I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.

I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.

I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.

I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.

Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone).

Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino

Have you ever been to Boston? There is a place on the Green Line subway - Boyleston Street Station - where the train goes around a corner and makes the most awful screeching sound. It is literally painful to listen to and you really can't cover your ears because it goes right into your bones. I've been in Boston since 1973 and it's always been that way, even though they've completely changed the system since then.

That noise is what came to mind when I read your quoted text. On the other hand, given what I've read from you before, it is no surprise.

Did it occur to you that posting this might affect the credibility of anything else you wrote?

What's wrong with this thread and the questions asked?

I asked a reasonable question. I await a reasonable response. I don't answer surveys out of nowhere.

Out of nowhere? What does that mean?

What a strange thread... I think it depends on the person. Some guys are weak and submissive, and some are aggressive, dominating, abusive jerks. Women are the same way.... Depends on the person and his/her personality and experiences.

Really, guys, who cares what women generally are or aren't? What about mackerel? Are they generally dominant or submissive? Are you a man or a fish?

Sometimes the questions one asks are more revealing than the answers one gets, and in this case, what is revealed is a man that is worried he might be a bit of a fish...

I care about what women generally are or aren't.

EDIT: Well, I care much more about what particular women are or aren't, but general information is still interesting and perhaps useful.

Well, the domination-submission dynamic is found in animals and we are animals.

The male-female divide in terms of the OP's main point is also reasonable. In the animal world, females (unless you're a praying mantis or have cubs to defend) are more submissive. As @Agustino said the accepted belief is aggression and the accompanying dominance behavior has to do with how much testosterone is pumping through your bloodstream.

But the above is descriptive - what is - and the question the OP raises is whether this state of affairs is acceptable in the modern world within the context of a philosophical outlook, religion, etc.? Put otherwise is domination-submission behavior as cureently exhibited prescriptive too?

Sometimes the questions one asks are more revealing than the answers one gets, and in this case, what is revealed is a man that is worried he might be a bit of a fish.. — unenlightened

I think you're wrong:

So, you bemoan the decay of the west. Ok – I bemoan the decay of the world, because we do not understand how civilization got here. Where do you think civilization comes from? How did it get its start? Think back – way back – in the cave – or even before the cave – what happened? Or, maybe I should first ask – what is civilization? Civilization is a social contract. People band together for mutual benefit – right? So, what is the first “banding” together for mutual benefit? It is a mother and a child. A mother and child is the first social contract and the foundation of all civilization. What holds a mother and child together – love. A mother loves her child because she loves herself. A mother loves herself because she learned love from her mother. A very practical dynamic – that - sets in motion a force - which humans use to propel themselves through life’s journey. What is the basis of civilization – it is the love bond between a mother and child. Love is a kind of contract between two beings. I call mother/child love the first human contract. It is an agreement to protect, nurture, cherish and persist. This contract is what gives civilization its start. More importantly – it is what holds civilization together – today and on into the future.

Want to save the world – honor and cherish women – now. It is not a guarantee – but it is a good start. You want a better world – support your local love machine – mother and child. — Thinker

I'd hazard that most philosophers tend towards submissiveness.

That noise is what came to mind when I read your quoted text. On the other hand, given what I've read from you before, it is no surprise. — T Clark

Political correctness is a real disease isn't it? What I said is true, it's backed up by scientific evidence with regards to the biology behind it. In addition, if you look historically, you'll see that most important decision makers (leaders, whether in the military, in politics, or even in religion) - have been men. That is across different societies, different ages, different cultures and different geographical locations.

So why does that upset you? Women aren't as effective leaders (on average, because again there can be exceptions). So what? Who says they should be to begin with? It's like asking the kidney to do the job of the heart, it's stupid. Maybe there are rare cases when the kidney does the job of the heart (for example Joan D'Arc, or Cleopatra) but those are just exceptions, not the general tendency.

Really people have grown so stupid. What's up with this political correctness? :s Why is it considered an insult that women are on the whole less capable leaders than men? That's like considering it an insult that men aren't capable of giving birth. It's absolutely ridiculous. Each and everyone has their own role and purpose in society.

Political correctness is a real disease isn't it? What I said is true, it's backed up by scientific evidence with regards to the biology behind it. In addition, if you look historically, you'll see that most important decision makers (leaders, whether in the military, in politics, or even in religion) - have been men. That is across different societies, different ages, different cultures and different geographical locations.

So why does that upset you? Women aren't as effective leaders. So what? Who says they should be to begin with? It's like asking the kidney to do the job of the heart, it's stupid. Maybe there are rare cases when the kidney does the job of the heart (for example Joan D'Arc, or Cleopatra) but those are just exceptions, not the general tendency.

Really people have grown so stupid. What's up with this political correctness? :s Why is it considered an insult that women are on the whole less capable leaders than men? That's like considering it an insult that men aren't capable of giving birth. It's absolutely ridiculous. Each and everyone has their own role and purpose in society. — Agustino

You seem to go from "most of history's leaders were men" to "men are more effective leaders". That doesn't follow. Unless there's an implicit premise that most of history's leaders were men because men are more effective leaders – but then that is highly contestable, given that for much of history women were denied the same education and opportunity as men.

You seem to go from "most of history's leaders were men" to "men are more effective leaders". That doesn't follow. Unless there's an implicit premise that most of history's leaders were men because men are more effective leaders – but then that is highly contestable, given that for much of history women were denied the same education and opportunity as men. — Michael

Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? No. On average they'll probably never be as successful as men in terms of leadership, because again, they are just programmed differently biologically. Women don't want to dominate, to engage in conflict, etc. Why not? Because they have lower testosterone levels. Such desires are necessary for effective leadership, maybe less so in some areas of the world today, but fundamentally they are. Only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies have a woman CEO. Really there's no competition, here, most women simply do not have the biological drive to compete with men in terms of leadership. They excel in other attributes - peace, compassion, emotional resilience etc. being some of them.

You seem to go from "most of history's leaders were men" to "men are more effective leaders" — Michael

I said on average. There can be exceptions. So yes, if I see that historically men are more effective leaders than women, generally speaking, I will conclude that they are better suited to be leaders, in the absence of any other evidence.

Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? — Agustino

You're writing this in a world where Donald Trump is president. I doubt many people believe that holding a leadership position denotes effectiveness, competence, etc.

You're writing this in a world where Donald Trump is president. — Terrapin Station

Donald Trump has been quite effective, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I doubt many people believe that holding a leadership position denotes effectiveness, competence, etc. — Terrapin Station

Whether they believe it or not, that's their problem. Many people are, quite frankly, very stupid.

Donald Trump has been quite effective, — Agustino

Effective with regard to what? What has he done so far?

Effective with regard to what? What has he done so far? — Terrapin Station

Watch the video I linked. I haven't linked that video for no reason.

What in the world would some nonsensical guess about IQ have to do with anything?

What in the world would some nonsensical guess about IQ have to do with anything? — Terrapin Station

You haven't watched the whole video. Watch it. It's not about his IQ, it's about his effectiveness, all around, not only in the White House.

I watched it. Not once was there any talk about his effectiveness as a president. All he says is that Trump must be above average intelligence because he was a successful reality TV star and managed to stay working in the construction business.

I think you're wrong: — Agustino

I think you're wrong to think I'm wrong.

If I am dominant, I don't have to ask if others are submissive, it's not relevant; I am dominant. If one is looking for submissive people to dominate, one is not dominant but submissive to others, and wanting their submissiveness to make one dominant.

Trump is a serial groper because he is not dominant, and has to keep convincing himself that he can dominate women, and boasting about it in 'the locker room' - a sure sign of insecurity.

I feel that Jordan Peterson's best stuff is coming from me, rather than the other way around. He also has the same last name as my mom's maiden name, and we're both Canadian, so we may even be related. I did email him, to ask about finding a mate like a week or so ago, but he didn't respond directly to me. I also asked if he was following me, lol. A lot of videos about that have been posted on youtube since then, and in one he even mentions the drawbacks of RH blood, as making you smell kind of "brotherly" apparently, regardless of your symmetry. My mom is in fact RH negative, and continually goes on and on about her alien super blood. Though I believe that my blood type is my Dad's, like AB or something like that, dunno.

In any case, I doubt that that would be as true across different races, I wouldn't... hopefully... think.

His physical discipline has improved a lot too in the last couple of years, and he'll tell you why. Try honesty.

Huh?

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

Yes. Do you write it?

If one is looking for submissive people to dominate, one is not dominant but submissive to others, and wanting their submissiveness to make one dominant. — unenlightened

And what makes you think the author of this poll wanted to be dominant in the first place? :s

Trump is a serial groper because he is not dominant, and has to keep convincing himself that he can dominate women, and boasting about it in 'the locker room' - a sure sign of insecurity. — unenlightened

Dominance, and insecurity are two different things. Someone could be insecure and yet dominant. Dominance has to do with outward appearance, whereas insecurity has to do with inward feeling.

Now, the reason for "locker room" talk are very varied. Some people would talk in that manner simply because of the peer pressure, to appear cool. I doubt Trump was very interested in women (he's certainly no match compared to someone like Berlusconi). Billy Bush seemed a lot more interested than Trump, that's why he was prodding him on.

As for groping, "locker room talk", etc. they are all vices, which hurt one's honour, integrity, and soul. But that's another story that has little to do with dominance or the absence of it.


Mate, I suggest you post this stuff in the Shoutbox, this is a thread that's about something completely different. Not intending to be rude, but I don't see why it should be sidetracked.

Got anything of substance to object to, or just wanna ankle bite?

I'll add that Trump is the kind of guy that people want to do what he wants, and be around because they fear the consequences. I'm the kind of guy that people want to do what they want and be around when they're thinking "fuck the consequences".