well, Mercy didn't exactly turn out that way. In fact, it drove her to speed, heroin, LSD and the poverty, darkness and waste that comes 'long with them.

    The most fundamental declaration of evolutionary psychology is that, theoretically a man could have an infinite number of children a year--each ejaculation inside a woman is a potential pregnancy. A woman, even with the same of amount of sex, can only have one child a year. And that, leads to profound evolutionary implications. It simply creates a different system of pressures and rewards. A male has an incentive to be able to mentally handle multiple partners, where as a woman need only handle a substantially smaller number. It's not good or bad, it's simply fact and it is one that must be acknowledged.

    Well it wasn't acknowledged (in many cases it has yet to be). The idea that these women could sit down and write sexual conquest lists as though they were expecting Christmas presents is one of the biggest lies liberalism has ever created. I forgot to mention something about Mercy, she doesn't just look haggard--she works at Goodwill. Is that the sort of case-study we want to emulate? Trust me, there is more than just a correlation with the drug use and alcohol. These are mechanisms that exist almost solely to drive and rationalize the engine they were tricked into riding on.

    Step into a Women's Studies department at any university in America and you will hear what are essentially the same delusions that they have been teaching for nearly a half-century. Concepts that have been widely contested--that STDs affect all sexual orientations equally, that gender doesn't really exist, that gender roles are the product of modernity, that it's merely a coincidence that across all societies ever men who had promiscuous sex were exalted while women who did it were derided, that rape has no sexual traces to it at all, that men and women think in the exact same way, and on and on and on. Of course it is very difficult, sometimes heartbreaking to admit these things. But is it any worse than the veil of righteousness used to blind people into pursuing lifestyles that ultimately end badly? Ask Dr. Drew, Samantha from Sex and the City did not see her happy ending in real life. Look at Mercy--she wasted years of her life in homelessness at the depths of a crack addiction because popular culture and academia glorified something they shouldn't have. (To preempt a Tucker mention, there is a very key difference that I won't get into, but even then there is a reason that that is not my life.)

    So what's the tie in to the internet? Well there is no "internet," only life. And the key to getting past all the bullshit is listening to that little voice inside you over the mass of noise coming from the "experts." They are wrong, almost always. But that voice? Well its served your genes for hundreds of thousands of years, and since you're here thinking about it, it's done a better than average job. If you're in college, and you like what you're doing, then by all means continue. But if you don't--if you're having doubts--well then fucking quit. Just because that's how all your friends act, doesn't mean they're happy and it certainly doesn't mean it will make you happy. Just because they tell you they're having a good time doesn't mean they actually are. And just because the Campus Health Center says a behavior is healthy doesn't mean that it is. If you're in a business and it all seems counterintuitive and hollow, then it probably is. For one of the few times in history, these major industries are faced with the possibility of having to start completely over again. This is your chance. More importantly though, new generations of revolutionaries have a terrible track record when it comes to being correct. So you can drink the kool-aid and become the next Mercy or you can think about it intelligently and emotionally and choose the sustainable, healthy and fulfilling path. This isn't about sex or lifestyles--it's much bigger than that. It's about understanding that very often the things people say a more a reflection of what they want to believe as opposed to what they actually know. If we're capable of tricking ourselves about sex, capable of deceiving ourselves into defecating into a bucket because Chuck Berry says so, what aren't we capable of believing?

    geckahn on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm thinking it looks like yet another conservative acting like there's no middle ground between having a lot of sex with randoms while living an unhealthy lifestyle and 'marrying anyone besides your first bf at age 18 and popping out your first kid within a year, oh, and don't go to college IT WILL CORRUPT YOU'. And really, fuck those people. Right in the ear.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Also, claiming that academia glorifies crack addiction is pretty much a hallmark sign of a lunatic at the keyboard. Just, you know, FYI :roll:

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm thinking it looks like yet another conservative acting like there's no middle ground between having a lot of sex with randoms while living an unhealthy lifestyle and 'marrying anyone besides your first bf at age 18 and popping out your first kid within a year, oh, and don't go to college IT WILL CORRUPT YOU'. And really, fuck those people. Right in the ear.

    Well you completely missed on that characterization.
    Also, claiming that academia glorifies crack addiction is pretty much a hallmark sign of a lunatic at the keyboard. Just, you know

    He never said that. Nice try though.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    No, really. Go back and look at it. The author is claiming that this woman wound up homeless and drug addicted because women's studies departments told her to. That having sex with a lot of men drove her crazy. That's insane. Being around a culture that viewed women as a commodity and also placed no value on a healthy lifestyle did that. If you really think that raw number of partners is a more important determinant of mental health than whether those partners were decent people who respected you and didn't spend half their time coked out of their minds, you're an idiot. What argument are you even trying to make with that post, anyway? That women should stick to one man and look the other way while their men fuck around or they'll wind up on the street?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm thinking it looks like yet another conservative acting like there's no middle ground between having a lot of sex with randoms while living an unhealthy lifestyle and 'marrying anyone besides your first bf at age 18 and popping out your first kid within a year, oh, and don't go to college IT WILL CORRUPT YOU'. And really, fuck those people. Right in the ear.

    Well you completely missed on that characterization.

    But is it any worse than the veil of righteousness used to blind people into pursuing lifestyles that ultimately end badly?

    geckahn wrote: »
    Also, claiming that academia glorifies crack addiction is pretty much a hallmark sign of a lunatic at the keyboard. Just, you know
    He never said that. Nice try though.

    Look at Mercy--she wasted years of her life in homelessness at the depths of a crack addiction because popular culture and academia glorified something they shouldn't have.


    Whoops.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    I mean, have you ever really bothered reading up on the sexual culture in the 70's? It wasn't happy free love city. Men at the time tended to use the language of progressive sexuality to coerce women into fucking people and taking part in specific acts that they often didn't really want to, and since the old attitudes of submission and dominance were still pretty strong in people's minds, women often got mightily fucked over by that. It was a sick parody of what an open, fair sexual culture should be.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I never said that. Strawman.

    You said, and I'm pretty much quoting you directly from a couple of pages back, 'men are prime in society because they have more testosterone'. Liar. Also, wrong and stupid. Jesus, you're in the middle of a college campus. Go learn something, for god's sake.

    Yes, but I specifically stated that is not the only reason.

    No, you padded your claim with a little handwaving in the general direction of other factors in the hopes that people wouldn't call you on it.

    Hahahaha. Please.

    Look, prejudice and gender discrimination are certainly important factors that have contributed to the gender gap. When you say I've said this simply in the hopes that people wouldn't call me on it, you're being childish.

    The fact of the matter is, we cannot deny the link between dominant behavior and (at the very least prenatal exposure to) testosterone. (I know you are not necessarily denying it). Men that have more dominant characters have been shown to have high testosterone levels in circulation. In many mammals you see the same thing. Especially the case of the spotted hyena is important; they are female dominated and in recent years researchers have found that hyena fetuses have an unusually high exposure to testosterone.

    I'm not saying human society has almost always been and currently is male dominated because of only this factor (because causation isn't correlation bla bla), but it is very plausible that male behavioral tendencies toward dominance and status acquisition were initially triggered by it. In this sense, it is not difficult to see the possibility of how our social conditioning towards being dominant could have reinforced our genetic dispositions towards being dominant (in the form of discrimination towards males and against females), although as a society we have tried to (and should continue to try to) get away from it.

    I refuse to believe that we are male-dominated today as a result of some accident that occurred somewhere in history, and we continue to be male-dominated because of some grand conspiracy (I know you're not necessarily saying either, although sometimes it sounds that way). There must be an underlying biological reason for it; social behavior never exists in an evolutionary vacuum. In this sense it is plausible to say that social dominance in our society is a reflection of the differences in dominance between males and females on average.

    You know this is not a stupid or even an illogical argument. So why do you have to be so hostile?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Cat, I read this and I was wondering what you would think of it:
    On Friday I took a bus in LA (which of course I didn't pay for--tragedy of the commons my friends) and I ended up talking to one of these ladies. Miss Mercy, actually, a famous groupie from the 60's and 70's who slept with Chuck Berry, Al Green, Johnny Otis, Frank Zappa, Brian Jones (of the Rolling Stones) and a whole bunch of others. She was best friends with Pamela Des Barres who wrote "I'm With the Band" and "Let's Spend the Night Together," and a couple others. In fact, there is a while chapter dedicated to her in the latter book. As far as girls in LA and the party scene, they were IT and everyone knew so.

    But let me tell you, Mercy is haggard. Absolutely haggard. At the risk of making a straw man argument, I did a lot of thinking about her. These groupies were products--if not the idols--of the Sexual Revolution. These were the role models and exemplars for an entire generation of teachings about sex, gender and health. When we were told "women are just the same sexually as men" these are the women they used as proof, or when they said "gender is a social construct," this was the living, breathing, contrary information. "See, once we through off the yoke of sexual conservatism, we can all be happier." Well, Mercy didn't exactly turn out that way. In fact, it drove her to speed, heroin, LSD and the poverty, darkness and waste that comes 'long with them.

    The most fundamental declaration of evolutionary psychology is that, theoretically a man could have an infinite number of children a year--each ejaculation inside a woman is a potential pregnancy. A woman, even with the same of amount of sex, can only have one child a year. And that, leads to profound evolutionary implications. It simply creates a different system of pressures and rewards. A male has an incentive to be able to mentally handle multiple partners, where as a woman need only handle a substantially smaller number. It's not good or bad, it's simply fact and it is one that must be acknowledged.

    Well it wasn't acknowledged (in many cases it has yet to be). The idea that these women could sit down and write sexual conquest lists as though they were expecting Christmas presents is one of the biggest lies liberalism has ever created. I forgot to mention something about Mercy, she doesn't just look haggard--she works at Goodwill. Is that the sort of case-study we want to emulate? Trust me, there is more than just a correlation with the drug use and alcohol. These are mechanisms that exist almost solely to drive and rationalize the engine they were tricked into riding on.

    Step into a Women's Studies department at any university in America and you will hear what are essentially the same delusions that they have been teaching for nearly a half-century. Concepts that have been widely contested--that STDs affect all sexual orientations equally, that gender doesn't really exist, that gender roles are the product of modernity, that it's merely a coincidence that across all societies ever men who had promiscuous sex were exalted while women who did it were derided, that rape has no sexual traces to it at all, that men and women think in the exact same way, and on and on and on. Of course it is very difficult, sometimes heartbreaking to admit these things. But is it any worse than the veil of righteousness used to blind people into pursuing lifestyles that ultimately end badly? Ask Dr. Drew, Samantha from Sex and the City did not see her happy ending in real life. Look at Mercy--she wasted years of her life in homelessness at the depths of a crack addiction because popular culture and academia glorified something they shouldn't have. (To preempt a Tucker mention, there is a very key difference that I won't get into, but even then there is a reason that that is not my life.)

    So what's the tie in to the internet? Well there is no "internet," only life. And the key to getting past all the bullshit is listening to that little voice inside you over the mass of noise coming from the "experts." They are wrong, almost always. But that voice? Well its served your genes for hundreds of thousands of years, and since you're here thinking about it, it's done a better than average job. If you're in college, and you like what you're doing, then by all means continue. But if you don't--if you're having doubts--well then fucking quit. Just because that's how all your friends act, doesn't mean they're happy and it certainly doesn't mean it will make you happy. Just because they tell you they're having a good time doesn't mean they actually are. And just because the Campus Health Center says a behavior is healthy doesn't mean that it is. If you're in a business and it all seems counterintuitive and hollow, then it probably is. For one of the few times in history, these major industries are faced with the possibility of having to start completely over again. This is your chance. More importantly though, new generations of revolutionaries have a terrible track record when it comes to being correct. So you can drink the kool-aid and become the next Mercy or you can think about it intelligently and emotionally and choose the sustainable, healthy and fulfilling path. This isn't about sex or lifestyles--it's much bigger than that. It's about understanding that very often the things people say a more a reflection of what they want to believe as opposed to what they actually know. If we're capable of tricking ourselves about sex, capable of deceiving ourselves into defecating into a bucket because Chuck Berry says so, what aren't we capable of believing?

    This author forgets that women don't have some sort of orgasm limit. In fact, women are the one's with multiple orgasms while men are out for the count after just one. In addition, he forgets that women don't orgasm every time. I don't know the exact number per an orgasm, but I do know that if a woman only orgasms one out of x times, her body is encouraging her to have sex x times as much as a man.
    The Cat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Native American tribes - not matrilineal.
    Actually, quite a few were. I also like how you've avoided mentioning other regions where matrilinearity in various forms was practiced - in the south pacific, for instance, historically in parts of the Med, and its still practiced in China among the Mosu as has already been pointed out in this thread. Yes, patriarchies tended to be really good at charging in and killing people who didn't live like them, but that doesn't mean you get to strut around denying the existence of any female-centric cultures.

    It does if you're really good at charging in and killing them all.
    ;-)

    No, you still don't get to claim that they never existed in the first place.

    That may explain why all matriarchies are/were in Africa (the Sahara, malarial forests, and jagged coasts made it pretty much impossible for those who descended from those who left to get back in), on Islands (including Greece, Japan, and the Pacific Islands, on one of which women totally dominate men to the point that the person talking about his homeland joked that that's why he was living in Hawaii), and continents separated from the others by vast oceans.

    Honestly, if in my summed life experience i find that usually a certain type of person (insert some controversial qualifier; race, gender, w/e) tends to engage in a certain action, why is it wrong to then assume individuals with that trait will do that in my future dealings with them? It is our mind's logical method of categorizing something so we can quickly respond to similar, but unique, situations in the future. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

    You have more say in what you decide about people upon initial impressions than you're giving credit for. At the very least it's not like you aren't privy to your own thoughts, you know these things you decide about people and if you catch something in there that doesn't make sense you have the power to go "hey, this doesn't make any sense" and discard that judgment. Trying to determine everything about a person before talking to them is foolish.

    The mind is built for those types of snap judgments. You see a vine and immediately assume it's a snake. You eat something and find that or hear that it tastes rancid, and you find it to be rancid, to the point that people find beer they are told contains vinegar to taste horrible, but actually prefer beer that they weren't told contains vinegar to normal beer.
    ZeeBeeKay wrote:
    See, and here is where I blow what little credibility I have, I don't know. In what I've read there's always been an implication of a more egalitarian society before they settled down (ie women being able to own property, businesses, etc) but I've never seen it explicitly spelled out. There certainly is a contrast between, say, Muhammed's first wife being a wealthy widowed business owner and the women in Greece being locked in their rooms wearing veils, but I'm not sure how equal the sexes were in purely nomadic societies. It's always seemed to be one of those things that only developed with sedentary society because in a nomadic one everyone is needed to help keep everything working.

    Oh dear god.

    Muhammed was born several thousand years after the women in Greece were wearing veils (?), unless you are talking about some modern Islamic state of Greece that I haven't heard of, and not ancient Greece. Also, Muhammed was born thousands of years after sedentary society began. The idea that early nomadic societies had property, businesses etc for women to own is also extraordinarily amusing.

    You don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

    They did. Most businesses were either in shipping (silk road, for example), moved from cite to cite, or were at frequently used outposts.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    No, really. Go back and look at it. The author is claiming that this woman wound up homeless and drug addicted because women's studies departments told her to. That having sex with a lot of men drove her crazy. That's insane. Being around a culture that viewed women as a commodity and also placed no value on a healthy lifestyle did that. If you really think that raw number of partners is a more important determinant of mental health than whether those partners were decent people who respected you and didn't spend half their time coked out of their minds, you're an idiot. What argument are you even trying to make with that post, anyway? That women should stick to one man and look the other way while their men fuck around or they'll wind up on the street?

    Frankly, I just wanted to see how you would react, and I was pretty much right on with how I thought the reaction would go.

    I don't necessarily agree or disagree with his point. Although I think his point on following your own path is, in fact, quite exemplary. His site: http://www.ryanholiday.net/

    geckahn on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm thinking it looks like yet another conservative acting like there's no middle ground between having a lot of sex with randoms while living an unhealthy lifestyle and 'marrying anyone besides your first bf at age 18 and popping out your first kid within a year, oh, and don't go to college IT WILL CORRUPT YOU'. And really, fuck those people. Right in the ear.

    Well you completely missed on that characterization.

    But is it any worse than the veil of righteousness used to blind people into pursuing lifestyles that ultimately end badly?

    geckahn wrote: »
    Also, claiming that academia glorifies crack addiction is pretty much a hallmark sign of a lunatic at the keyboard. Just, you know
    He never said that. Nice try though.

    Look at Mercy--she wasted years of her life in homelessness at the depths of a crack addiction because popular culture and academia glorified something they shouldn't have.


    Whoops.

    Jesus Christ. Her descent into drugs came - as a result of - a lifestyle that exemplified the free love movement of the 60s and 70s. Which is glorified by popular culture and, I wouldn't doubt, Academia.

    This is what she was part of - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_GTOs

    And the guy isn't even fucking conservative. Idiot.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    He's doing a bloody good impression of a conservative, then.

    edit: Come on, he says liberalism has propagated the idea that women should seek to sexually conquer as many men as possible.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    But in any case, if gathering yields more calories than hunting, then that further destroys the theory that men were in control because they brought home more food.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THEORY:
    The theory is that when women gathered nuts and various non meat foods and men gathred food it was more equal, then when agriculture came along men would be the primary "food getters" etc. There are various other reason and they've been outlined in the thread.
    Basically hunting does not get more food, now hunting is good because it gets you meat for the whole brain development deal etc but there is also not enough meat to sustain a group of humans only on that, nor are we designed to live off of only meat, it's alot easier to gather food for a day from an apple tree than it is from an elk.
    Do you now understand the theory?
    Do you now wish to try and rebut it somehow?

    To supplement this:

    - In general, women hunt(ed) as much as men. This wasn't true in every single human hunter-gatherer society ever, but in general women trapped rabbits, netted other small game, fished, etc. That's all hunting, even if it was mostly men spearing elk and running mammoths over cliffs (which didn't happen all that often, btw.)

    - Even for groups in which "men do the hunting," women actually do/did a large part of the support work involved in turning a killed deer into a meal: skinning it, butchering the meat, turning all the body parts into tools and clothing, etc.

    So yes, gathering brings in more calories in general than hunting, even if hunting provides valuable supplementary nutrition.

    EDIT: This is pretty silly too:
    geckahn wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. Her descent into drugs came - as a result of - a lifestyle that exemplified the free love movement of the 60s and 70s. Which is glorified by popular culture and, I wouldn't doubt, Academia.

    So which academic discipline tells women that unsafe and emotionally/psychologically damaging sexual practices are good for you?

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Well that's a fairly ridiculous article.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I never said that. Strawman.

    You said, and I'm pretty much quoting you directly from a couple of pages back, 'men are prime in society because they have more testosterone'. Liar. Also, wrong and stupid. Jesus, you're in the middle of a college campus. Go learn something, for god's sake.

    Yes, but I specifically stated that is not the only reason.

    No, you padded your claim with a little handwaving in the general direction of other factors in the hopes that people wouldn't call you on it.

    Hahahaha. Please.

    Look, prejudice and gender discrimination are certainly important factors that have contributed to the gender gap. When you say I've said this simply in the hopes that people wouldn't call me on it, you're being childish.

    The fact of the matter is, we cannot deny the link between dominant behavior and (at the very least prenatal exposure to) testosterone. (I know you are not necessarily denying it). Men that have more dominant characters have been shown to have high testosterone levels in circulation. In many mammals you see the same thing. Especially the case of the spotted hyena is important; they are female dominated and in recent years researchers have found that hyena fetuses have an unusually high exposure to testosterone.

    I'm not saying human society has almost always been and currently is male dominated because of only this factor (because causation isn't correlation bla bla), but it is very plausible that male behavioral tendencies toward dominance and status acquisition were initially triggered by it. In this sense, it is not difficult to see the possibility of how our social conditioning towards being dominant could have reinforced our genetic dispositions towards being dominant (in the form of discrimination towards males and against females), although as a society we have tried to (and should continue to try to) get away from it.

    I refuse to believe that we are male-dominated today as a result of some accident that occurred somewhere in history, and we continue to be male-dominated because of some grand conspiracy (I know you're not necessarily saying either, although sometimes it sounds that way). There must be an underlying biological reason for it; social behavior never exists in an evolutionary vacuum. In this sense it is plausible to say that social dominance in our society is a reflection of the differences in dominance between males and females on average.

    You know this is not a stupid or even an illogical argument. So why do you have to be so hostile?

    Your "facts" are way off. In pack societies, it is always the omega with the highest testosterone, and the omega is always the most aggressive. Conversely, I have read an anecdote about a seven-year-old who, when looking at a pack of wolves at a zoo or conservatory or something, pointed at this one wolf (who someone within earshot knew was the alpha male) and said that it was the one in charge. When she was subsequently asked why she thought that, she said that it was because it was the calmest.
    Male dominance in humans is due to the fact that the males, upon gaining the advantage, were much better at solidifying it for reasons that would make a good debate. So the main reason for male dominance is that reversals are rare.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. Her descent into drugs came - as a result of - a lifestyle that exemplified the free love movement of the 60s and 70s. Which is glorified by popular culture and, I wouldn't doubt, Academia.

    Wrong! If you don't know anything about 'academia', don't comment. Secondly, the popular press at the time was very conservative, and still is. She was part of a countercultural movement, and as with most similar cases, her descent was far more influenced by the people actually in her life than the alleged mind-control rays beaming into her head from the teevee.

    t ege: I'm hostile because you're completely incapable of writing a basically coherent argument until you've been yelled at for three pages at minimum. This happens in every thread: you say something stupid, people call you out, you modify and expand until you basically make some sort of sense (not that I agree with your post above). it'd be rad if you could learn to skip past that sequence.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    He's doing a bloody good impression of a conservative, then.

    edit: Come on, he says liberalism has propagated the idea that women should seek to sexually conquer as many men as possible.

    The essential point of what he was trying to get at boils down to this:
    Dr. Drew wrote:
    "That's my biggest concern. Our culture has taken its great founding principle, the pursuit of happiness, and twisted it into an obsession with instant gratification, the quick fix, getting what's mine. The most successful creative figures in our culture, from the producers of reality TV to the editors of Maxim to the directions of music videos, have created an orgiastic mythos of sex, mayhem and cool clothes.
    But none of this has anything to do with happiness. In truth, it's just a setup for disappointment frustration and failure. It's why so many people complain about depression or insist they just don't feel good. Lacking adequate attachments, they feel empty. They try to feel better by grasping at the solutions the culture offers, only to find those solutions turn into the problem; then they get caught up in a continued need for arousal, to escape their emptiness."

    geckahn on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    He's doing a bloody good impression of a conservative, then.

    edit: Come on, he says liberalism has propagated the idea that women should seek to sexually conquer as many men as possible.

    The essential point of what he was trying to get at boils down to this:
    Dr. Drew wrote:
    "That's my biggest concern. Our culture has taken its great founding principle, the pursuit of happiness, and twisted it into an obsession with instant gratification, the quick fix, getting what's mine. The most successful creative figures in our culture, from the producers of reality TV to the editors of Maxim to the directions of music videos, have created an orgiastic mythos of sex, mayhem and cool clothes.
    But none of this has anything to do with happiness. In truth, it's just a setup for disappointment frustration and failure. It's why so many people complain about depression or insist they just don't feel good. Lacking adequate attachments, they feel empty. They try to feel better by grasping at the solutions the culture offers, only to find those solutions turn into the problem; then they get caught up in a continued need for arousal, to escape their emptiness."

    So women should get back in the corsets, m i rite?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What does any of that have to do with liberalism?

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    That you manage to get that out of Dr. Drew's quote is truly a testament to your warped view of reality.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What does any of that have to do with liberalism?

    Dude - he's not criticizing liberalism - he's criticizing an aspect of it. Learn the difference.

    I can remain a huge liberal at the same time that I tear apart much of the work in the realm of sociology. Just because they are leftist - and out of their minds - does not mean I have to be conservative to criticize them.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What aspect of liberalism promotes instant gratification, then?

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote:
    ... if a woman only orgasms one out of x times, her body is encouraging her to have sex x times as much as a man.
    ...
    That may explain why all matriarchies are/were in Africa ... on Islands (including Greece, Japan, and the Pacific Islands... and continents separated from the others by vast oceans.
    ...
    They did. Most businesses were either in shipping (silk road, for example), moved from cite to cite, or were at frequently used outposts.

    The fact that women don't have an orgasm every time they have sex does not, in fact, cause them to have more sex! Also, it's not exactly a random process- women don't have sex in the same way with the same guy 15 times in a row hoping that THIS TIME there will be foreplay and he won't finish in 30 seconds flat.

    Greece is not an island. No (inhabited) continent is separated from all other continents by vast oceans. Some matriarchies were located in the mainland Americas and Asia.

    There were no cities or outposts in early nomadic society. That's why they were, you know. Nomads.

    Lykouragh on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    What aspect of liberalism promotes instant gratification, then?

    uh. none. he was taking issue with the whole, women are just like men, their sexuality is no different then men's, etc. that encouraged women to act in a way which may not be in their best interest, but that does very much represent the modern American ideal of gratification.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    The part where liberals support change. He's attacking modern society and is implicitly using the "good old day" as some sort sort of utopia, where we had total freedom of behavior and always did the right thing and never said "I don't believe in faeries."

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The part where liberals support change. He's attacking modern society and is implicitly using the "good old day" as some sort sort of utopia, where we had total freedom of behavior and always did the right thing and never said "I don't believe in faeries."

    no. no. no. pull more shit out of your ass, please.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    What aspect of liberalism promotes instant gratification, then?

    uh. none.

    ...

    Drew said society is obsessed nowadays with instant gratification. You said:
    geckahn wrote:
    he's not criticizing liberalism - he's criticizing an aspect of it.

    So now liberalism doesn't promote instant gratification? Just want to be clear about what you're saying here.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    What aspect of liberalism promotes instant gratification, then?

    uh. none. he was taking issue with the whole, women are just like men, their sexuality is no different then men's, etc. that encouraged women to act in a way which may not be in their best interest, but that does very much represent the modern American ideal of gratification.

    ...And Dr. Drew almost has a point, except he's ignoring the crucial fact that:

    Women throwing of the shackles of repressive 50s-era sexual constraints =/= women becoming total sexual hedonists.

    Which is precisely what Cat brought up earlier: "liberal academia" telling women that their sexual desires are as valuable as men's, and that they shouldn't have to repress their sexuality because they aren't the property of men, is NOT THE SAME as telling women that they must now go out and have sex once a day with at least one new partner a week, and that sexual gratification should be their only or even primary goal in life irrespective of a woman's own wishes, etc.

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    What aspect of liberalism promotes instant gratification, then?

    uh. none.

    ...

    Drew said society is obsessed nowadays with instant gratification. You said:
    geckahn wrote:
    he's not criticizing liberalism - he's criticizing an aspect of it.

    So now liberalism doesn't promote instant gratification? Just want to be clear about what you're saying here.

    I wasnt talking about Drew, I was talking about Ryan Holiday's quote. Miscommunication there.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    That you manage to get that out of Dr. Drew's quote is truly a testament to your warped view of reality.
    I'm actually drawing that from your expressed attitudes in this thread. The fact that you feel the need to come in here and bag female sexuality as the key symptom of some kind of modern societal breakdown is, shall we say, somewhat telling.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Which is precisely what Cat brought up earlier: "liberal academia" telling women that their sexual desires are as valuable as men's, and that they shouldn't have to repress their sexuality because they aren't the property of men, is NOT THE SAME as telling women that they must now go out and have sex once a day with at least one new partner a week, and that sexual gratification should be their only or even primary goal in life irrespective of a woman's own wishes, etc.

    This, here.

    Jesus, Geckahn, you still clearly have no fucking clue about anything to do with sociology (which has pretty much zero connection with promoting women's rights; the sociologists' job is to document and predict, not preach). Stop throwing words around like you think you know what they mean.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote:
    ... if a woman only orgasms one out of x times, her body is encouraging her to have sex x times as much as a man.
    ...
    That may explain why all matriarchies are/were in Africa ... on Islands (including Greece, Japan, and the Pacific Islands... and continents separated from the others by vast oceans.
    ...
    They did. Most businesses were either in shipping (silk road, for example), moved from cite to cite, or were at frequently used outposts.

    The fact that women don't have an orgasm every time they have sex does not, in fact, cause them to have more sex! Also, it's not exactly a random process- women don't have sex in the same way with the same guy 15 times in a row hoping that THIS TIME there will be foreplay and he won't finish in 30 seconds flat.

    Greece is not an island. No (inhabited) continent is separated from all other continents by vast oceans. Some matriarchies were located in the mainland Americas and Asia.

    There were no cities or outposts in early nomadic society. That's why they were, you know. Nomads.

    But orgasms are what encourage us to have sex, and one of the main reasons postulated for the non-guaranteed orgasm is to encourage the woman to sleep around, if not to make extra sure that she gets pregnant from her partner (the other major theory).
    Greece is a system of Islands in the Mediterranean. 000_Greqia_harta.PNG This is why all the epics involved ships.
    You don't know much, do you? Nomads have regular spots, so much so that it was very common for societies to build whole cities to inhabit for only a few months every year.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    What aspect of liberalism promotes instant gratification, then?

    uh. none. he was taking issue with the whole, women are just like men, their sexuality is no different then men's, etc. that encouraged women to act in a way which may not be in their best interest, but that does very much represent the modern American ideal of gratification.

    ...And Dr. Drew almost has a point, except he's ignoring the crucial fact that:

    Women throwing of the shackles of repressive 50s-era sexual constraints =/= women becoming total sexual hedonists.

    Which is precisely what Cat brought up earlier: "liberal academia" telling women that their sexual desires are as valuable as men's, and that they shouldn't have to repress their sexuality because they aren't the property of men, is NOT THE SAME as telling women that they must now go out and have sex once a day with at least one new partner a week, and that sexual gratification should be their only or even primary goal in life irrespective of a woman's own wishes, etc.

    That woman that Ryan Holiday was talking about was, essentially, a sexual hedonist. She was not typical, at all, and the whole thing has nothing to do with women in general. But she embraced those ideals fully, and was a bit of a popular culture icon back in the late 60s. She did what her part of society judged was cool and good, and because she followed that path set out for her, she ended up as an addict and a wreck.

    Did I say they were the same? I think what you're missing here is the inter-connect between academia and pop culture, because - as far as i know - nobody actually reads papers by women studies professors except for other womens studies majors. But there is influence there (or was, they arnt exactly cutting edge anymore) on our overall culture, and in some ways it was interpreted in an irresponsible way that led some women (and men) to drop too deep into sexual liberalization.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Did I say they were the same? I think what you're missing here is the inter-connect between academia and pop culture, because - as far as i know - nobody actually reads papers by women studies professors except for other womens studies majors. But there is influence there (or was, they arnt exactly cutting edge anymore) on our overall culture, and in some ways it was interpreted in an irresponsible way that led some women (and men) to drop too deep into sexual liberalization.

    So sometimes individuals to take things too far and possibly not in the way the originators of the idea intended?

    Dagrabbit on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Uh, I know I'm a few pages late from this train wreck, but don't we have fossil records of older humans where the women had just as dense and bulky of a bone structure as the men? Because both men and women were expected to hunt in that particularly harsh climate that they lived in.

    It kinda blows a hole in the completely asinine "guys are naturally stronger then girls, hurr hurr" bullshit, and adds a lot more credence to the much more logical stance of "men are encouraged to be physically active in their youth while women are not, and even physical fit women are not supposed to be muscular to be "hot", therefore we see the strength gap"

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Which is precisely what Cat brought up earlier: "liberal academia" telling women that their sexual desires are as valuable as men's, and that they shouldn't have to repress their sexuality because they aren't the property of men, is NOT THE SAME as telling women that they must now go out and have sex once a day with at least one new partner a week, and that sexual gratification should be their only or even primary goal in life irrespective of a woman's own wishes, etc.

    This, here.

    Jesus, Geckahn, you still clearly have no fucking clue about anything to do with sociology (which has pretty much zero connection with promoting women's rights; the sociologists' job is to document and predict, not preach). Stop throwing words around like you think you know what they mean.

    I know theyre different, but the actual practitioners tend to fit in the same category for me.

    I do not believe that women's sexuality has anything to do with a societal breakdown, sorry.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Did I say they were the same? I think what you're missing here is the inter-connect between academia and pop culture, because - as far as i know - nobody actually reads papers by women studies professors except for other womens studies majors. But there is influence there (or was, they arnt exactly cutting edge anymore) on our overall culture, and in some ways it was interpreted in an irresponsible way that led some women (and men) to drop too deep into sexual liberalization.

    So sometimes individuals to take things too far and possibly not in the way the originators of the idea intended?

    yes. so now, we come full circle to the actual point of that quote - do what you feel is right for you, not what society deems you should do.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    geckahn wrote: »
    Did I say they were the same? I think what you're missing here is the inter-connect between academia and pop culture, because - as far as i know - nobody actually reads papers by women studies professors except for other womens studies majors. But there is influence there (or was, they arnt exactly cutting edge anymore) on our overall culture, and in some ways it was interpreted in an irresponsible way that led some women (and men) to drop too deep into sexual liberalization.

    Okay, but it's a stretch to lump academia and one unfortunate woman's life choices together. It's as if you brought up a tragic car accident, and instead of talking about the driver's cell phone use while driving or lack of sleep or driving intoxicated, you point out that the brakes were faulty because they were outsourced to China.

    Academia---especially the by-definition most culturally liberal discipline of all, women's studies---is not in the business of telling women to make clearly self-destructive choices, and especially not choices with reinforce patriarchal ideas about women's sexuality rather than undermining them.

    EDIT: Just because pop culture adopts something because "academia told them too" doesn't mean that pop culture has a clue what academia is talking about. Example: people claiming that non-feminist choices are feminist because "feminism is about choice." Well, not exactly.

    Zalbinion on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    It kinda blows a hole in the completely asinine "guys are naturally stronger then girls, hurr hurr" bullshit, and adds a lot more credence to the much more logical stance of "men are encouraged to be physically active in their youth while women are not, and even physical fit women are not supposed to be muscular to be "hot", therefore we see the strength gap"

    Are you for fucking real? So lost in your quest for equality that you lost the ability to tell the difference between fact and what you wish fact was?

    geckahn on
Sign In or Register to comment.