Neofeminism - The Female Is Not In Danger. The Feminine Is.

[5tn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vmJD374BDo

 

A female perspective on feminism. Very insightful and on point. Rare coming from woman. Your thoughts?

[Donnadogsoth]

Let's say there is this brain specialisation between the sexes that dates back to prehistory. Now the powers-that-be have deployed feminism, under cover of “equality,” to transfer power from men to women ad infinitum. Feminism acts through a female vanguard of masculine-thinking emasculators, who adopt the male role in guiding feminine thought through an alternate logic (patriarchy theory, WHCCM). This, of course, will lead to disaster.

 

My question is, given that equality seems like a good thing—if there want to be women lawyers or women construction workers, why is that a bad thing?—what would a futuristic “liberated” woman who remains identifiably feminine look like? What would a man, there, look like?

 

Note that equality can come at the expense of liberty. If everyone is forced to be equal, no one is free to be a millionaire. Brings to mind a Twilight Zone episode where a boy is sent for intelligence testing and is executed because he's an ace.

[Eternal Growth]

Guys, gather here. We have managed to uncover a recording of a female perspective. These rare, elusive beings, the females, are usually hidden away out of view and beyond human contact. In this precedent-defying 12 minute clip, we finally hear what one has to say. (Seriously, there are almost 4 billion women out there)

 

The video is okay. The real problem with feminism is that it is collectivist (and hence inherently anti-individual), but the video cannot identify this because it is promoting its own brand of socially engineered collectivism. It has rose-tinted glasses on as it talks about traditional gender roles (showing movie segments of smiling heterosexual couples does not make these representative - given the era these movies were produced, these were the same couples that were universally physically assaulting their children, and then all divorced once the laws which prevented them from doing so were removed), and it is disregarding the reality that more human diversity exists within sexes than between them. It also disregards that, in a free society with no involuntary positive obligations, many people will choose to not be a gender stereotype, and enjoy doing so. It also disregards that technological advancements make gender roles less necessary, indeed irrelevant, and allow us to focus more on non-gendered aspects of our lives such as Philosophy. I won't comment on the pseudo-Neuroscience. 

[MMX2010]

 

My question is, given that equality seems like a good thing—if there want to be women lawyers or women construction workers, why is that a bad thing?—what would a futuristic “liberated” woman who remains identifiably feminine look like? What would a man, there, look like?

 

It's practically impossible for a woman to do this, because: (1) the kinds of skills that are required to succeed in the free market as masculine traits, many of which are correlated with testosterone and (2) an identifiably feminine woman's best trait is her fertility and femininity, which are correlated with lack of testosterone. 

It also disregards that technological advancements make gender roles less necessary, indeed irrelevant, and allow us to focus more on non-gendered aspects of our lives such as Philosophy. I won't comment on the pseudo-Neuroscience. 

 

The opposite is true.  Rollo Tomassi posted a gigantic (like fifty-pages or more) article outlining typical objections to evolutionary psychological conclusions, followed by effective counter-arguments. 

 

The one I most remembered, "Societies in which people are free to choose their own genders end up being more stereotypically divided into masculine/feminine genders, not LESS - as you just assumed."

[5tn]

Now the powers-that-be have deployed feminism, under cover of “equality,” to transfer power from men to women ad infinitum. 

 

My question is, given that equality seems like a good thing—if there want to be women lawyers or women construction workers, why is that a bad thing?

 

It's not a bad thing. It is exactly the thing that feminism should follow through, since their motto is 'equality'. They should be equally crying about needing more women lawyers and women construction workers, but of course, they only promote the first one. They don't want all traditional male jobs, just the high-pay ones, while using the 'gender inequality in the workplace' undercover.

 

 

It also disregards that technological advancements make gender roles less necessary, indeed irrelevant, and allow us to focus more on non-gendered aspects of our lives such as Philosophy. I won't comment on the pseudo-Neuroscience. 

 

The opposite is true.  Rollo Tomassi posted a gigantic (like fifty-pages or more) article outlining typical objections to evolutionary psychological conclusions, followed by effective counter-arguments. 

 

The one I most remembered, "Societies in which people are free to choose their own genders end up being more stereotypically divided into masculine/feminine genders, not LESS - as you just assumed."

 

Things are not gendered. Rather, it is gender that is constructed by the same dualities that drive everything else in the universe. Philosophy is a discipline of logic and rational argumentation which requires analytical thinking and linear thought processing. Men dominates the discipline of philosophy. Not because philosophy is 'masculine', but rather that the male gender happens to exhibit strong capabilities of logical, analytical and linear thinking.

 

Human gender could become irrelevant one day. What will never be irrelevant are the strategies/algorithm that are needed for decision-making and problem-solving tasks, which humans or human made machines need in order to function:

• Procedural strategy (logic) - Step-by-step progression to come to a conclusion. A response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken. Deterministic nature. 
• Pattern recognition strategy (intuition) - Comparing multiple sets of data to recognize a related pattern, which serves as the solution. Probabilistic nature.