frustrated by estrogen based parasites show.

[PatrickC]

Well, you seem to have made a wonderful strawman, criticized him as being a collectivist monster, and then soundly defeated him. All in one line, too!

Criticizing hyperbole... on FDR...

 

You seemingly criticised yourself.. Unless I have no idea what you are saying, which is entirely plausible of course.

[EllieChu]

I am curious about these facts that others speak of that Steph talks about in this call-in show. He makes a lot of assumptions, like for example if a woman is sexy it means she wants money and she isn't genuine. This is an assumption, not a fact. He assumes that a sexual woman cannot be genuine and interested in the man. That a woman cannot be both sexy and smart. This is something that has been shown over and over again in the media and society that a woman cannot be very attractive and smart. 

 

I do agree that using sex and financial reasons can only lead to abuse. Just as woman use men to give her money to take care of her, men pay woman to have sex with them. Both sexes abuse sex for control. Men and woman just go about it in different ways.

 

Steph also assumes that all woman want a family and really want to suck all of a man's income. A single woman will make more also if she chooses not to have a family, just like a man will make more if he doesn't choose to have a family. It goes both ways. 

 

Steph needs to stop assuming what men and woman have as biological drivers. What he is talking about is what he has learned from what society has told him. I have read many books and taken classes about gender studies and woman in history and it is really hard to listen to Steph sometimes. Woman's sexuality is not elevated and seen as beautiful. We are called whores, sluts, cunts for being sexual and religion throughout history have tortured and raped woman because their beauty was a sin. 

 

I could go on, but I'm curious what are the thoughts from others. I found this call-in show very frustrating like the person who made this post. I could talk more about how woman are taught as children to use their beauty instead of learning and desiring to be smart. Much of what is excepted of woman and men come from the culture around them, not what Steph assumes is our biological drivers. 

 

I do want to say that I am shocked by the results of a third of children have different fathers when tested. When a woman lies about being pregnant or keeping a secret does bother me. I feel like there is more to it than what it explained on the show. 

[Stefan Molyneux]

Why did you choose that profile pic Ellie?

[EllieChu]

Why did you choose that profile pic Ellie?

 

To answer your question, I find the picture to be an artistic representation of myself rather than an interpretation of what could be deemed as attractive in an attempt to get validation. This could be seen as a sociology response, rather than a biological response. Where do you draw the line between the two responses?

[mick_towe]

I could go on, but I'm curious what are the thoughts from others. I found this call-in show very frustrating like the person who made this post. 

 

I found the show in question to be inspirational and several times during the call in question I jumped up and hollered "Hells yea!" at the top of my lungs.

 

Of course you found it frustrating, our culture trains men and women to veiw men as disposable and even the slightest advocacy or sympathy on men's behalf is generally viewed with suspicion and contempt.

[Stefan Molyneux]

Thanks Mick! 

[MyShadow]

I found the show to be very enlightening and enjoyed it, I thought it was hilarious. Never have I heard such spectacular descriptiveness of insults.

 

I still found it frustrating though. The same way I would have found a show about men being the serial cheaters and emotional unavailable fuckfaces they are frustrating if it omitted the data for women.

 

It is a purely personal perspective though, I'm sure some people wouldnt have found it as enjoyable if both sets of facts were presented.

[mick_towe]

It is a purely personal perspective though, I'm sure some people wouldnt have found it as enjoyable if both sets of facts were presented.

 

What do you mean by "both sets of facts"? And who is "some people"? And why are two men having a conversation about the perils men face when dealing with the opposite sex obligated to throw in any sort of female perspective at all? Do you do that when you talk to your girlfriends?

[cynicist]

I still found it frustrating though. The same way I would have found a show about men being the serial cheaters and emotional unavailable fuckfaces they are frustrating if it omitted the data for women.It is a purely personal perspective though, I'm sure some people wouldnt have found it as enjoyable if both sets of facts were presented.

 

Yeah no thanks, I prefer not to have data regurgitated at me without context in the interest of "balance". I'd rather hear the stats that go unmentioned elsewhere. If Stefan wants to do a show about men that's great but I wouldn't expect him to mix in female stats in order to not upset people.

[JamesP]

Are we not already inundated with data and anecdotes on the bad behavior of men? Those presentations aren't "balanced." Why hold a discussion of female bad behavior to a different standard?

 

I get that it is uncomfortable to hear it discussed. But that means it is even more important to talk about it.

[aFireInside]

For me personally I liked it but then when I seen that some female fdr listeners felt uncomfortable it made me also feel uncomfortable. 

But then people pointed out to me that the reason they feel uncomfortable is because they might feel guilty. 

So then I changed my mind I was trying to control the reaction females had because I wanted more females to listen to the show but that was my own selfish thought, it had nothing to do with the truth.   (managing feeling of females = managing feeling of inner mother ) 

 

I don't mind these videos because people shouldn't feel bad if they are not guilty. 

And they are true observations. 

When stef talks about things like race or culture it doesn't affect me because i don't identify with my culture or race, I didnt choose them. 

I feel like sex is one of those you don't choose your sex. Also if you are not guilty you shouldn't feel uncomfortable. 

This video is related to this post and how i felt. Oversensitive 

[EllieChu]

I found the show in question to be inspirational and several times during the call in question I jumped up and hollered "Hells yea!" at the top of my lungs.

 

Of course you found it frustrating, our culture trains men and women to view men as disposable and even the slightest advocacy or sympathy on men's behalf is generally viewed with suspicion and contempt.

 

Of course I found it frustrating?

 

I do have sympathy for men in my life that fall victim to woman who only want to use and abused them and the same goes for woman. That wasn't what I was trying to explain so maybe I was misunderstood. I agree with Steph on most issues, but I am looking at when he points out sociology issues between men and woman as biological drivers. His idea of men sleeping with as many woman as a biological driver is not see as a fact through history. It is his terms he uses for men and woman that frustrated me. I don't see how me being female would suddenly cause me to hate this topic, woman have just as much capability of being evil as men do, this isn't new information.

[MMX2010]

His idea of men sleeping with as many woman as a biological driver is not see as a fact through history.

How do you know this?

[mick_towe]

I don't see how me being female would suddenly cause me to hate this topic, woman have just as much capability of being evil as men do, this isn't new information.

 

I didn't say that your frustration came from being female. Here is what I said:

 

Of course you found it frustrating, our culture trains men and women to veiw men as disposable and even the slightest advocacy or sympathy on men's behalf is generally viewed with suspicion and contempt.

 

Now you can plainly see that I say that BOTH men and women are trained to view sympathy for the male pespective with suspicion and contempt. Interesting that you missed the word "men" in that sentence.  ;P

[EllieChu]

How do you know this?

 

 

I have listened to evolutionary biologists speak about this topic before. Unlike other animal species, humans need much more time and energy to raise a baby. If a man was to just continue to have sex with every woman he comes in contact with, he can't fulfill the time and energy it takes to raise those children, in turn most of his offspring would die and would not be able to pass on his genes. In the case of other animal species like I believe the turtle, the babies can survive with very little time and energy from either parent. The book Sex at Dawn discusses a lot about the evolutionary nature of human sexuality. I find human sexuality fantasizing and I am sorry if I came off as presumptuous, it wasn't my intent. I think my views and Steph's views on human sexuality are quite different and I know Steph has said he is quite traditional in that reguard.

[MMX2010]

I have listened to evolutionary biologists speak about this topic before. Unlike other animal species, humans need much more time and energy to raise a baby. If a man was to just continue to have sex with every woman he comes in contact with, he can't fulfill the time and energy it takes to raise those children, in turn most of his offspring would die and would not be able to pass on his genes. In the case of other animal species like I believe the turtle, the babies can survive with very little time and energy from either parent. The book Sex at Dawn discusses a lot about the evolutionary nature of human sexuality. I find human sexuality fantasizing and I am sorry if I came off as presumptuous, it wasn't my intent. I think my views and Steph's views on human sexuality are quite different and I know Steph has said he is quite traditional in that reguard.

I haven't read that book, unfortunately, so I can't comment on what is in it.

 

But have you read The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd DeMause?  Ever since I've read it, I can't take seriously any evolutionary argument which says, "Human beings have this collective personality trait, X, because it helps them take care of their children."

[mick_towe]

Ellie, on a lighter note, I assume you are posting from a phone or tablet and you are now yet another innocent victim of the infamous autocorrect.

 

 

The book Sex at Dawn discusses a lot about the evolutionary nature of human sexuality. I find human sexuality fantasizing and I am sorry if I came off as presumptuous, it wasn't my intent.

[PatrickC]

My evolution is currently telling me I should engage with this young lady with the wonderful flowing locks.. Fortunately I am already taken..

[EllieChu]

Ellie, on a lighter note, I assume you are posting from a phone or tablet and you are now yet another innocent victim of the infamous autocorrect.

 

Haha, thanks for pointing that out and that wasn't a freudian slip I swear!

 

 

I haven't read that book, unfortunately, so I can't comment on what is in it.

 

But have you read The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd DeMause?  Ever since I've read it, I can't take seriously any evolutionary argument which says, "Human beings have this collective personality trait, X, because it helps them take care of their children. 

 

 

Thanks for the recommendation!  I can agree for the most part with you MMX2010, I can't take it seriously when it is used with psychology and/or people use it as facts. I have read the works of Richard Dawkins and have listened to a lot of his talks. I find it so interesting how connected we are with nature and we as humans aren't as special as we think we are. There is a philosopher (can't remember his name) who spoke a lot about how we are on the same level as animals such as pigs and people in his time really didn't like the sound of that xD

My evolution is currently telling me I should engage with this young lady with the wonderful flowing locks.. Fortunately I am already taken..

 

Actually this picture was taken when a good friend of mine was in beauty school and she always loved doing my hair and take photos. Apparently the hair is working though by some people's evolution standards. These long locks were about to flow right into your pockets! Mwahaha! The hairspray will help with sticking to your wallet and bringing it back and why not steal your soul while I'm was at it!

 

Sorry if that scares you off but I am being silly. You can talk to me without fear, I'm actually shy when it comes to talking to people online and to be honest I was very anxious when I first posted on this forum.

[cab21]

so the podcast  has this quote "so i don't know what its like to be in the center of a giant planet of pointy dicks all wanting to squirt money in my eyeball".

 

does anyone know what this is like?

[PatrickC]

Actually this picture was taken when a good friend of mine was in beauty school and she always loved doing my hair and take photos. Apparently the hair is working though by some people's evolution standards. These long locks were about to flow right into your pockets! Mwahaha! The hairspray will help with sticking to your wallet and bringing it back and why not steal your soul while I'm was at it!

 

Sorry if that scares you off but I am being silly. You can talk to me without fear, I'm actually shy when it comes to talking to people online and to be honest I was very anxious when I first posted on this forum.

 

No offense taken.. and goodness knows, I have no wish to stop women being attractive to us chaps. Long may it continue..

[MMX2010]

Thanks for the recommendation!  I can agree for the most part with you MMX2010, I can't take it seriously when it is used with psychology and/or people use it as facts. I have read the works of Richard Dawkins and have listened to a lot of his talks. I find it so interesting how connected we are with nature and we as humans aren't as special as we think we are. There is a philosopher (can't remember his name) who spoke a lot about how we are on the same level as animals such as pigs and people in his time really didn't like the sound of that xD

There was a Twilight Zone episode wherein a highly cynical man truly believed that the world would be a better place if everyone were like him.  And the only quote I remember from him was, "Everywhere, surrounded by people.  But why call them people, when people are pigs?" 

 

I would like to warn you in advance that the book I recommended is truly stomach turning.  (Lians said in the chat window, "That book is very good at making it difficult to enjoy meals.")  I have a highly strong stomach, and I found it difficult to get through a lot of that book. 

 

Also, (at the very bottom), http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx contains Stef reading this book aloud. 

 

If you're scared of the stomach-turning contents, Chapter 9 (Bipolar Christianity) isn't nearly as horrific, and it's really interesting because it centers around Christianity. 

 

Lastly, what did you think of Sex at Dawn? 

[EllieChu]

There was a Twilight Zone episode wherein a highly cynical man truly believed that the world would be a better place if everyone were like him.  And the only quote I remember from him was, "Everywhere, surrounded by people.  But why call them people, when people are pigs?" 

 

I would like to warn you in advance that the book I recommended is truly stomach turning.  (Lians said in the chat window, "That book is very good at making it difficult to enjoy meals.")  I have a highly strong stomach, and I found it difficult to get through a lot of that book. 

 

Also, (at the very bottom), http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx contains Stef reading this book aloud. 

 

If you're scared of the stomach-turning contents, Chapter 9 (Bipolar Christianity) isn't nearly as horrific, and it's really interesting because it centers around Christianity. 

 

Lastly, what did you think of Sex at Dawn? 

 

I am going to download it to my Ipod tomorrow to listen to, I will be brave! I am curious what you mean by not enjoying meals >. >; What sort of dark tales am I going to listen to? There were some pretty interesting Twilight show episodes I would have to say. 

 

I really enjoyed Sex at Dawn. I found a bit on the book that describe it well:

 

"Mainstream science--as well as religious and cultural institutions--has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is."

 

As you might realize, this could anger and make many people uncomfortable.

[PatrickC]

How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is."

 

As you might realize, this could anger and make many people uncomfortable.

 

I think this is where I begin to doubt some of the claims made of 'Sex at Dawn'. Certainly well worth a read, from an historical and anthropological perspective. But it has been dubbed by many as the polygamists handbook. The industrial age of the past 200 years brought about enormous benefits with the advent of the nuclear family. Freeing up families to spend more time with each other. Providing children with a lot more nurturing and care. Children no longer have to work, as their families were able to sustain themselves and their children better. Later too wives would no longer need to work and when technology arrived that dispensed with many of the regular household chores, they were able to give more time to their children.

 

It's only been in the last few decades that there has been an all out assault on the institution, by mainly leftist ideologues and gender benders. Making mothers feel inferior compared to other females with careers and comparing marriage to that of a prison. Many of those ideologues have leapt onto the narrative of this book and decided it was the nuclear family that wasn't allowing us to act out our true natures. Forgetting that monogamy had served us very well. Polygamous societies have mostly died out or are threadbare poor by comparison.

 

On a funny aside, I cannot imagine how I would manage my time with two or more wives. That just has 'rolling pin' written all over it.

[MMX2010]

"Mainstream science--as well as religious and cultural institutions--has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages.How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners.

The Origins of War in Child Abuse describes in graphic detail the worst abuses against children, and argues that they were practically universally practiced for an appallingly long time.  Snippet, "Every child before 1850 should be considered a battered child." 

 

So when I read your description above, I think, "[A[]ccording to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners - in such a cold, callous way that children's needs were never empathetically considered." 

[psquared]

I REALLY enjoyed this show.  I also wanted to jump up and yell, Hell yeah!  I've told several people about it.  I work for a 72 year old guy and we have great philosophical discussions.  He laughed heartily when I told him some of the things from the show and the title.

 

Way before I ever got into philosophy, I always detested feminism.

[Duderio]

goodbye

[AustinJames]

In The Origins of War in Child Abuse, Chapter 10, the first heading in bold reads, "IDEALIZATION BY ANTHROPOLOGISTS OF TRIBAL CHILDREARING." In the following passage, the author describes and explains the shortcomings of traditional academic anthropologists.  This passage may be especially instructive in this discussion, if the root of the controversy is as I perceive: the constants in biology concerning sexual drivers.  DeMause writes,

 

"Idealization of other cultures is the rule in anthropology, we found in publishing The Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology, by leaving out crucial details—as did Margaret Mead in her portrayal of the ubiquitous raping gangs of Samoa as an example of “sexual freedom” that we should emulate.¹⁰ As I discovered when I took classes with Mead at Columbia University, she routinely idealizes tribal childhood as “spoiled and pampered.”¹¹ Most anthropologists do not just idealize childrearing, they baldly state without evidence that tribal mothers are “rarely abusive,” as when they say that children who are forced to eat every second sibling “are the favored ones who started life with no oral trauma,” and that eating one’s siblings believed to be demons “doesn’t seem to have affected their personality development.”¹² Dozens more statements as bizarre as this are analyzed in the forty issues of my Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology."

 

Sex at Dawn (I have not read it, so let me know if I misunderstand) does not focus on forming objective conclusions about what is optimal in human sexual behaviour.  I perceive it to be a book that attempts to justify, or at least explain the need for a variety of historic and modern sexual behaviours based on environmental factors.  Stefan is, as a philosopher, probably less interested in such an examination, and more interested in defining an objective standard for optimal sexual behaviour in modern society. Reciprocally, most anthropologists have a singular aim to objectively explore and describe a variety of human societies, and are therefore less interested in forming objective moral conclusions that would distract from this.  One could argue that anthropologists are better off not forming moral conclusions, because they're not philosophers.  Conversely, perhaps philosophers should not attempt an amoral and unbiased analysis of history or anthropology, because it would not be conducive to the goals of a philosopher. 

 

He assumes that a sexual woman cannot be genuine and interested in the man. That a woman cannot be both sexy and smart.

 

Steph also assumes that all woman want a family and really want to suck all of a man's income. A single woman will make more also if she chooses not to have a family, just like a man will make more if he doesn't choose to have a family. It goes both ways. 

 

Steph needs to stop assuming what men and woman have as biological drivers. What he is talking about is what he has learned from what society has told him. Much of what is excepted of woman and men come from the culture around them, not what Steph assumes is our biological drivers. 

 

I feel like there is more to it than what it explained on the show. 

 

You listed a lot of Stef's "assumptions" that are actually your assumptions of him.  You assume that he assumes these things, he never said any of them, with the exception of the last: he does assume to know "our biological drivers," but only those that are objective.  There are consistent biological drivers, and these exist independent of the cultural manifestations of such drivers.  Cultural expectation, therefore, is a byproduct of these constant drivers.  His argument is formulated, as you say, by listening to what "society has told him," but this does nothing to substantiate your objections.  You're complaining that Stef describes society as he perceives it, when the goal is an objective, moral analysis of society as he, and others, see it.  If he did not listen to what society told him, he would just be making stuff up about how he imagines society might be, with no objective standard of reality.

 

When you say "I feel like there is more to it..." you are proving Stef's point.  When was the last time you heard, of a man who cheats and lies to their family (or exhibits any bad behaviour, really), that "there must be more to it.  I'm sure there were a lot of factors at play, and it might have been a really complex situation." --? I have never heard this of men's bad behaviour when it comes to women and family, but I hear it all the time describing women's actions.