Actually, I think you’re right. Now that I think about it, I was forgetting about the fact that a man’s genetic traits would be passed on to his DAUGHTERS as well as his sons, so both genders would be equally affected by the selection. Was I ever off on that one.:o
Future Archaeologist: Based on recent findings, we now conclude that their air-brushing technology was far in advance of what we had first thought. 
“”“Also, throughout the ages, the idea of “behind every great man is a woman” became more evident. Women became more skilled in being the brain behind the power, while letting the men believe that THEY were making the decisions.”""
Yes, I’m sure that there were women who believe they were the ones actually writing Beethoven’s works, and then sacrificing themselves socially and historically by making everybody believe that it was actually Beethoven doing it; when in reality it was scores of women meticulously writing those works and beaming them into his head with radar technology.
To be serious, I think that women cause more selective (existential to be precise) pressure upon men to basically do the ‘creating’ in life. Women just kind of do the ‘creating’ of life, it’s more of a passive “you become pregnant and have a baby” rather than “you invent pregancy, you invent babies, you rationalize process etc…” I don’t think that women are as rational as men, simply because they don’t have the pressure to be so. For the child-bearing sector of the population to be handed existential pressure kind of screws the process.
To this degree, I don’t imagine we will see the degree of existential pressure that men have exhibited in the past to develop art, science and philosophy; equally shared amongst women for quite some time. Men still need to develop the technology to allow it; to circumvent the drawbacks of severe existential pressure applied to child-bearing/child-rearing.
The fact that men sexually peak when the last stage of cognitive enhancements take place (in nature’s default setting); provides an abstraction opportunity for male cognitive integration that is for all practical purposes lost to females so that they can bask in the ignorance of bliss and the luxury of counter-intelligent living.
I don’t see this gap as inherent, and I see men as actually striving to close it technologically. It’s some pretty complicated stuff to externalize though!
-Justhink
“”“Also, throughout the ages, the idea of “behind every great man is a woman” became more evident. Women became more skilled in being the brain behind the power, while letting the men believe that THEY were making the decisions.”""
Yes, I’m sure that there were women who believe they were the ones actually writing Beethoven’s works, and then sacrificing themselves socially and historically by making everybody believe that it was actually Beethoven doing it; when in reality it was scores of women meticulously writing those works and beaming them into his head with radar technology.
To be serious, I think that women cause more selective (existential to be precise) pressure upon men to basically do the ‘creating’ in life. Women just kind of do the ‘creating’ of life, it’s more of a passive “you become pregnant and have a baby” rather than “you invent pregancy, you invent babies, you rationalize process etc…” I don’t think that women are as rational as men, simply because they don’t have the pressure to be so. For the child-bearing sector of the population to be handed existential pressure kind of screws the process.
To this degree, I don’t imagine we will see the degree of existential pressure that men have exhibited in the past to develop art, science and philosophy; equally shared amongst women for quite some time. Men still need to develop the technology to allow it; to circumvent the drawbacks of severe existential pressure applied to child-bearing/child-rearing.
The fact that men sexually peak when the last stage of cognitive enhancements take place (in nature’s default setting); provides an abstraction opportunity for male cognitive integration that is for all practical purposes lost to females so that they can bask in the ignorance of bliss and the luxury of counter-intelligent living.
I don’t see this gap as inherent, and I see men as actually striving to close it technologically. It’s some pretty complicated stuff to externalize though!
“”""“females were dominant in family/sexual spheres”""""""
Family spheres by default, as males were ‘earning the living’.
Sexual spheres by counter-intelligent application of rationality. This is also what creates existential pressure upon males and creates the pressure of abstraction upon our species as a whole. Realistically, males are required to talk to females like total cognitive defuncts; because of this process in the species which allows existential pressure to accumulate. The pressure to close this gap, is that the objectification on the male end becomes physical and personality towards females; a rather unsetteling scenario. Males would like to have sexual partners and peers in the same person, or people who select them sexually based on rational process. The metabolic system which allows the pressure of abstraction is seeking to map and collapse the dependancy upon the resource of absurdity; which will in effect equalize everyone.
I personally do not think females have a case for really any form of ‘superiority’ as any rational person would consider ‘physical’, ‘emotional’, ‘congnitive age’, capacity to rationally map the external world consistently with ideas and/or expression, or really any of the stuff we define as meaning of value.
Females have sex and child-bearing, and the necessity to talk to them like idiots to recieve any of those. There’s really not much there - I would hope that this bridge can be closed without hitting females with all of that existential pressure at once; at least males have a chance to adapt to it over time.
That seems the most prudent consideration for the transition.
-Justhink
I thought the first send was lost; due to it not being here after the return and a few refreshes. I added a bit more to the second one.
As an ammenduim: If the case were held right now, even considering the vast population of males who would side with the females for counter-intelligent selection purposes; it would still be impossible to win without killing the side that is arguing the imbalance and irrationality on the female side. You have to realize that the only sector of society that possesses rationality and are actively striving to close this gap are de-selected males.
The only rational people are the ones capable of making the argument. Selectively, it just doesn’t work the other way - the other side doesn’t have the existential pressure to have rationalized the phenominal world. The other side can win by numbers and counter-intelligenct application of axiomic reasoning; rationally, the argument as it stands today IMO is impossible from the perpective of equality or inferiority on the male side.
There is one physical mechanism that causes all of this… you cannot rape a male hetero-sexually. What’s a female going to do? Kidnap him, chain him to a bed and use a pump on him? If anything, the male will laugh - there’s a pretty good chance they would have done it for free. There’s really no sense of balance in that dynamic. Males who would consider anything a sexual rape of themselves heterosexually, are not working with a full deck. The only use of such a form from the male perspective is to attract counter-intelligent attention to themselves. Females would be attracted to males who talked like this - other than that; males have no personal rape system in hetero-sexuality. You just can’t hetero-sexually rape a male. The only things to take into consideration on the male end are disease and interrupting a schedual… maybe they’re hungry and were on their way to Burger King. Males are used to females not applying personality intelligently in regards to companionship or sexual selection, that aspect is never a consideration of insult.
In the mean-time, I think prostitution is the only moral means for a male to elicit sex. Currency in exchange for cognitive age - the contract is transparent and settled. The currency is being mis-applied any other way.
-Justhink
I thought the first send was lost; due to it not being here after the return and a few refreshes. I added a bit more to the second one.
As an ammenduim: If the case were held right now, even considering the vast population of males who would side with the females for counter-intelligent selection purposes; it would still be impossible to win without killing the side that is arguing the imbalance and irrationality on the female side. You have to realize that the only sector of society that possesses rationality and are actively striving to close this gap are de-selected males.
The only rational people are the ones capable of making the argument. Selectively, it just doesn’t work the other way - the other side doesn’t have the existential pressure to have rationalized the phenominal world. The other side can win by numbers and counter-intelligenct application of axiomic reasoning; rationally, the argument as it stands today IMO is impossible from the perpective of equality or inferiority on the male side.
There is one physical mechanism that causes all of this… you cannot rape a male hetero-sexually. What’s a female going to do? Kidnap him, chain him to a bed and use a pump on him? If anything, the male will laugh - there’s a pretty good chance they would have done it for free. There’s really no sense of balance in that dynamic. Males who would consider anything a sexual rape of themselves heterosexually, are not working with a full deck. The only use of such a form from the male perspective is to attract counter-intelligent attention to themselves. Females would be attracted to males who talked like this - other than that; males have no personal rape system in hetero-sexuality. You just can’t hetero-sexually rape a male. The only things to take into consideration on the male end are disease and interrupting a schedual… maybe they’re hungry and were on their way to Burger King. Males are used to females not applying personality intelligently in regards to companionship or sexual selection, that aspect is never a consideration of insult.
In the mean-time, I think prostitution is the only moral means for a male to elicit sex. Currency in exchange for cognitive age - the contract is transparent and settled. The currency is being mis-applied any other way.
-Justhink
“”"""""“The only things to take into consideration on the male end are disease and interrupting a schedual… maybe they’re hungry and were on their way to Burger King.”"""
Great, now it’s double-posting.
One other consideration here is pregancy in the male end.
They will be sued for child support, and/or bring a being unecessarily into the world - as the birth was not rationally framed before occurring (from both sides consentually).
Again; that’s not any sense of emotional rape attatched to the act of sexuality itself on the part of the male. It would be funny, a mild annoyance or flat; there’s no sense of this absolute violation of being on that end. If the male was gay; yeah, they also have the emotion of giggling distributed in the population; which hetero sexual males don’t have. Males just process sex differently with testosterone and all. As it stands IMO, a male cannot be hetero-sexually raped to a degree where their entire psychological world-veiw is altered or crushed, severed or tortured. That females display this phenomenon in relation to emotion and sex and commitment (‘love’) draws a line which makes all these extra’s being attached to sex unecessary - and annoyingly appeasing of females who for some reason, cannot abstract all the extra work being created unecessicarily. It’s like saying; to wash the dishes, you have to mow the next door neighbors lawn - the ideas and the workload are totally unrelated. Males who humor this stuff, are the ones who become selected.
-Justhink
men are far superior when it comes to abstract thought.
Owl presented some great arguements, cheers!
N.B. Ayn Rand was a fool.
Men created civilizations so that women will like them. Who says women don’t have the last word?
“”"“Men created civilizations so that women will like them. Who says women don’t have the last word?”"
You have to take into account that our increased abstraction is a play-thing for women back in the day who decided they needed a different sex. I imagine we’ll end up right back where we started, when selection becomes bored of abstraction - we’re sort of like this freakish apendege of women.
-Justhink
It’s to say that when push comes to shove; we’re not really here - males that is…
Women decided they needed to abstract a different sex to create a metabolic process for more efficient abstraction. Looking at the situation, they decided to make us deeply attracted to them physically and sent us out into hell to pull all this crap out. When they’re happy; they’ll just suck us back in.
-Justhink
hell yes.
are we treated that way?
no.
when a 2 income family is almost essential for comfortable living, and most women HAVE to work, why are we not better represented in the management structure?
why should a woman who has not had children, and may not intend to ever have children still be paid less than a man for the same work…even if he DOES have children?
why are women expected to work a full day in the office AND THEN to come home, cook, clean, look after the children and run the household when their husbands and partners have “earned” a beer in front of the tv for the same work?
why are more women than men given custodial sentences when convicted of the same crime? and why are women’s sentences longer than men’s for the equivalent crime?
WHEN women can expect equal pay for equal work, equal punishment for equal crimes and equal representation at ALL levels of society, including the legislature…
without having to give up any of the things that make us female…
then we’ve got it as good as the men.
The question really is meaningless; ‘Women’ and ‘Men’ are not single values that can be equated; people are tremendously complex things.
Unless you preselect a group of factors by which you will judge the differences and in so doing you inevitably introduce bias.
Might as well be asking if camels are as good as kangaroos.
“”""hell yes.
are we treated that way?
no.""""
I believe that you can take half of everything your man has right now, without legal debate; even if you have never worked, have never touched a dish, have never cooked a meal, have never been around the house or really… anything. Take that half, and find yourself a man who will do dishes! If you have a child, (that incidentally, you’ve never watched), try to get custody of it, you’ll get additional child support… just make sure you don’t get a job, and you’re ex-hubby will be paying you for life. Move out of state and find yourself a new beau (just don’t get married!); you’ll have two incomes, you’ll never have to work, and your X will be working himself into the grave to keep you from breaking a nail.
-Justhink
I still maintain that women are better than men simply for their ability to have multiple orgasms (a talent a few men have).
And breasts - women are frankly much better looking in general, but breasts are great.
I motion all other criteria be dropped - especially any that have to do with traditionally being in charge - like guys think we want that - pshaw!
By the argument presented by creamcheese, I argue that the cold virus is better than people. All our wills are bent towards destroying it and yet it thrives and dominates us, using us towards its own end in cold (oho) contempt of our wishes. We are slaves to its life cycle. Its hold over us is a lot greater than the hold of men over women.
On another point, ants massively outnumber humans. Both in terms of numbers (of course) but also by global body mass. And many can live where we can’t. So they’re better too.
pan
Good point kabbes; I nominate a vicious cartel of plants for the award of Better Than People: between them, wheat, rice, potatoes, barley and maize (plus a number of other co-conspirators that I won’t bother mentioning) have enslaved us to the extent that not only are we almost completely dependent on them, but we devote a great deal of our collective efforts in perpetuating and perfecting their progeny.
Staple crops truly are the dominant lifeforms on the planet.
Fungus! Fungus kicks people’s __!
-Justhink
creamcheese…
Hopefully, you are getting the idea that the question doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are some interesting debates embedded in here - why have women been subverted in most cultures throughout history? Why have most cultures found it necessary to make women “second class” citizens and claiming male superiority rather than recognizing their different type of worth? Why do so many people even see a “superiority” arguement as valid?
In order to have a superiority arguement, we have to all agree on what the criteria are for superiority. What weight we give those criteria. And we have to have accurate measurement systems for those criteria. (Ever do a KT Analysis?) Or the arguement is meaningless. Since getting the first three steps down is pretty unlikely, the argument is meaningless.
Hey Ender, I wasn’t posing my questions to you in particular. I was addressing the OP’s main point:
What this proves is that men are good at dominating women. It doesn’t say anything about men being better than women. Although one must admit that there is one thing men infinitly better at than women-- all men and not your average man against your average woman-- they can outproduce women in the sperm department-- that’s for sure.