Page 22 of 25 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 241

Thread: The Feminization of Society

  1. #211
    Member
    Type
    INFJ
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    I have zero interest in that video or the conversation that preceded it. My participation in this sidebar starts and ends with the observation of YouTube guy's hustle.
    Post modern thought is that there is no objective truth. There is only your subjective opinion, but i disagree

    the guys right about where money is coming from and the bank of england proved it when it admitted what many us knew for a long time which is that money is created through loans. It IS all a con

    Money creation in the modern economy
    By Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate.
    Quarterly Bulletin
    2014 Q1

    • This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial
    banks making loans.
    • Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply
    as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’
    central bank money to create new loans and deposits.
    • The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the
    central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can
    also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...eycreation.pdf

  2. #212
    unbeknownst Lilith's Avatar
    Type
    INXj
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Underworld
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Physiology is not the only correct term. Hormones have psychological effects.

    The Role of Testosterone in Social Interaction


    Neurobiological Underpinnings of the Estrogen-Mood Relationship


    Testosterone is not an exclusively male hormone. Estrogen is not an exclusively female hormone. In general, however, males have more testosterone and females have more estrogen.
    These are true and I’m not disagreeing with you about testosterone and estrogen. From a scientific standpoint, are you saying aggressive traits are masculine and irritability is a feminine trait? Because really, women can be aggresive and competitive too and there’s a plethora of studies that proved this.

    My point is that masculinity and femininity are social constructs that were culturally instilled in our psyche for the benefit of one gender in power. Take a closer look at societies with higher level of gender equality, these constructs are not enforced. If you* think we need these constructs for our society’s survival, you* are part of the problem.

    * plural you
    We cling to our past as if they define us. What we do defines us.

  3. #213
    Member Micawber's Avatar
    Type
    IXTP
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilith View Post
    These are true and I’m not disagreeing with you about testosterone and estrogen. From a scientific standpoint, are you saying aggressive traits are masculine and irritability is a feminine trait? Because really, women can be aggresive and competitive too and there’s a plethora of studies that proved this.

    My point is that masculinity and femininity are social constructs that were culturally instilled in our psyche for the benefit of one gender in power. Take a closer look at societies with higher level of gender equality, these constructs are not enforced. If you* think we need these constructs for our society’s survival, you* are part of the problem.

    * plural you

    What I'm saying is, there's a grain of biological truth to some gender stereotypes. Doesn't mean men and women's personalities are predetermined or that men must have masculine personalities and women must have feminine personalities.

    Recent studies usually don't say testosterone = aggression. The one in my last post links testosterone and a drive for social status.

  4. #214
    Elk Death Makers!*'s Avatar
    Type
    XXXX
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Blackfeet Country
    Posts
    1,770
    “In a nation of frightened dullards there is a sorry shortage of outlaws, and those few who make the grade are always welcome.” --HST

    "Long live the weeds and the wilderness!"

  5. #215
    Senior Member Mike's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,281
    A lot of what this Russian woman said rings true. I like that she comes off as appreciating the benefits of her American man, rather than having an entitled attitude.


    But I posted it more for the YouTube comments. This guy adds some good context:

    "This woman is confused about what American men want vs what they accept"

    What was more striking was the amount of "Feminization of Society" hate, which seemed mostly to come from Russian men:

    "So basically what you are saying is "American men are great because compared to Russian men, they let you be a complete degenerate!😁"

    Ladies, there is a reason why Russia is on the rise and America is collapsing, cultural degeneracy is high on that list. Don't abandon the traditions of your folk that make your families strong for the benefit of not having to make soup. If you think making soup is about some labor to keep a man, you are missing the point."

    Seems like "make me soup" is the Russian equivalent of "make me a sandwich."

  6. #216
    New Member
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    15
    I saw that this old thread had been revived, and I read through most of it. I think what's missing is a good definition of the feminine vs. masculine contrast. In fact, I've read a lot of relationship self-help books and that sort of thing, and in that context there does seem to be a consensus as to what these things mean. It basically comes down to emotion versus logic, and how the two are valued (or de-valued) in the culture at large.

    Here is the feminine vs. masculine duality as I understand it. (Naturally, I'm speaking of gender-based stereotypes below. Your own mileage may vary.)

    It's often said that women tend to be more emotional and have a collective, hive-mind mentality that emphasizes empathy, nurturance, and mutual support. By contrast, men are said to be more logical and have an individualistic, lone-wolf mentality that emphasizes organization and structure. In fact, this contrast or duality is a staple of marriage counseling and self-help books on relationships. Traditional therapy strives diligently to teach men to be more sensitive and less unemotionally logical, and it strives to teach women to operate less off their immediate feelings and to think more logically.

    The duality is explained this way:

    For many millennia, women were slaves to their biology. To have sex was to have babies. To have babies was to be dependent on men, especially during the period of pregnancy and early infancy of the baby. Thus women were nurturers who remained back at the cave or the camp or the tribe and operated together with the other women in "collective mode." (Later they were also field workers, but that also tended to be collective labor, at least in the tribal setting.)

    Meantime, male hunter/gatherers operated alone, and the brainwork was done separately and individually. Even where they operated in teams, leaders tended to be individually responsible for the group effort. Thus, men were analytical hunters, thoughtful, strategizing, planning, brooding, tool-making, etc. Men demonstrate more of a individualistic, logical mentality.

    Of course, such a generalization instantly raises a couple questions: Is this duality hard-wired or culturally programmed; and what about the minority of logical women and emotional men?

    The main two camps:

    --Some say the differences are hard-wired by evolutionary biology and date back not just millennia but millions of years. They say there is some flexibility in the mechanism: Perhaps 10-15 percent of males have a tendency to be as empathetic as females and 10-15 percent of females are as logical as males.

    --The other camp says that the differences are largely programmed by the cultural model of women as nurturer and men as hunters but are breaking down in the modern age. For example, let's say that this gender dynamic has been around for 10,000 years based on old gender roles and division of labor. The dichotomy is starting to break down in the modern age; women can be analytical and lone wolves too, etc. But even so, inertia can be a powerful force. The dichotomy still has a certain amount of validity, if only due to the momentum of 10,000 years of fairly rigid gender roles. There are still a lot of young women who aspire to remain at home and have lots of babies, and marrying a good provider is part of that formula. Even among working women, many anticipate a period when they might want to take a few years of work to have a child or two. It points to a continued division of labor between women as nurturers and men as providers.

    Again, these are the two main camps on why this duality exists. In fact, some experts believe that both explanations are operative to some extent. Either way, scientific research indicates that there are indeed some clear differences in how the sexes handle emotions. So the duality appears to be genuine; it's just a question of how these differences sprung up and how persistent they are.

    Is one mindset (logic or emotion) better than the other? Judge for yourself. Men are analytical and logical, which is usually a good thing. But carried to extremes, men can be nit-picky, competitive, and anal-retentive to the point of being impossible to live with; or they can be so avoidant that they simply live off the social grid. Men tend to be "lone wolves" for a reason: If they refuse to moderate their ways, they can be unlivable. Similarly, women are supportive, nurturing, and empathetic; but carried to extremes, it can result in illogic, emotional explosions, and neediness to that point that women can be impossible to handle even for other women.

    Thus, marriage counselors and relationship coaches try to get both sides to moderate their tendencies and seek that golden middle ground.

    ***********

    Anyway, none of that addresses the issue of "the feminization of society" mentioned in the OP. The above essay was just about defining terms.

    As for "the feminization of society": When that sort of idea comes up, it's usually occurs in two different contexts, possibly related:

    --whether feminism or patriarchy is ascendant in culture at large; or
    --whether emotion or logic is ascendant in culture at large.

    Again, to some extent the two arguments may end up being pretty much one and the same argument in the end.

    Anyway, I'll stop there. This post is getting long, and this thread is kind of a necro anyway. Just thought I would drop by and throw an essay at the topic to see if there's any further interest in discussing the duality of or contrast between gender stereotypes and/or how it manifests itself in the culture.
    Last edited by RDF; 02-21-2018 at 07:59 AM.

  7. #217
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,458
    Emotionless people aren't competitive or nit picky. There'd be no point.

    Hunting is a very emotional activity. That's why people still do it.
    I don't know everything I know, let alone everything I don't.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

  8. #218
    New Member
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    Emotionless people aren't competitive or nit picky. There'd be no point.

    Hunting is a very emotional activity. That's why people still do it.
    True. But I'm talking big-picture here.

    There are plenty of variations and subdivisions and refinements within each side of the contrast, and I wouldn't mind getting into those at some point. But I'm just trying to paint a nice black/white contrast at this point, without getting too much into the grays right off the bat.

    **************

    [Edited to add] @Hephaestus: In light of your response, above, I took a second look at my essay and concluded that your first point did in fact highlight a gap in my essay. So I added a passage about avoidant behavior as an altermative to competitiveness.

    As for your second point, I'll just repeat what I said above. There are variations within each side of the contrast, and men do have emotions to some extent even as women do pratice logic to some extent.
    Last edited by RDF; 02-21-2018 at 08:09 AM.

  9. #219
    New Member
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by RDF View Post
    I saw that this old thread had been revived, and I read through most of it. I think what's missing is a good definition of the feminine vs. masculine contrast. In fact, I've read a lot of relationship self-help books and that sort of thing, and in that context there does seem to be a consensus as to what these things mean. It basically comes down to emotion versus logic, and how the two are valued (or de-valued) in the culture at large. [...snipped]
    In my first post I talked about definitions. I was really just talking about about ideas and concepts that are pretty standard in pop psychology about the sexes. Hephaestus raised a couple good points, which I semi-addressed in a response. But with the present post I'll go beyond definitions and actually address the OP. That is, I'll talk about how one might evaluate the "feminization of society."

    Naturally it's all opinions and viewpoints. But using the definitions I provided earlier, one can at least argue on a simple basis the degree to which society as a whole is "feminized" using the feminism/patriarchy contrast. For example:

    --Some feminist activists insist that we're still living in a patriarchy, with women oppressed and unfairly burdened on a number of different fronts.

    --On the other hand, critics of the "feminist activist" view say that a pro-feminist bias has taken hold in a number of important areas, like divorce laws and parental rights. Or take something as innocuous as marriage counseling: As a professional field, counseling tends to be women-dominated. Some modern marriage counseling embraces the feminist idea that men can't handle emotions as well as women and teaches that, instead of arguing, husbands should just let their wives take the lead in marriages.

    --In fact, some MRAs (men's rights advocates) and red-pillers argue that in fact western culture has tipped over into "gynocentrism," where women's concerns are routinely prioritized over men's. (See the Wikipedia article on gynocentrism.)

    Again, it's all opinion. There's no real metric one can use to prove once and for all the degree to which society is one thing or the other.

    More productive, I think (though still entirely a question of perception) is the use of the emotion/logic duality to analyze specific social/cultural phenomena. For example, take the #MeToo movement. It is clearly feminized and female-led. But one can dig a little deeper.

    I'll admit that I'm pulling the following thoughts out of the air; I haven't see this particular argument made elsewhere. So it's certainly up for debate. (And again, as I said in my earlier post, I'm speaking of gender-based stereotypes below. Your own mileage may vary.) Anyway:

    As a sex, women operate in a female collective, "hive-mind," emotional mode, which manifests itself today in the form of hashtag campaigns and big marches, movements, etc.

    By comparison, men don't have a hive-mind mentality. They don't do things like hashtag campaigns. Instead, they look at things more analytically. When it comes to the #MeToo campaign, they ask: What are the laws here? Has due process been followed? etc.

    This can result in clashes between the sexes. With women in charge of it, the MeToo movement is kind of disorganized and noisy and tends to lump minor abuses in together with major abuses. In turn, men complain about that lack of structure: They ask, "Is the MeToo movement about rape? Or about men simply being pushy?" Men point out that here are big differences in the legality there. But that kind of logical mindset tends to anger women. Women see *all* of it as abuse and want to get it all out in the open in a big orgiastic rush, "and let God sort it out."

    Another issue to take into consideration when one contrasts such different outlooks on the world: the psychological phenomenon of projection.

    Women tend to act/think/operate in collective hive-mind mode. It's what they know; it's how they see the world. Furthermore, they tend to project that hive-mind way of thinking onto men. Women see individual men or groups of men abusing power, and women tend to assume that *all* men share that trait: Because if one part of a hive behaves that way, then women assume that it's a characteristic of the hive as a whole. Thus, you end up with feminists projecting onto men collective behaviors and mindsets such as patriarchy, toxic masculinity, cat-calling by men in public as some kind of universal abuse, etc.

    However, men don't have a collective hive-mind.They feel unjustly accused by all this. Sure, there are true predators out there like Weinstein, but for every Weinstein or date rapist, etc. there are a hundred guys who would happily kick the crap out of such predators or even kill them outright. And sure, there are cat-callers. But if a cat-caller gets too abusive, there are 20 white knights in the immediate neighborhood who will happily rush to the gal's defense and shut down the cat-caller.

    To put it another way, men are the problem but they are also the solution. As individual actors (and *not* part of a collective hive-mind), it's possible for any one man to come down on either side of the equation. But society is set up to reward law-abiding behavior and punish law-breaking, and at least for the present men are very much part of women's first line of defense against sexual predators. Traditional feminism, with its emphasis on collective behavior, misses these nuances.

    Of course, projection works in the other direction. As creatures of logic, men project onto women their own mentality of the planner, the brooder, the strategist, and the hunter. As a result, men can and do feel genuinely threatened by hive-mind movements like the MeToo movement or other mass movements. Men know that if *they themselves* ever got that angry and organized about one thing, it would result in an armed overthrow. Men know that they themselves would have to really hate someone to get that organized or angry. Thus, it's easy for men to project the adjective "man-hating" onto these hive-mind movements. They see in these mass movements an army of angry femme fatales and castrating females.

    Men kind of freak out when they see such mass movements. An army of angry, castrating females is kind of scary. Worse yet, there's not much that individual men can actually do about it. Men say, "But rape and sexual harassment in the workplace are already illegal ! What more do you want from us?!"

    But the point that men are missing: Men don't understand the indiscriminateness of the collective hive-mind anger. In fact, the female hive-mind is kind of orgiastic and seeks to make a big noise, but it isn't really seeking to punish and overthrow. It's more about making a point. A few top abusers need to get revealed for the predators they are and men need to be made aware that the status quo isn't working for women. But it's not like women are trying to simply push men out of power once and for all. Women in the #MeToo movement have repeatedly said that the movement is not about ruining men's careers, and that minor abusers can certainly be rehabilitated and allowed to move past the accusations at a later date.

    This mindset is also likely why some feminists can say such things as "It's okay if a few innocent men get victimized along the way." A lot of feminists simply don't see the movement as a punitive thing; that's a side issue to them. By contrast, for men the punitive issue looms large: In *their* hands, as logical strategists, the punitive aspect would be very central to such a movement if men ran it. And men project that mindset onto women.

    Anyway, to sum up: Projection. Hive-mind/collective/emotional vs. lone wolf hunter/thinker/strategist. It can result in a lot of misunderstandings and a lot of accusations on both sides that aren't really fair.

    Oh well, I'll stop there. I'm just being philosophical. I'm taking a lot of this from books on relationships and the sexes and then putting my own spin with some of the #MeToo stuff. Take it or leave it depending on whether or not it rings true for you.
    Last edited by RDF; 02-21-2018 at 11:25 PM.

  10. #220
    Meae Musae Servus Hephaestus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,458
    The concept of "mob rule" was not coined by women or to describe female behavior.

    Neither was the term "Ol' Boy's Club".

    Or "group think".
    I don't know everything I know, let alone everything I don't.

    --Meditations on Uncertainty Vol ξ(x)

Similar Threads

  1. Society and Very Short People
    By Ludvik in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-19-2017, 11:22 PM
  2. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-20-2016, 12:22 AM
  3. SOCIETY CRACKERZ - Lost Tails of Malapropism.
    By Catoptric in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-29-2015, 09:01 AM
  4. So what will happen when society collapses?
    By Buddha in forum Psychology & Sociology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 11:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •