Is vs Ought to Be, Hegel->Marx->Neo Marxism->Wokeism Philosophical Development

Town Square
92

@Julia248, responding to each of your points in sequence:

  1. No, they are not independent at all. They are all bound together within any one culture and the meanings that that culture attributes to them. “The culture is the thought”;
  2. Again, culture. There are cultural differences. Sizeable differences. The Central Europe that I now call home has greater respect across the genders (men and women respecting each other) compared to the Anglosphere that I’ve left behind. Domestic violence is complex, and you cannot disengage it from child abuse. The Child Maltreatment Reports from the US Department of Health have shown that women are the primary perpetrators of child abuse - as we would expect, given that women are the primary carers. What goes around, however, comes around. Children become adults who take their learning from the primary nurturer into adulthood. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer;
  3. No, feminism has made access to sex, for men, easier than ever before. If it’s just sex that men are interested in, then it is in their interest to retain feminism. Feminism owes its success to the sexual revolution… and the sexual revolution owes its success to feminism… it’s the reality that feminism created and that the sexual revolution made possible;
  4. Women need to work to provide the additional earning power that was subtracted from men, thanks to the feminist agenda of “equality” (of the equal-outcome persuasion - as opposed to equal opportunity that I support). Feminism created the reality. Now it’s yours to enjoy;
  5. Men’s and women’s different domains within culture can be better understood by factoring in the mind-body unity (men’s and women’s different mind-bodies, and the cultural habits to which they are predisposed). Men’s and women’s neuroplastic brains are wired to accommodate different cultural priorities. There is no unilateral oppression of one gender by another, but there is systemic “oppression” in the sense that culture places pressure on both men and women to conform to gender stereotypes… oppression in which everyone is an accomplice. If men want access to sex, they must conform. If women want to be provided for, they must conform.
93

@steljarkos

  1. They all have cultural aspects to them. And they are all both independent and connected. One’s ability to have freedom and power in a society is independent of sexual activity, obviously. However, birth control also meant women were not as reliant on men if they wanted to have sex with them, because when they did they were not at risk of becoming pregnant. They are both connected and independent entities.
  2. Yes, one side of abuse is connected to culture, how much people respect one another, and what is seen as acceptable when people are at the pre-orange stages of development. This is one part of it. (And Central Europe has domestic violence… do you have any evidence of it being lower than the UK or US? Any domestic violence is a problem in any case).

Another thing that lowers abuse rates is independence. It prevents adults needing to be or stay in situations where they are or at risk of being abused.

Contraceptives lower the risk of child abuse. They mean people can wait until they are ready to have children, so they are in a good mental and emotional situation which makes them more likely to be good parents. Taking away women’s freedoms and forcing them to have children is very unlikely to create conditions conducive to good parenting. It would increase the risk of child abuse. It’s never going to happen, however, unless the world goes really crazy.

And intergenerational trauma is very much a thing. Both men and women who were abused - by parents or partners, or anyone - are far more likely to become abusers themselves. Rather than thinking of this as a case of ''what goes around comes around", it would be better to think of it that there should be more mental health services for people who’ve experienced trauma, which means these cycles can also be broken.

  1. Access to sex is now easier for certain men, those considered desirable by women. But for most men it’s made it more difficult because women are far less likely to settle for men who they consider unattractive. Men can become more attractive to women however, and learn to be better at sex which would also mean women would more likely want to have sex with them, e.g. from learning from omgyes.com.
  2. Women want to work. Women enjoy work. Think of the stages of development. When women get to green they may not be so focused on achievement for it’s own sake anymore, but they don’t want to go back to amber.

At the same time, the lack of focus on the domestic sphere relative to the public sphere has meant it is harder to bring up children. Incomes have fallen relative to living costs and so now often two parents need to work, and it’s even harder for single parents. There needs to be more support and focus on the bringing up of children and conditions conducive to healthy parents. E.g. free childcare and higher incomes so parents don’t need to work as much.
5. I recommend reading ‘Testosterone Rex’ by Cordelia Fine. https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/book-prizes/science-book-prize/2017/testosterone-rex/

Are you saying you advocate for a culture where everyone is oppressed? No one needs to be oppressed.

94

We now arrive at a tangent (actually a couple of tangents) that I was anticipating and hoping to avoid. I was hoping to avoid such tangents because they are messy to unpack, particularly if one is not familiar with the narratives that I’m coming from.

TANGENT #1

Independence as “the cure”, preventing adults from persisting in abusive situations, sure. But how about not getting into abusive relationships in the first place?

Our contraceptive technologies open the flood-gates for dabbling with options and dumbing down our choices, secure in the knowledge that one can always have an abortion if hormonal contraception fails. Women no longer need be concerned whether they finish up with responsible men or losers. If a woman chooses an idiot, she can toss him out if he fails to live up to expectations. So far, so good. But if he gets her pregnant, she can always have an abortion? Not so good. The damage is done. Not just to herself and her soul (another tangent that I don’t want to go down). She’s validated his creepiness, creepiness becomes a cultural norm among men. Her dumb choice becomes integrated with the cultural narrative. Through her choice, she’s validated the idiot as an acceptable norm and lifestyle choice for men, and an expression of what that culture stands for.

But as I suggested above, this is a big topic, impossible to unpack here if we want to do it justice.

As for your contention that contraceptives lower the risk of child abuse… if you assume, as your given, a shallow culture where men and women routinely make dumb choices, then sure, contraceptives will definitely lower the risk of child abuse. I mean, how could it not if, in a worst-case scenario, all children finish up aborted? Of course you will have zero child abuse in a population that does not have any children.

It also stands to reason that cultures that are comfortable with aborting their children have a diminished capacity to love their children. Ain’t rocket science. Is semiotic.

Oh, and the spirituality of Central Europe… no I don’t have proof of less domestic violence. I just know that I belong. You know it when you see it, as they say :smile:

TANGENT #2

There is no such thing as a culture without boundaries. A culture is a system of belief, and systems of belief must always impose boundaries. “The culture is the thought” and you cannot have thought without definitions (boundaries).

Liberalism - the idea of culture unbound - is proving itself the fraud it is. Cancel culture has very specific boundaries and people pay the penalty for any breach of standards. Freedom of speech, by definition speech unbounded, is curtailed in contemporary Liberalism’s Cancel-Culture.

Diversity - diversity of opinion is good, so long as it is not contrary to the accepted (Leftist) narrative.

And so on. There are so many contortions and cognitive dissonances required to impose a culture without bounds that it becomes its own satire.

TANGENT #3

Abortion is another tangent that I don’t want to go down. It opens a Pandora’s box of implications for culture and the meanings that evolve in culture.

As I’ve already mentioned elsewhere in our forum, I have reasons for my assumption that life begins at conception. I also default to reincarnation as a given. The snuffing out of a life queued for reincarnation introduces a new moral dimension into the debate.

Bottom line, a culture which entertains abortions for reasons of convenience is an especially shallow one that is not sustainable. It belongs up there alongside battery farming and experimentation on animals (for example, in the cosmetics industry) as among the evils that characterize our era.

Thanks for the links you provided. Understanding human sexuality is vital to understanding culture and how human minds work, I look forward to exploring these links in greater detail.

95

@steljarkos, to be clear, are your views that you don’t want women to have careers or financial independence, you want all women to be housewives, and you don’t want women to have the option of taking contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies? This is how it seems from your posting.

It seems the only freedom you want women to have is to be able to choose wisely on who they will marry, who will be their ‘guardian’, basically.

I didn’t mention abortion in my post.

(My view is that of course women should have the right to choose if they have the misfortune of becoming pregnant when they don’t want to be, in the wrong circumstances or for health reasons. Something I learned recently was that a single heart cell has a heart beat. They are the only cells of the body that produce electrical signals independently.

When people have abortions, in the vast majority of cases, what they are aborting is a collection of cells. I really don’t think these can be called a person. But the human imagination can bring a person into being.

I always thought it strange for people to disagree with abortions yet be willing to eat animals. However, everyone is allowed to have their opinions, so long as they aren’t harming other people (which they unfortunately often are in this debate).

However, I don’t wish to discuss abortion further.)

You’re welcome for the links. I should clarify that I wanted to show I didn’t think it simply to be the case that many men now had no hope of being intimate with women, and that’s the reason for posting the first link. The dynamic has changed and it is no longer men who have all the power and so they can’t just expect to have a woman by marrying one - because she has no choices other than marrying. But they can have real relationships with women, where both individuals actually want to be with one another.

96

Exactly as I anticipated. This is not a tangent that I wanted to go down, given the assumptions that we are trapped in. But hey, I succumbed, my bad. So let’s continue, see if we can arrive at some kind of closure :slight_smile:

@Julia248, to be clear, my view is that we need to take an entirely new direction. We need to integrate the truths of our past with new insights. There was a reason for the sorts of restraints emphasized in the old days and previous traditions. It is a huge mistake for us in the “progressive” era to write prior truths off as “old fashioned” and no longer relevant. Such arrogance has consequences. Instead of writing previous truths off as a joke, we should revisit them, to try to understand their universal relevance.

Before the consolidation of feminism and casual sex, women were far choosier than they are today. You suggest that women today are more likely to choose “attractive” men. I’m not sure that I agree. I’ve witnessed too many women make ridiculous choices. Traditionally, women tended to be drawn to confident, successful men and for other women, confident, charming and good-looking was sufficient; fair enough, things were much simpler in those more innocent times. I suggest that today, however, the women that choose wisely are in the minority. What do you mean by attractive? Successful as in career? An exciting alpha, as defined in the PUA (pickup artist) movement (google is your friend if you don’t know what PUA is about)? Or a supplicating feministy dude who seeks women’s approval? I find neither career slaves, nor PUA monkeys masquerading as alphas, nor supplicating betas, attractive. I see through them. Many women do not. Some women find mumbling degenerates hot - or at least easy to relate to. Some women are groupies hooking up with rock stars, bad-boys, drugs and rock-n-roll. Other women are drawn to brutish thugs because they present a challenge, something to tame, something to provide a life of drama and excitement, the thrill of the forbidden and all that. For gold-diggers, lots of money catches their attention, and they will cheerfully overlook the imperfections of a drooling, trembling geriatric with liver spots. A great many women make completely ridiculous choices.

Thanks but no thanks. Many men are starting to wake up to the realization that they don’t need to get involved with women who have been around the block more than a dozen times. It is the contraceptive pill that has provided women with all these wonderful opportunities to make dumb choices.

But hey, the contraceptive pill gives women license to dabble, and they can always have an abortion if it all goes awry. If she chooses an idiot, she has an exit strategy, and she gets off scot free. Fine for her. But that dumb choice becomes integrated with the cultural narrative. Through her choice, she’s validated the idiot as an acceptable norm and lifestyle choice for men. Not so fine for everyone else. Progressive culture now provides women with license to exit their dumb choices, instead of having to bear the consequences. I don’t want to live in that kind of shallow, dumbed-down culture. I’m a firm believer of “choose an idiot, birth his thug-spawn, bear the consequences.” I have zero sympathy for her if she gets smacked around. She made the choice and nobody held a gun to her head. She made her choice despite having ample other options available. So, to emphasize my introductory point: How about not getting into abusive relationships in the first place?

Reality, its truths and possibilities need to be treated with more respect and sacredness. Dumbing it all down to a vanilla level of banality in order to accommodate women’s dopey choices is no solution.

Still want to continue with this tangent? I suspect not. :disappointed_relieved:

97

50% of marriages end in divorce, and it’s usually the woman who instigates the divorce. I expect the aspects of bad sex and the expectation of bad sex have a lot to do with it (bad sex being defined here as sex that is not pleasurable/ is unpleasant for women - this is incredibly common - and being pressured/emotionally manipulated into sex is now considered abuse; it didn’t used to be. I would expect this kind of abuse used to be very common, but is becoming less and less so), amongst other factors.

What is your argument? You are against feminism. How do you want society to be structured? Do you want to stop women from making what you consider to be bad choices by taking away their choices?

98

There it is, right there. The proof that women are making dumb choices. The reason for all this bad sex that prompts women to initiate divorce? Maybe there’s something wrong with the choices that women are making. Just sayin’. There is nothing as overrated as bad sex (and there is nothing as underrated as a good dump, as they say, double entendre intended).

99

Okay. Well that was crude and shows poor character.

I’ve attempted here to understand your point of view around why you want women to have no freedom and power, but you don’t answer any questions and just repeatedly say women make poor choices in romance, as if it’s any of your business what other people do anyway.

100

Strawman. That’s your wording. It’s your projection. I want women to have real freedom, and to discover the source of their real power.

If it affects my culture and my truth, then it is my business. Lies and falsehoods must always be called out. It is our duty.

I said that it is complicated, and that I was reluctant to go down this tangent. We might get a lot further if you weren’t so disingenuous and insulting.

101

Now there’s a telling phrase.

102

huh? telling of what? have you taken something out of context?

103

What is ‘real freedom’ and ‘real power’ in your view?

So you want everyone to be the way you want them to be? This seems like a control issue. What lies and falsehoods do you believe need to be called out?

I think I’ve been open with my view. In what way do you think I’ve been disingenuous? I dont think I’ve been insulting, except for in my last post which I think was fair enough.

104

@Julia248
I’m done. seeya.

1 Like
105

That’s no problem :slight_smile:

1 Like
106

What has happened is that many men have identified problems.
Rather than find solutions to those problems within themselves, they take on the characteristics of what they are against and form a kind of culture of male victimization. In many cases this cult of male victimization completely saturates their life, especially if their livelihood is dependent on men wallowing in victimhood.

107

Thou doth project too much.

108

Ironically funny considering the original is “Thou protest too much”, and thee do indeed protesteth overly much in thy projection.

109

Just been watching a tv programme whilst reading these posts. A character replying to some heartfelt nonsense simply said “I don’t doubt your commitment “
I think I’ve just found my next favourite phrase to use when I’ve run out of energy.

1 Like
110

at least ray is consistent in projecting how he’s interpreting the world. You’re not even getting the contexts right!

111

Ran across this Catholic Bishop Robert Barron - well worth a listen. . He’s at least a mid-weight.
Interesting discussion on Marx, Nietzche, Sartre, Foucault and why their proponents often see Christianity as an “existential threat to the new world order”.

Summary starts at 44:30 if you want the cliff notes version.