We could argue that there should be both matriarchies and patriarchies, but that does not seem to have happened. That said, there are matriarchal systems. Jewishness, for instance, is inherited through the mother (this is a religious convention, not genetics). There are small, agriculturalist groups that I have heard were matriarchal. Mostly, though, the idea of great matriarchies ruling over splendid societies (avoiding the problems of patriarchies) is just wishful thinking on the part of some feminists, — Bitter Crank

Anyone looking for evidence of matriarchies ‘ruling over’ societies is not going to find much, because it won’t be structured as an overt power. Matriarchal systems are systems of qualitative potential, not quantitative power. You will find instead a thriving culture that transcends and subverts any overt political structures. Jewishness is an excellent example of this, as is African-American and even Australian Indigenous culture. They have withstood oppression and outright destruction by overt political structures through the qualitative strengths of their matriarchal systems.

Having said that, there is no legitimate reason for qualitative potential to be the domain of women, nor quantitative power the domain of men. The association is historical, not essential.

Are the sexes "so different" in terms of prison sentences and thus should be held to different criteria in regards to offending for the same crimes, then? How far does this argument go? I suspect you cherry-pick everything. — Cobra

They're not put in the same prison for one thing. They're separated by gender/sex. Why is that?

You argue males and females are so vastly different from each other; then feel nervous when a woman does anything other than birthing babies and knitting because you feel she is deviating or will deviate from her natural sex just because she's standing next to you as a man. — Cobra

I don't think this way. Men and women can choose, and they do, what they want in life. It's when society lies about the masculine and feminine qualities that I object to. There are masculine and feminine qualities, and these qualities manifest in ways that sometimes we don't pay attention to.

The sexes are fixed. A woman being a fireman isn't going to end the world because the sexes are fixed. She will not turn into a male nor a man, so what are you worried about if she is adequate for the role? Are you insane? — Cobra

I am not insane. And you are caricaturing my position about gender differences. I didn't say that women shouldn't hold jobs traditionally held by men like firefighter, police, or trench digger. I'm saying that a woman could be a trench digger, a drunk, a race car driver while still being feminine. I think that it's you who seem to confuse that delineation in gender means that women are prevented from pursuing what men traditionally pursue.

For me, what a woman or man does is completely redundant if you are a sex essentialist, because as a sexual essentalist who gives a flying fuck. There are only dicks and vaginas and competent people. — Cobra

I give a flying fuck. Because with masculine and feminine differences, there must be differences in certain decisions between men and women, and one of those decisions is moral and ethical problems. How they act on a particular ethical issue differs. So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? This is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Until men can pass a whole baby through the penile corpus spongiosum, do not talk about dicks and vaginas like they're just decorations on the front end of your body.

Good name, btw -- Cobra.

So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? — L'éléphant

Duh. Wtf do you think is a "reason" or "purpose" for dicks to exist are for aside from sticking them in vaginas. What are livers for? Ethical decision-making? Dicks and vaginas aren't brains, tits and ass aren't people, sperm and ovum aren't babies.

What is your dick to you other than decoration? God's gift to women? Do you worship female uteruses? Find something else to do. Females give birth and do so daily without complications or issues, it's not some novel thing.

Wtf do you think is a "reason" or "purpose" for dicks to exist are for aside from sticking them in vaginas. — Cobra

Functionally yes. But while the dick does what it does, don't you think there's a greater more noble thing happening here? Who gets fucked in the vaginas says something about other qualities about that human being. For example, women are still the ones carrying the baby in the womb. Why can't men do that that in 2022?

Functionally yes. But while the dick does what it does, don't you think there's a greater more noble thing happening here? — L'éléphant

No.

Who gets fucked in the vaginas says something about other qualities about that human being. For example, women are still the ones carrying the baby in the womb. Why can't men do that that in 2022? — L'éléphant

Wtf! You act like women spend even a significant part of their lives pregnant with a baby in the womb. A majority of a woman's life is not spent pregnant. There are far more unpregnant women than there are pregnant ones, and when she is pregnant it's only for 9 months of her life, 12 if you count recovery time, otherwise she goes back to normal.

As a woman I don't give two fucks about pregnancy, having a vagina or having a womb. I barely notice it is there until some man points it out 99% of the time because his dick wants to jump in it.

What "qualities" do I lack that you have because of your dick? What is it that a man can do other than shoot sperm that woman isn't doing in 2022?

That's why I asked earlier that your view only stems from viewing women as nothing but reduced birthing machines that knit sweaters. If this is not the case, I don't see what the point of your post even is. These posts are ALWAYS made by men, and we all know why. Men are socialized to hate women that do anything outside of what they say is correct for a woman and justify it through pop evopsych.

We could argue that there should be both matriarchies and patriarchies, but that does not seem to have happened. That said, there are matriarchal systems. Jewishness, for instance, is inherited through the mother (this is a religious convention, not genetics). There are small, agriculturalist groups that I have heard were matriarchal. Mostly, though, the idea of great matriarchies ruling over splendid societies (avoiding the problems of patriarchies) is just wishful thinking on the part of some feminists,
— Bitter Crank

Anyone looking for evidence of matriarchies ‘ruling over’ societies is not going to find much, because it won’t be structured as an overt power. Matriarchal systems are systems of qualitative potential, not quantitative power. You will find instead a thriving culture that transcends and subverts any overt political structures. Jewishness is an excellent example of this, as is African-American and even Australian Indigenous culture. They have withstood oppression and outright destruction by overt political structures through the qualitative strengths of their matriarchal systems.

Having said that, there is no legitimate reason for qualitative potential to be the domain of women, nor quantitative power the domain of men. The association is historical, not essential. — Possibility

Are the sexes "so different" in terms of prison sentences and thus should be held to different criteria in regards to offending for the same crimes, then? How far does this argument go? I suspect you cherry-pick everything.
— Cobra
They're not put in the same prison for one thing. They're separated by gender/sex. Why is that?

You argue males and females are so vastly different from each other; then feel nervous when a woman does anything other than birthing babies and knitting because you feel she is deviating or will deviate from her natural sex just because she's standing next to you as a man.
— Cobra

She most certainly will deviate. the pseudo male, the butch lesbian will be the result. We've been convinced by the Left that homosexuality is genetic and can't be created.


I don't think this way. Men and women can choose, and they do, what they want in life. It's when society lies about the masculine and feminine qualities that I object to. There are masculine and feminine qualities, and these qualities manifest in ways that sometimes we don't pay attention to.

The sexes are fixed. A woman being a fireman isn't going to end the world because the sexes are fixed. She will not turn into a male nor a man, so what are you worried about if she is adequate for the role? Are you insane?
— Cobra
I am not insane. And you are caricaturing my position about gender differences. I didn't say that women shouldn't hold jobs traditionally held by men like firefighter, police, or trench digger. I'm saying that a woman could be a trench digger, a drunk, a race car driver while still being feminine. I think that it's you who seem to confuse that delineation in gender means that women are prevented from pursuing what men traditionally pursue.

For me, what a woman or man does is completely redundant if you are a sex essentialist, because as a sexual essentalist who gives a flying fuck. There are only dicks and vaginas and competent people.
— Cobra
I give a flying fuck. Because with masculine and feminine differences, there must be differences in certain decisions between men and women, and one of those decisions is moral and ethical problems. How they act on a particular ethical issue differs. So, do dicks and vaginas exist for no good reason other than mutation? This is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. Until men can pass a whole baby through the penile corpus spongiosum, do not talk about dicks and vaginas like they're just decorations on the front end of your body.

Good name, btw -- Cobra. — L'éléphant

In a hostile world patriarchies have been essential, hence the difference in male and female physiques. We look for examples of matriarchies and find none for the simple reason they don't exist. All attempts failing too much at odds with a harsh reality. It follows that with a rapidly changing environment, the coming matriarchy will happen at the expense of men, all males in fact. At 67% the strength of the male, the female is easily compensated by mechanization. Machinery allowing even the heaviest work to be carried out by the most fragile of females. With artificial wombs on the distant horizon, artificial insemination available now, male obsolescence nears, the processes of gendercide already underway. There will be no males left in one hundred years this is inevitable.

In a hostile world patriarchies have been essential, hence the difference in male and female physiques. We look for examples of matriarchies and find none for the simple reason they don't exist. All attempts failing too much at odds with a harsh reality. It follows that with a rapidly changing environment, the coming matriarchy will happen at the expense of men, all males in fact. At 67% the strength of the male, the female is easily compensated by mechanization. Machinery allowing even the heaviest work to be carried out by the most fragile of females. With artificial wombs on the distant horizon, artificial insemination available now, male obsolescence nears, the processes of gendercide already underway. There will be no males left in one hundred years this is inevitable. — Gregory A

Ridiculous fear-mongering. From someone who has lived and worked with mostly females a lot, the world is not better off without males. That they may soon no longer be physically essential doesn’t change that, and most women understand this (deep down) - although they’re not going to give men that reassurance at this point, for obvious reasons.

Ridiculous fear-mongering. From someone who has lived and worked with mostly females a lot, the world is not better off without males. That they may soon no longer be physically essential doesn’t change that, and most women understand this (deep down) - although they’re not going to give men that reassurance at this point, for obvious reasons. — Possibility

Most women understand this? Feminism itself doesn't have as much as an inkling of how close to power it is. Needless to say women including feminists don't want something they have no idea is going to happen.

A process of inevitability of which there are only a few small escape routes. Global warming might force a return to traditional lifestyles for example. But then it appears GW itself is pretty much inevitable regardless of what we do.

The conspiracy to eliminate males is taking place at the chromosomal level. It is not a conscious thing.

It could be that the more primal lifestyle that would follow the inevitable nuclear holocaust feminist rule would ensure will favor the return of males. But even then there would be the death squads, be they on horseback, hunting down males and their male offspring, a bounty of say... $10,000 per 'scrote' (scrotum) their commission.
'

And so, it is not 'Men vs Women' but is instead 'XX X vs Y'. A Chromosomal Conspiracy that the outnumbered 'Y' has little chance of surviving.

Global warming might force a return to traditional lifestyles for example. — Gregory A

I'm already practicing for the coming of GW.

Most women understand this? Feminism itself doesn't have as much as an inkling of how close to power it is. Needless to say women including feminists don't want something they have no idea is going to happen. — Gregory A

You really do have no clue about women at all, do you? You’re just projecting your patriarchal perspective of ‘power’ onto a narrow oppositional perspective of feminism. Power is not about conquering, but about variable potential. If anything, this apparent ‘conspiracy to eliminate males’ is patriarchy’s own doing - a narrow view that ‘only one can survive’ at the top.

You really do have no clue about women at all, do you? You’re just projecting your patriarchal perspective of ‘power’ onto a narrow oppositional perspective of feminism. Power is not about conquering, but about variable potential. If anything, this apparent ‘conspiracy to eliminate males’ is patriarchy’s own doing - a narrow view that ‘only one can survive’ at the top. — Possibility

Women along with most of society go with the flow, misguided by the myths of male domination & income disparity feminism perpetuates. A new generation appearing every 25 years, born primitive (naked) now near devoid of carry over conservative values, conservatives themselves in decline
due to natural attrition, all combining to exacerbate a situation. And you blame me?

The 'X-Male', a predictable occurence, turning on his fellow males as a display of self-serving chivalry decides what otherwise was once a balanced team. But regardless it is something metaphysical, mysterious even, that decides the so many factors that are involved in what will be the eventual elimination of the male.

Women along with most of society go with the flow, misguided by the myths of male domination & income disparity feminism perpetuates. A new generation appearing every 25 years, born primitive (naked) now near devoid of carry over conservative values, conservatives themselves in decline due to natural attrition, all combining to exacerbate a situation. And you blame me? — Gregory A

Feminist intentionality is to draw attention to the conservative patriarchal myth that all power is quantitatively determined. It is predictable that those who would identify with this myth feel threatened by a growing awareness that what is quantifiable or consolidated into a localised ignorance is not as essentially powerful or significant in itself as we once assumed. As these myths of ‘essential patriarchy’, ‘might makes right’, etc dissolve into an amorphous system consisting of non-commutative variables of potentiality, the opportunity arises for a more conscious, connected and collaborative system of value to be developed.

This ‘situation’ only appears dire to those who would define themselves by such localised quantities of measurable and observable ‘power’ as income, physical strength or dominance. Males, as a loosely defined category, are not facing ‘elimination’ - except perhaps by this stretch of imagination that isolates the ‘Y chromosome’ as some symbolic male ‘force’ in opposition to the very system on which it depends...

But this not about blame - the only fault here is ignorance.

The 'X-Male', a predictable occurence, turning on his fellow males as a display of self-serving chivalry decides what otherwise was once a balanced team. But regardless it is something metaphysical, mysterious even, that decides the so many factors that are involved in what will be the eventual elimination of the male. — Gregory A

Not so mysterious - just difficult to quantify - and with an entirely different intentionality to this supposed ‘elimination of the male’. It is not possible for qualitative potential to entirely eliminate quantitative power - given there is no actualising anything without it (including elimination), and vice versa. By the same token, it has never been possible for males to entirely dominate females.

Any kind of balance to be achieved between XX and XY - even in this simplest of configurations - cannot be determined merely quantitatively. This should be obvious, but you might need to think about it for a bit...

The conspiracy to eliminate males is taking place at the chromosomal level. It is not a conscious thing. — Gregory A

But even then there would be the death squads, be they on horseback, hunting down males and their male offspring, a bounty of say... $10,000 per 'scrote' (scrotum) their commission. — Gregory A

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You gotta be trolling.....