long winded fool

Equal in value to what? If 10% of a population can be male without having a dire impact on the population of the next generation, aren't men more valuable? If 10% men are roughly equivalent to 90% women, men seem to have the real power. Women would seem to simply be incubators. The men are the increasers of the population. But assuming your logic, in a society where overpopulation is a problem, wouldn't the value suddenly jump to the men more than the women? Wouldn't too many women be a bad thing if women are the prime source of population increase? Wouldn't the value of womanhood then be less than the value of manhood?

"What causes misogyny if the sexes are truly equal?" Isn't this essentially the same as asking, "What causes mathematical error if mathematics is truly objective?" Or "What causes physical laws to be broken if physical laws are truly absolute?" Does finding an error in a scientific theory present a logical dilemma? Does ignorance prove that there is no intelligence? If so, men can't be any smarter than women, and YOU can't be any smarter than anyone posting on this board, yet still you attempt to enlighten us on where we are wrong.

I agree that no two individuals are completely equal in anything except human rights assigned by law. I disagree that all women are more valuable than all men. And I AM a man so I don't think that I'm just too stupid to realize this. I need a logical argument.

Infidelettante

Gosh golly gee OBKB, mabe I can help. Here are JT's rules for being a happy man.

Rule one Don't piss off the women in your life.
Rule two When you do, spend lots of money, apologize, apologize, apologize, and see rule one.

As for Ms. Stones book, horribly out of date. I had no idea you were into that kind of thing. There aren't many of us here but I'm sure we could put something together for you. You know what they say...once you go pagan you'll never go back. Give us a ring.

JT

[edit] Just one more thing. If you are really into this woman thing...and Goddess knows who isn't...drop the militaristic terms like armor. They really pick up on that kind of thing and it won't help. Also talk up the feeling thing...you know "I'm so worried about our daughters and granddaughters blah blah blah they eat that up. Let me know how it goes.
jt

Priapus

HelenM said: I didn't say females were stupid I said women were. Honestly though, I would like to retract that and say: women haven't caught up with the mythologies men have made to psychologically rape them.


long winded fool:

Thanks for giving me my first real response, I sometimes play devil's advocate, primarily because I am an advocate of his grace, but often its just to see what ideas I can bring out of people in a heated debate. This time though I'm being quite serious.

You said: Well I assume we're talking equality in function. In other words a role that someone can fulfill in a given society. If a person truly holds that all people are equal then following that logic they must believe that a derelict wino can perform the functions of the president if given the proper environment.

You also said: I really don't follow how you could arrive at such a conclusion. What that means is that, since the population is roughly 50% male, 80% of males could die and it wouldn't matter whatsoever. That means that if you have 5 men in a room 4 of us are totally redundant. If you do some research on genetics among mammals (and really any sexually bimorphic species) you'll find that most males lose the pussy lotto entirely, while some males father most of a population. In essence, the vast bulk of males are only there to drive competition and the species forward as a whole, not pass their genes on at all. We human males have managed to circumvent that with enforced monogamy and male ownership of the womb.

Then You Said:
I don't know where you got that idea but it certainly wasn't from me or anything I've ever read or seen before. If 50% of the female population died we'd be fucked, or at least it would be a huge set back.

I do agree though that men have the real power (now) but its certainly not biological. Its due to our ability to think abstractly and override biology with deterministic fable.

Then You Started Saying: Well you're not using "my logic" (and whatever me owning my own logic implys I'm sure ain't a good thing), but no, I don't think so, in fact I think it would have the opposite effect since males generally always want to increase the population by at least the number of their children. But I think I'd like you to clarify what exactly you mean by this before I push forward with any other ideas.


Then you started talking some crazy stuff about:
Well, a misunderstanding of mathematics causes mathematical error. So are you then suggesting that a misunderstanding of equality causes misogyny? Again, I don't follow your reasoning. If the sexes were truly equal what would there be to take issue with? In other words, what motivation does patriarchal thought have? If there is no motivation, then what sustains it? Why have so many cultures dreamed up so many different reasons for womens' second class status(of course there are always many similarities among the myths)? I just don't understand where you're going with that, but maybe you just picked a bad analogy and I can't grasp the meaning behind it.

I also don't really follow what you were saying about physical laws. Possibly our definition of physical laws can be broken as we come to a greater understanding of the universe but true phyical laws are absolute.

Well I'm drunk so I'm getting off here...I hope this response made sense.

long winded fool

I too often play devil's advocate, but I certainly have no grace, demonic or divine.

Does this mean that a given individual must be able to perform any and all conceivable functions in a society to be considered equal? Is the ability to clean toilets not equal to the ability to be president? It is often said, "Somebody's gotta do it." I interpret this to mean everyone has their function and role and that the garbage man is superior to the president at being a garbage man and vice versa. (At least ideally. I don't know if I'd be comfortable with G.W. handling my trash.) How can you compare functions? Women are always 100% better at bearing children than men, and men are always 100% better at impregnating women than women. These are not identical, but by what value are they unequal?

Monogamy is certainly not enforced and males do not own wombs. How many "monogamous" (as in having only one partner throughout their entire life) people do you know? While it is considered moral (and instinctual in most primates) for a male to take responsibility for his offspring, he is by no means required to do so. A woman can do what she pleases with her womb. Fortunately, the majority of women would rather bear the offspring of a single man than multiple men. You say that in a room of 5 men, 4 are totally redundant. This has no meaning until you give the number of women in the room. (I'm assuming you meant that there was at least one.) 1 woman and 5 men would mean that 4 men are redundant if the value is only reproduction in a limited time frame. 5 men and 5 women would mean that none are redundant. I can see that you are arguing from a man's perspective. The reason women appear to be more valuable is because what you are valuing is the chance to reproduce. Fewer women mean less chances of reproduction for the men. However fewer men means the same thing for the women, unless the drop is slight. Arguing from a woman's perspective would see the man as more valuable so long as the ratio of men to women is equal, since a woman cannot impregnate another woman.

I don't know where you got that idea but it certainly wasn't from me or anything I've ever read or seen before. If 50% of the female population died we'd be fucked, or at least it would be a huge set back.

Who'd be fucked? The men who can't reproduce? If 50% of men died, the women who couldn't reproduce would be equally fucked. The time variable is what you're talking about. It is true, with fewer women, society would grow at a slower rate than with fewer men, however, who ever said a fast growing population is a valuable thing? Women can be more valuable than men depending on what it is you're valuing. If the goal is a population explosion, then women are much more valuable than men. If it is natural reproduction, then they are equal. It is natural for human males to care for their young. While the last man alive on earth could go on a spree and repopulate the earth, (which I suppose is why men seem more valuable in this analogy) this is not the case in the world today. Fast population increase is not a valuable thing, and in fact is more often than not something to be avoided entirely. If unnaturally slow population increase is also not valuable, then men and women have equal value.

I do agree though that men have the real power (now) but its certainly not biological. Its due to our ability to think abstractly and override biology with deterministic fable.

I think that biologically men and women have equal value and equal power over the regulation of the population. If my goal is slower population expansion then men are inherently more valuable. If my goal is faster population expansion, the women have inherently more value. If the goal is average population expansion, then the value is equal. Since average population expansion promotes harmony with nature and encourages a bountiful food supply for a species, average population expansion should be what carries value. Anything else is detrimental to the species.

Well you're not using "my logic" (and whatever me owning my own logic implys I'm sure ain't a good thing), but no, I don't think so, in fact I think it would have the opposite effect since males generally always want to increase the population by at least the number of their children. But I think I'd like you to clarify what exactly you mean by this before I push forward with any other ideas.

I tried to clarify this above. But are men any different than women in this analogy? Do women not want to increase the population by at least the number of their children?

Well, a misunderstanding of mathematics causes mathematical error. So are you then suggesting that a misunderstanding of equality causes misogyny? Again, I don't follow your reasoning. If the sexes were truly equal what would there be to take issue with? In other words, what motivation does patriarchal thought have? If there is no motivation, then what sustains it? Why have so many cultures dreamed up so many different reasons for womens' second class status(of course there are always many similarities among the myths)? I just don't understand where you're going with that, but maybe you just picked a bad analogy and I can't grasp the meaning behind it.

I also don't really follow what you were saying about physical laws. Possibly our definition of physical laws can be broken as we come to a greater understanding of the universe but true phyical laws are absolute.

I'm saying that it's not logical to assume that the existence of misogyny equates to the natural superiority of women anymore than it is to assume that the existence of error equates to the inferiority of mathematics. If the sexes are truly equal, one could take issue with the fact that they are largely perceived by the majority to be unequal. If physical laws are truly absolute, then why are they consistently broken and revised? Human error is the answer. The sexes are truly equal, many of us just assume men are better because that's the way it's always been. Some of us assume women are better because it shows that men are not superior as was once believed. The truth is, they are equal in value, if the value is natural reproduction of the species. Of course, if the value is an unnaturally rapid increase in population, then women attain more value, and conversely, if the value is unnaturally sluggish population growth, then men attain more value. I think the value ought to be whichever level of population growth promotes the healthiest and happiest humans. The natural average of population growth ensures plenty of food. Valuing women more than men creates an imbalace which all species ultimately suffer for. Monogamy is the logical reproduction method of a species capable of ignoring instinct.

So in this respect, maybe you're right. In this society, women carry more value than men, since men on the average value the act of sex over responsibility to the family and women on the average do not. While from a detatched and objective viewpoint, the value of gender is equal just like physics is absolute, from a human and societal perspective, women (or women's bodies) are more valuable than men, just as physical laws are not truly absolute. While women and men should be equal in a healthy society, (and physical laws should be absolute) in this unhealthy and ignorant society they're not. Women are more valuable, though they're given comlpetely different responsibility than men. Men for the most part are responsible for ensuring the function of government and protection from enemies, and women are responsible for looking good and putting out, so that we will continue to expand and increase our consumption of limited resources at an exponential rate. It's the American way.

OBKB

How will the Queen better ensure her hierarchy of specie survival?
Develop a method of mental distress cloaked in nurture that convinces same life competitors to be satisfied with a presubscribed social stratus.

Bree

I have also read Stone's book and I too feel it is outdated. There is some useful historical information in there, but the majority of it is skewed by trying to support the "women are mystical" bit. Women don't have any 'magick' powers - we just have different bits than the men.

Priapus

long winded fool:
Thanks for giving me a thoughtfully expressed and well...a long winded response. However I think you must be missing what I'm saying on several of the points I've raised because you don't really seem to be responding to them directly. I'll try and clarify things as best I can but I do have a weird writing style - so I'm told.


Well I was being a bit facetious but I sometimes forget that people can't see my facial expression online.

Well to be "truly equal" I would say yes. In fact even if we lived in a sanz-currency 'Star Trek' society we still wouldn't attain equality in status. To be truly placed at equal positions we would have to value toilet cleaning as much as performing the functions of the president. Surely that seems like a rediculous notion to more than me. Some people win some learn to survive but not much more, and others lose entirely even so far as being still born. So true objective equality is nonsense but we can assign some level of normative equality such as 'equal protection under the law'. The problem of course is that this too is a logistical impossibility(if nothing else a cop is going to be closer to one person then another and could reach them more quickly to save them but possibly not some one who happened to live further away), but it does all members of said community the best to work towards this ideology though it is unattainable; but I digress.

Bearing children takes more time, more effort, and is more trying on the person. Surely you're not comapring a man's job of getting laid to carrying a baby for 9 months and keeping it alive until its weened (and female mammals are tied to that biologically as well). Its been said that as far as her nature goes a woman is just a uterus and a sack of milk, but a male is just a single sperm. What job comes with more pressure and responsibility janitor or president, and therefore which do we as a society value more? Yes, and rightly so.

These statements are self-refuting. On the one hand you say "monogamy is ... not enforced" then you ask in an attempt to disuade my position, "How many monogomous people do you know" Well thats my point exactly! Monogamy is no longer enforced in the west and as a result everyone is fucking around. Look at fundamentalist Islamic nations or religious "extremists" in our own country, what do you think the possibility is for finding strictly monogamous people in these groups versus more so-called "liberal" people? Women are indeed possessed by men in these groups as enforced monogamy is an ageless art of mate guarding that a male takes part in to make sure he isn't being cuckolded. When a male takes possession of a woman and precents her from being able to provide from herself (by religious taboos and brotherhood that keeps her from taking on a career) what happens? She is left at home literally barefoot and pregnant, as a result the male who insures her position has an entire litter of children while the man in the western world might have one or two children since the women he's after are making their own way and don't want the responsibility of children. The problem with male dominance is that it works so well.

False! ..and I think this is the fallacy that is keeping us from understanding each other. It might matter to women on some emotional level, but biologically one man could sire all the children that the 5 women in the room could possibly produce (and a lot more for that matter).

Well its not an absolute men are worthless vs. woman are all that matters, but it would be if women produced sperm. However men do produce it and we produce truckloads of it (kindof a gross descriptor I know). So its not much for a female to get a male to impregnate her, in fact all she has to do is let him know she's recpetive and the deal is pretty well sealed.


The point is that women wouldn't be in that position. (what did you think my original point was?) I mean put aside all our intellectual grasping for a second; imagine if you will being 1 of 20 men left in a population of thousands of women...yeah, it makes for good dreams. And if I was divorced from resonsibility of child rearing as you claim I am (which I'd like to see you take that up with social services) then you better believe I'd be getting everyone of those bitches pregnant, or at least as many as possible.


The goal? For who? It sounds like you are envisioning a collective mind or 'evolution with a goal'. It seems to me all living creatures are self-determined and in fact if they weren't they wouldn't be here. For me as an individual the goal is always a population explosion of more me! This same thing does hold true for women but the assymetry is in the responsibility they take and the fact that they have 400 and we have 4 billion. It does a male good to spread that 4 billion as far as possible while a female, knowing the effort involved, does better to be selective and make sure she's getting quality since she we will be putting so much effort forth to bring the offspring to a weening stage.

I know often these debates become heated and a person will send someone else off to read something as a condesending way of telling that person the're ignorant of the facts BUT PLEASE DON'T TAKE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY THAT WAY. I think you should read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" to get a grasp of what I'm talking about. I'm not saying its the final word but I think you would better understand why I am drawing the conclusions I am, having read it.

Oh and BTW what does 'natural reproduction' mean? Why do you assume a population increase is bad in an overpopulated area? Wouldn't the best rise to the top and the wider gene pool create more possibilities for progress?


Based upon what? Ever heard the phrase "deadbeat dads"?


This again is based upon a collective hive mind. People are individuals with greedy, and without greed there would be no intelligent life.

If your goal was slower population increase you probably wouldn't even be here. The rest of the quote is full of new ager optimism; re: harmony with nature? Death is harmony with nature.


This statement doesn't hold. The existance of misogyny displays assymetry between the sexes (just as religion displays our desire to be immortal and more important than a viral infection), upon closer inspection the female's biological superiority (I'd rather say 'greater importance') can be gleaned and misogyny is discerned to be a reactionary subversion of female choice.

Thanks for that emotionist diatribe that was based upon nothing other than your social programming.

Wow, am I talking to a rabid femminist or what? So do you suppose its all the teachers and preachers that tell young boys to go to strip clubs and prostitutes?

Well Im at work and I've been typing this over lunch but I need to get back.

Nice talking to you.

Sincerely,
The Phalic God Priapus

long winded fool

I agree that there is a miscommunication, but I must say I respect your frankness and honesty. If only other posters here were as intellectually honest with themselves.

I suppose what I don't understand is what makes the ability to impregnate less important than the ability to be impregnated? Even valuing reproduction, the only males that would be less valuable than females would seem to be those that do not reproduce. However females who do not reproduce would be less valuable than males that do.

Well to be "truly equal" I would say yes. In fact even if we lived in a sanz-currency 'Star Trek' society we still wouldn't attain equality in status. To be truly placed at equal positions we would have to value toilet cleaning as much as performing the functions of the president. Surely that seems like a rediculous notion to more than me. Some people win some learn to survive but not much more, and others lose entirely even so far as being still born. So true objective equality is nonsense but we can assign some level of normative equality such as 'equal protection under the law'. The problem of course is that this too is a logistical impossibility(if nothing else a cop is going to be closer to one person then another and could reach them more quickly to save them but possibly not some one who happened to live further away), but it does all members of said community the best to work towards this ideology though it is unattainable; but I digress.

I'm not so sure that the difficulty of a task represents its value. Front-line infantry in my opinion have a more difficult job than officers, however aren't officers valued more than troops? But then again, without the troops, the officers would be powerless. While officers carry more value in the eyes of humanity, it would seem logically that the "cannon-fodder" as at least equal value. Are an artist's eyes less valuable than his hands? More? Or aren't they included equally in the value of an artist?

Take horse breeding. The stallion always carries more value than the mare, unless I'm mistaken. Does this mean that horse breeders are wrong in their evaluation of the worth of males and females? The male is the prize. The females are simply there to provide breeding opportunities. Though the stud could not breed without mares, the stud carries more value than the mare. Why?

Bearing children takes more time, more effort, and is more trying on the person. Surely you're not comapring a man's job of getting laid to carrying a baby for 9 months and keeping it alive until its weened (and female mammals are tied to that biologically as well). Its been said that as far as her nature goes a woman is just a uterus and a sack of milk, but a male is just a single sperm. What job comes with more pressure and responsibility janitor or president, and therefore which do we as a society value more? Yes, and rightly so.

The janitor's responsibility is to clean the toilets. Where would we be without clean toilets? Disease would be widespread and time would be taken away from other "more important" jobs while the president and his staff took turns cleaning their toilets. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the weakest link is always at least as valuable as the strongest.

These statements are self-refuting. On the one hand you say "monogamy is ... not enforced" then you ask in an attempt to disuade my position, "How many monogomous people do you know" Well thats my point exactly! Monogamy is no longer enforced in the west and as a result everyone is fucking around. Look at fundamentalist Islamic nations or religious "extremists" in our own country, what do you think the possibility is for finding strictly monogamous people in these groups versus more so-called "liberal" people? Women are indeed possessed by men in these groups as enforced monogamy is an ageless art of mate guarding that a male takes part in to make sure he isn't being cuckolded. When a male takes possession of a woman and precents her from being able to provide from herself (by religious taboos and brotherhood that keeps her from taking on a career) what happens? She is left at home literally barefoot and pregnant, as a result the male who insures her position has an entire litter of children while the man in the western world might have one or two children since the women he's after are making their own way and don't want the responsibility of children. The problem with male dominance is that it works so well.

I thought that your position was that monogamy is forced on men and women so that women appear less valuable? While a society may attempt to enforce monogamy, by nature monogamy is a choice. Having a single partner is a survival instinct. Polygamy is a beneficial form of reproduction only for rare species. It is ultimately detrimental to any species once they become common in an area with few predators. Humans have no natural predators and are about as common as they can safely get. Monogamy is a rational course of evolution, and in a monogamous relationship, the partners are equal. Male dominance may achieve this goal through force, but reason alone ought to logically lead male and female to monogamous relationships and equal value.

False! ..and I think this is the fallacy that is keeping us from understanding each other. It might matter to women on some emotional level, but biologically one man could sire all the children that the 5 women in the room could possibly produce (and a lot more for that matter).

So then, women become more valuable than men when there is a shortage of men? I would think it would be the opposite. See the horse breeding example. What about when there is a shortage of women? Then it would seem than women are more valuable. Your argument seems to be that, because it requires fewer men than women to increase the population, women are more valuable than men. This seems like an arbitrary assertion. Why can I not logically say that, because it takes fewer men than women to increase the population, men are more valuable? This is the opinion of animal breeders. Females can come and go, but males are vital to breeding purposes. A good healthy male carries more value than a good healthy female in terms of monetary value. An overabundance of either sex will result in redundant individuals. Because it takes a greater reduction in population for females to become redundant that it does for males, I don't think it logically follows that females are more valuable.

Well its not an absolute men are worthless vs. woman are all that matters, but it would be if women produced sperm. However men do produce it and we produce truckloads of it (kindof a gross descriptor I know). So its not much for a female to get a male to impregnate her, in fact all she has to do is let him know she's recpetive and the deal is pretty well sealed.

Instictively, yes. However I don't think that the biological make-up of men is beneficial to the species any longer. The constant receptivity to mating becomes a crutch in an overpopulated society. The group which expands the quickest loses it's source of food before the slow expanders do. (And usually must encroach in order to feed.) Predators keep this from occuring in the wild, but a species without predators and with a powerful instinct to mate eventually reaches the "plague" status. The cancer must expire when the victim expires. Becoming a plague would not be a reasonable goal for a species, therefore either monogamous reproduction and gender equality ought to be valued, or constant tribal warfare and massacre ought to be valued in order to create an artificial predator to thin our ranks and allow us to continue to reproduce at our instinctual rate without consuming our limited food supply.

And incidentally, if men could impregnate themselves, women also would be worthless, if worth is based solely on reproductive capability.

The point is that women wouldn't be in that position. (what did you think my original point was?) I mean put aside all our intellectual grasping for a second; imagine if you will being 1 of 20 men left in a population of thousands of women...yeah, it makes for good dreams. And if I was divorced from resonsibility of child rearing as you claim I am (which I'd like to see you take that up with social services) then you better believe I'd be getting everyone of those bitches pregnant, or at least as many as possible.

True, but, though 20 men can impregnate a lot of women, they cannot provide care and sustenance for all the pregnant women who are in no position to hunt or gather food for themselves, their unborn offspring, or the other women. Pregant women are not valuable unless they and their children survive.


The goal? For who? It sounds like you are envisioning a collective mind or 'evolution with a goal'. It seems to me all living creatures are self-determined and in fact if they weren't they wouldn't be here. For me as an individual the goal is always a population explosion of more me! This same thing does hold true for women but the assymetry is in the responsibility they take and the fact that they have 400 and we have 4 billion. It does a male good to spread that 4 billion as far as possible while a female, knowing the effort involved, does better to be selective and make sure she's getting quality since she we will be putting so much effort forth to bring the offspring to a weening stage.

Individual goals are completely subjective. If you are arguing about your own individual goals, then I cannot refute you since only you know your own goals. In order to collectively value something, there must be a collective goal. If there are no collective values, then what was the point of your first response to this post? Obviously you believe in some absolute value, or else you wouldn't declare that all women are more valuable than all men and that those who believe otherwise are mistaken. I assumed your goal was the goal of reproduction. Therefore I expanded on this and found that valuing women above men is ultimately detrimental to the species, and since the purpose of reproduction is preservation of the species, it logically follows that sex equality is more valuable than female superiority.

I know often these debates become heated and a person will send someone else off to read something as a condesending way of telling that person the're ignorant of the facts BUT PLEASE DON'T TAKE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY THAT WAY. I think you should read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" to get a grasp of what I'm talking about. I'm not saying its the final word but I think you would better understand why I am drawing the conclusions I am, having read it.

Thanks! I'm always looking for an interesting book to read. It sounds fascinating and maybe can shed some light on my understanding of this unique perspective.

Oh and BTW what does 'natural reproduction' mean? Why do you assume a population increase is bad in an overpopulated area? Wouldn't the best rise to the top and the wider gene pool create more possibilities for progress?

Overpopulation implies that there are too many of a species in an area and not enough food or other resources to sustain it. Stripping the environment of nourishment is destructive to all species in this environment, including the overpopulated species that is doing the stripping. Doing something that is destructive to the species is bad by definition. Nautral reproduction is balancing the species with the environment. Human beings are lucky enough not to have to worry about predators performing this role, therefore they require discipline and reason in order to maintain their population level. Predation on each other is another option. Which is the more efficient? Either way, polygamy and the superiority of women are detrimental and destructive.

Based upon what? Ever heard the phrase "deadbeat dads"?

An exception to the rule does not disprove the rule. It is natural to eat whenever hungry, yet there exist humans who do not.


This again is based upon a collective hive mind. People are individuals with greedy, and without greed there would be no intelligent life.

I've never heard evolution by natural selection referred to as a hive mind. I can tell you that your goal is to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, not becuase you and I share a collective consciousness, but because I know that that is how you are wired. You may endure temporary pain for the sake of future pleasure, but pleasure is still your goal as it is everyone's. Some people are not logical enough to foresee the greater good and embrace temporary pleasure without imagining the consequential pain that must come from it. It is logical that everyone's goal ought to be whatever brings the most pleasure down the line and not what brings immediate pleasure. Those who embrace pleasure without planning for the pain that must follow are not using their ability to reason and suffering from the controlling instincts of the animal. Therefore, greed is not a logical goal. Any goal that is detrimental to the self or the species is not a logical goal. Therefore goals that are beneficial ought to be the goal of everyone. I don't know what these are, but I know what they aren't.

This statement doesn't hold. The existance of misogyny displays assymetry between the sexes (just as religion displays our desire to be immortal and more important than a viral infection), upon closer inspection the female's biological superiority (I'd rather say 'greater importance') can be gleaned and misogyny is discerned to be a reactionary subversion of female choice.

You have not convinced me that the female is biologically superior to the male. Since upon close inspection we find the female is biologically different than the male, we assume that males and females are different. The existence of misogyny shows that humans have falsely assumed male superiority. This in no way implies female superiority.

Thanks for that emotionist diatribe that was based upon nothing other than your social programming.

That is what it sounded like, isn't it. But I think that it holds based on the arguments I have presented in this post. Who could have guessed that social programming would turn out to be correct?

Wow, am I talking to a rabid femminist or what? So do you suppose its all the teachers and preachers that tell young boys to go to strip clubs and prostitutes?

Well Im at work and I've been typing this over lunch but I need to get back.

Nice talking to you.

Sincerely,
The Phalic God Priapus

No, I'm no feminist. But these things do exist and I think they are irrational. It is the instincts which make men go to strip clubs and which make women dance at them. Because instincts are obsolete and have become detrimental to the species, based on my above arguments, it is irrational to allow instincts to rule our actions and ignore our ablility to discover logic and reason, which come from the same natural selection process that instincts do. I believe that the embrace of logic and reason and the elimination (or at least total control) of instinct is the only way for the species to survive another million or so years.

The long winded fool

OBKB

Wow!
The contrast in dialogue here is providing valuable insight. We are doing our best with what we have to ensure all sentient beings progress into infinity.

_________________________________________
"Morality is the melody of the perfection of conduct"
Robert Green Ingersoll [1833-1899]

OBKB

Given the present state of world events the best is barely good enough.

________________________
Immortality: Liberty's Final Frontier