Even though this is sure to alienate those I have always loved and identified with the most, I'm no exception, and this ought to be clear. Everything I've gained, I've stolen too, and don't actually understand. I fucking hate being judged, being seen as deficient, or anything but good. I'm deeply scarred from my childhood, and all of the terrible judgments I received. I hate it so so fucking much. I don't claim to be the best at anything, I just continually imply that I'm the most moral, and just, and know all of the most moral truths. I stole them all, and only know they're true because of the results, and that is all.

I can tell you what will happen if this or that occurs, or how this implies that, and so forth, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not. I still don't know my moral standing, not really. I know that I'm great at discerning what is factual, and reasonable, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not -- or the value of it. Every one of them stole it from tradition, and could only ever refer back to tradition to justify it -- or just their own magical fiat... and when they refused to submit, their lives concluded in destructive insanity.

That's how things appear to me. That's what I really believe. I'm not super human though, could be wrong.

Even though this is sure to alienate those I have always loved and identified with the most, I'm no exception, and this ought to be clear. Everything I've gained, I've stolen too, and don't actually understand. I fucking hate being judged, being seen as deficient, or anything but good. I'm deeply scarred from my childhood, and all of the terrible judgments I received. I hate it so so fucking much. I don't claim to be the best at anything, I just continually imply that I'm the most moral, and just, and know all of the most moral truths. I stole them all, and only know they're true because of the results, and that is all.

I can tell you what will happen if this or that occurs, or how this implies that, and so forth, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not. I still don't know my moral standing, not really. I know that I'm great at discerning what is factual, and reasonable, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not -- or the value of it. Every one of them stole it from tradition, and could only ever refer back to tradition to justify it -- or just their own magical fiat... and when they refused to submit, their lives concluded in destructive insanity.

That's how things appear to me. That's what I really believe. I'm not super human though, could be wrong. — Wosret

But you can say the same thing about knowledge in general. We claim to know how things work but in reality all we know is how this affects that and what implies what but we still don't know what is really going on, we just observe correlations and the same is true for morals. Does the fact that you don't know in an absolute sense discount your moral notions so far?

We construct our identity under a shared discourse within an 'imagined community' according to Anderson, where our values are designed within social constructs that are invented to hold the community together, what Hobsbawm similarly concluded viz., an administration of a State where ideology motivates a national character that enables social cohesion. The continuity of these imagined landscapes are rooted in traditions and while such beliefs are imagined, the experience itself is actually real because it provides an interpretation of this experience with others.

It can also, however, be used as an instrument to mobilise rather strategically a shared agenda that legitimises power, hence Othering where the anti-semite creates the Jew as Sartre would agree. The Other and the apparent existence of properties that are universal becomes the source that legitimises their created identity and ultimately the domination. It is a desire for power.

Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined, however as mentioned earlier are nevertheless real because as Foucault states, power in discourse is enabling a productive network that efficiently strengthens hierarchies by authenticating 'truths' within these imagined concepts, i.e. gender.

So it is 'true' that all women have feminine attributes and it is 'true' that all men have masculine attributes, when we all know that this is not true. There are many women with masculine attributes and many men with feminine and so, gender is imagined. Sex/biology and feminine/masculine are two different concepts. — TimeLine

I like the idea that the more girly a girl is the more submissive she will be to a man. While on the opposite end of the spektrum the more dikey a girl is the more she will resist man and be a feminist. Of course there will be exceptions to this but it won't discredit how much it actually occurs. Think about if epigenetic traits were passed down to females from the victorian era and further that controlled a woman's unconscious mind to make her choose the feminine things in life to subconsciously express her willingness to be dominated to the man. Is this sort of what you are getting at?

Is this sort of what you are getting at? — intrapersona

Nope.

seems like it

"Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined"

feminine attributes to maintain imagined division so that men can continue to dominate

:|

No, I don't have a 100% complete understanding of how anything works. The detailed particular factual information about anything at all is surely overwhelmingly complex and particular, that no one's head could contain it. The idea is that the ground is made of general principles, which we can gain access to through correlating observation with higher and higher levels of abstraction. No one's understanding was ever complete, and was based on the observation and comparison of things, of which we have closer, further, and more refined views of these days.

Nothing like that when it comes to morality. What the good is, and how to live one's life. Find anyone that doesn't suck, or says anything interesting that isn't just pointing at tradition, while claiming to be near/entirely perfected in character?

Show me any of them that has any fucking clue, lol.

Could somebody explain why asking if all women are submissive is not demeaning but asking if a particular woman is...is?

Could I get one of our women-folk to explain this? The male-folk insist on it but won't explain it.

Because the ethics of men reduces to looking the most awesome, and being the most dominant.

As in, of course it's demeaning, that's why it's all yours...

Do you really believe that's it?

Straight from the heart. Wrong or right, it's my true opinion.

just pretend I'm retarded for a second because that's how I feel. Multiple males put that on me. The common denominator is the ethics of mean?

Men are all morally insane.

how could that be?

I don't know what to say, you'll need a more specific question.

Male ethics is a cultural thing? Or is the actual the limit of the Real?

It of course ought to just be passed on from generation to generation, from parent to child. So that you become at least as good as your parents. It ought to be easy and natural.

Without proper role models, corrupt, incompetent, or absent parents, then you have to turn to cultural in order to find out how to deal with later stages of life differently than they did.

The ideal is to surpass our parents. Some can't be satisfied though. Some kids lived quietly, followed studiously, and observed intently until they learned everything that everyone had to teach them, and then they realized something about those heroes, gods, and legends... and became their "parents". The ideal, is to surpass our parents though.

I understand. And in the meantime, I'm awesome and those people are screwed up. I think it's probably human ethics...not just males

I know you do.

Well what is female ethics then?

Could somebody explain why asking if all women are submissive is not demeaning but asking if a particular woman is...is? — Mongrel

Why should the question be limited to women? Men range between whimpering submissive to bared teeth, big-hard-dick dominant. From experience I know that women also range between whimpering submissive and bared teeth, (well, not big-hard-dick dominant, but) enraged scorned-woman dominant. How people manifest their relative position in the social hierarchy varies -- among men and women alike.

Maybe women's mean score on submission/dominance is lower than men's, but we're not talking a world of difference here.

Because the ethics of men reduces to looking the most awesome, and being the most dominant. — Wosret

Men who reduce ethics to a robust ability to use force, or look like they could/would/will use force think that way, no doubt. A much larger number of people -- both sexes -- have rather more complicated ideas about right and wrong than you average goose stepping Prussians.

I came along when there were prescribed roles. Maybe you swore you'd never step into that sitcom, but due to the power of archetypes or whatever, you did it unconsciously... And the fun continues.

You didn't deal with that kind of shit too much, did you?

Like I said, I don't actually know that. You'll have to fill me in.

"Whimpering submissive" is just as much of a strategy to get what you want, and effect things as "big huge cock dominant" or whatever.

Being pitiful, the victim, and things effects behavior, it isn't meaningless, or just putting up a white flag in order to roll over and give everything that the "dominant" one wants. The whole dominant/submissive dichotomy is misleading, or outright wrong.

I prefer to say things like "overt", and "covert", or ying and yang release.

Where is the ying yang located, exactly -- like when people say "up the ying yang"?

Or maybe people have had it up the ying yang saying "up the ying yang".

I came along when there were prescribed roles. Maybe you swore you'd never step into that sitcom, but due to the power of archetypes or whatever, you did it unconsciously... And the fun continues.

You didn't deal with that kind of shit too much, did you? — Mongrel

Yeah, well, so did I. b. 1946. Other than siblings, friends, and co-workers, I haven't had that much to do with women, whimper or whopper. Mostly just gay men. But among the women I've dealt with, the distribution holds. And it holds among gay men, too, On one end the wise and gentle angels, on the other end the vicious sons of bitches.

Yeah probably. At least I responded. I know how much you hate being ignored.

And a warm "thank you" for attending to my attention needs.

Always a pleasure. :D

Like I said, I don't actually know that. You'll have to fill me in. — Wosret

I can tell you about AT&T. Everybody I worked with was male. The environment was consciously patterned after the US military (which, like Napoleon, adopted the Prussian military organizational scheme.)

This visual came to me one time. All the men were like giant grapes. Normally, they'd be plump, but occasionally big Meany would pass by and suck the juice out of everybody in his path leaving a trail of dried out raisins. I perceive that we do that a lot on this forum (some more than others.) When it happens, I think in the back of my mind that the sucker probably had all his grape juice sucked out by some other Big Meany... maybe his boss, maybe life in general?

A female dominated environment is a nursing home. I worked in one for a while. One huge difference is that there's no purpose to a nursing home the way there is to a business like AT&T. There's no goal. The job is finished when the patient is dead, but we're not trying to accomplish that.. you know? We're just doing the same things people have been doing since there have been people... wiping butts, feeding people who can't feed themselves, over and over.

One odd feature of that environment is a sort of emotional cloud that develops. Everybody contributes to the cloud and everybody partakes of it. Probably the fact that after a while everybody's menstrual cycle is happening at the same time is a factor. The "female ethics" is in that cloud. If you're feeling like a raisin, that cloud will support you... without much reasoning or goal to it. It's just what people have been doing since there have been people. Whatever is going on with you.. other people can feel it.

Does that make sense? If a really toxic person shows up, either environment has its own kind of immune system. But then... some people are so toxic that they're actually lethal.