The Problem With Women Today
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:10 am
The Problem With Women Today
Tell me what you think of this.
http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality ... gspot.com/
http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality ... gspot.com/
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: The Problem With Women Today
... and your point is...?
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:10 am
Re: The Problem With Women Today
To tell me what you think of this essay, 'The Problem With Women Today.' Like anyone discussing any other topic anywhere else. Let me know if that's too complicated for you & I'll break it down further for you.brokenhead wrote:... and your point is...?
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Whoever put this thing together is so stupid he can't even see he is doing the exact same thing:
And I thought I had too much time on my hands...
Some loser blaming women for all his failures.Like the Nazis blaming the Jews for their own failures
And I thought I had too much time on my hands...
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Yup, you got it right, Brokie ... boring.brokenhead wrote:Whoever put this thing together is so stupid he can't even see he is doing the exact same thing:Some loser blaming women for all his failures.Like the Nazis blaming the Jews for their own failures
And I thought I had too much time on my hands...
.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:10 am
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Hm. You know, that is very interesting.. I don't recall seeing that part in the essay- in fact I didn't read anywhere in that entire essay where the author even hints at something he cannot do or succeed at in life because of the problem with women today.. as in the way women constantly do, with their never-ending drivel concerning supposed 'glass ceilings,' a patriarchal system that excludes them, sexism, ad nauseum.brokenhead wrote:Whoever put this thing together is so stupid he can't even see he is doing the exact same thing:Some loser blaming women for all his failures.Like the Nazis blaming the Jews for their own failures
And I thought I had too much time on my hands...
No, as a matter of fact you're going to have to point that section out to me. Copy & paste it here so I can see it.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:10 am
Re: The Problem With Women Today
No, this is truly boring and utterly banal..Tomas wrote:Yup, you got it right, Brokie ... boring.brokenhead wrote:Whoever put this thing together is so stupid he can't even see he is doing the exact same thing:Some loser blaming women for all his failures.Like the Nazis blaming the Jews for their own failures
And I thought I had too much time on my hands...
.
-tomas further observes-
"When Genius was at other servers, even I, had imaginations of what these Three Musketeers looked like?
Then, discovered that two of them (Kevin, Dan) wear hats! Very manly :-)
Obviously, Dan is a man of the world..."
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
From the word go, the whole article is good quality. It's intelligent, simple, well-illustrated, hardly descends into emotionalism, and is very funny.
I like the idea of replying to someone who says, "I want to be known as a high-achieving individual": "then go out and achieve something great". That's what this article is saying.
Of course, women have been allowed throughout the evolution of the species to be lazy and to desire insatiably - it's been their job to desire children that are 'better than the neighbour's', but be stuck with hanging around to look after the children, instead of out in proactive, defence and attack roles. So, they really haven't developed the same tools as men. There's a bit of a lag....
I have a minor complaint about the claim made towards the end, that no woman could argue intelligently about these problems. But "woman" here obviously means anyone who falls prey to the unthinking lies of feminism, rather than a biological female per se. Minor point.
I don't think that the hippy drug movement of the sixties was a feminist movement. You only need to watch footage of Woodstock 1969, or look at the burgeoning intellectual activity from the likes of Bob Dylan, Alan Ginsberg, Robert Crumb, Christopher Hitchens, David Icke, Andy Blunden, Philip K Dick, and so forth. It's a bit confusing because this was when feminism's big names are becoming active - Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone, Julia Kristeva, Onora O'Neill, Susan Haack, Elizabeth Grosz, and so forth.
My theory is that the 'freedom of ideas' movement wasn't strong enough to cope with 'free love' (as opposed to marriage). The problem was wholly in the idea of sexual freedom. Integrity demanded putting ideas into action. But it became a choice between intellectual and sexual freedom. What usually happened was that the average person, no matter their lofty ideals, wasn't able to deal with all the deeply-embedded animal instincts of pair-bonding and functioning in a herd, that sexual activity triggered. People's thinking on the matter became clouded. Their ideals became physicalised. They became more animal. They no longer valued freedom of ideas as highly. They chose the heart over the brain.
We are still in the wake of this problem.
So it's really no use blaming women, for what men continue to fail to do.... Think first.
That's basically the whole story in a nut-shell. Envy and laziness.All it amounts to is that women were jealous of all the recognition men received for their accomplishments, which they too wanted, but without all the work.
I like the idea of replying to someone who says, "I want to be known as a high-achieving individual": "then go out and achieve something great". That's what this article is saying.
Of course, women have been allowed throughout the evolution of the species to be lazy and to desire insatiably - it's been their job to desire children that are 'better than the neighbour's', but be stuck with hanging around to look after the children, instead of out in proactive, defence and attack roles. So, they really haven't developed the same tools as men. There's a bit of a lag....
I have a minor complaint about the claim made towards the end, that no woman could argue intelligently about these problems. But "woman" here obviously means anyone who falls prey to the unthinking lies of feminism, rather than a biological female per se. Minor point.
I don't think that the hippy drug movement of the sixties was a feminist movement. You only need to watch footage of Woodstock 1969, or look at the burgeoning intellectual activity from the likes of Bob Dylan, Alan Ginsberg, Robert Crumb, Christopher Hitchens, David Icke, Andy Blunden, Philip K Dick, and so forth. It's a bit confusing because this was when feminism's big names are becoming active - Germaine Greer, Shulamith Firestone, Julia Kristeva, Onora O'Neill, Susan Haack, Elizabeth Grosz, and so forth.
My theory is that the 'freedom of ideas' movement wasn't strong enough to cope with 'free love' (as opposed to marriage). The problem was wholly in the idea of sexual freedom. Integrity demanded putting ideas into action. But it became a choice between intellectual and sexual freedom. What usually happened was that the average person, no matter their lofty ideals, wasn't able to deal with all the deeply-embedded animal instincts of pair-bonding and functioning in a herd, that sexual activity triggered. People's thinking on the matter became clouded. Their ideals became physicalised. They became more animal. They no longer valued freedom of ideas as highly. They chose the heart over the brain.
We are still in the wake of this problem.
So it's really no use blaming women, for what men continue to fail to do.... Think first.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
-kramer10007-
No, this is truly boring and utterly banal..
-tomas further observes-
"When Genius was at other servers, even I, had imaginations of what these Three Musketeers looked like?
Then, discovered that two of them (Kevin, Dan) wear hats! Very manly :-)
Obviously, Dan is a man of the world..."
-tomas-
Didn't think it'd take much for you to show your true colors. Your ninny-assed comment to Brokie pretty much showed you as a lowbrow. Hence, my comment.
The least you can still do is offer your take on the article.
You wanna start over - or you just another punt/kicker boy?
PS - You like Kevin and Dan in their hats?
(the least you couldda done is place the url for all to see in their hatted splendor)
PPS - Still a boring article even before reading Brokie's comment).
.
No, this is truly boring and utterly banal..
-tomas further observes-
"When Genius was at other servers, even I, had imaginations of what these Three Musketeers looked like?
Then, discovered that two of them (Kevin, Dan) wear hats! Very manly :-)
Obviously, Dan is a man of the world..."
-tomas-
Didn't think it'd take much for you to show your true colors. Your ninny-assed comment to Brokie pretty much showed you as a lowbrow. Hence, my comment.
The least you can still do is offer your take on the article.
You wanna start over - or you just another punt/kicker boy?
PS - You like Kevin and Dan in their hats?
(the least you couldda done is place the url for all to see in their hatted splendor)
PPS - Still a boring article even before reading Brokie's comment).
.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Kramer,
That text Brokenhead pointed out:
Kelly wrote:
The initial argument about feminism being driven by jealousy is rather undermined when juxtaposed with the argument that women don't achieve because they don't value. How can one be jealous of that which one does not really value? The jealousy argument may have been somewhat true of the original suffragettes, but it can hardly be applied to feminism as a whole, which has been nothing more than a mindless meme that took hold. I think ascribing motive of any kind to the history of feminism is greatly problematic.
Also, it is clear that the author is advocating an old fashioned view of femininity, one which I find as repulsive as what he's railing against. Oh, and I just realised what was, in fact, funny about the article - the author asks how women got from state A to state B. If he understood the true nature of the type of "feminine" he advocates, he would know the answer. That's pretty funny, in an ironic sense.
That text Brokenhead pointed out:
It's just under the collage pic of various modern feminists, near the top of the article.Like the Nazis blaming the Jews for their own failures, women sought to blame another group of people for their own inadequacies and failures and that was men.
Kelly wrote:
Despite a significant mirth malady on my part, I have to say the humour in that article escaped me. The whole thing looked like one of those Xian Men's Right's rants to me. I also can't agree whatever with your view that the article "hardly ever descends into emotionalism". On the contrary, it hardly ever rises above it. It was in its entirety an emotional rant. The trouble with articles like that is they contain a fair measure of truth, but sully everything by being "rantish" and including unsupported socio-political claims. As an exercise in pure provocation, I'd give it 7/10. As an intellectual exercise designed to make proper points, 5/10.From the word go, the whole article is good quality. It's intelligent, simple, well-illustrated, hardly descends into emotionalism, and is very funny.
The initial argument about feminism being driven by jealousy is rather undermined when juxtaposed with the argument that women don't achieve because they don't value. How can one be jealous of that which one does not really value? The jealousy argument may have been somewhat true of the original suffragettes, but it can hardly be applied to feminism as a whole, which has been nothing more than a mindless meme that took hold. I think ascribing motive of any kind to the history of feminism is greatly problematic.
Also, it is clear that the author is advocating an old fashioned view of femininity, one which I find as repulsive as what he's railing against. Oh, and I just realised what was, in fact, funny about the article - the author asks how women got from state A to state B. If he understood the true nature of the type of "feminine" he advocates, he would know the answer. That's pretty funny, in an ironic sense.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
I think it has more integrity than that. I like how it juxtaposes pictures of fetid-looking toilets next to a line-up of pornography stars. And also, the arrow pointing to the crotch on women's underwear, rather than showing a vagina. Whereas the men's rights movements want women to go back to being discrete and subservient sex tools, this article seems to promote ending sexual encounters altogether.Dan Rowden wrote:Despite a significant mirth malady on my part, I have to say the humour in that article escaped me. The whole thing looked like one of those Xian Men's Right's rants to me.Kelly: From the word go, the whole article is good quality. It's intelligent, simple, well-illustrated, hardly descends into emotionalism, and is very funny.
It's possible that he's anti-dyke-feral, and just wants fifies-style marriages. But one thing that has always troubled me about lesbians of all kinds, is their clone-like behaviours. Those photos do show that herdlike behaviour.
I thought it was like Adam Carolla. It sounds like an emotional effusion, but then you see a structure underlying the presentation.I also can't agree whatever with your view that the article "hardly ever descends into emotionalism". On the contrary, it hardly ever rises above it. It was in its entirety an emotional rant.
Observations have no proof. One can demonstrate and redemonstrate all one likes, but that doesn't mean it can be observed by those to whom it's being demonstrated.The trouble with articles like that is they contain a fair measure of truth, but sully everything by being "rantish" and including unsupported socio-political claims.
He probably means that there is no real connection in women's minds between what they desire, and what they're worth. They have moods, not values.The initial argument about feminism being driven by jealousy is rather undermined when juxtaposed with the argument that women don't achieve because they don't value. How can one be jealous of that which one does not really value?
Weiningers exposition of values in "Endowment and Memory" is really worth a good look. This is from the next chapter, "The Problem of the Self and Genius":
At most, women's jealousy is a mood that wants, then destroys; not something that reaches into timeless values.The human being is the universe and therefore not a mere part of it that depends on other parts. He is not locked into the laws of nature at a particular point, but he is himself the quintessence of all laws and therefore free, just as the universe itself, being everything, is not conditioned by anything, but is independent. The exceptional individual forgets nothing, because he does not forget himself, because to forget is to be functionally under the influence of time, and therefore unfree and unethical. He is not thrown up as the child of one historical movement and swallowed again by the next, because everything, all the past and all the future, is already enfolded in the eternity of his spiritual sight. He has the strongest sense of immortality, because he is not cowed by the thought of death. He enters into the most passionate relationship with symbols or values, by assessing, and thereby interpreting, not only everything in himself, but everything outside himself. He is at one and the same time the freest and the wisest, he is the most moral individual; and that is the only reason why he, of all, suffers most from anything that even in him is still unconscious, still chaos, still fate.
It's not mindless, it's just heavily protected from being examined. Not wanting to disappoint women, and upset them, is a particular meme.The jealousy argument may have been somewhat true of the original suffragettes, but it can hardly be applied to feminism as a whole, which has been nothing more than a mindless meme that took hold. I think ascribing motive of any kind to the history of feminism is greatly problematic.
Where does he do that? I thought the objections to being whores because of passing around STDs was pretty sensible. There are a lot of young women who sleep around indiscriminately, with males and females, strangers and close friends. It's just someone to while away some time with, the alternative being television. It's very animal-like.Also, it is clear that the author is advocating an old fashioned view of femininity, one which I find as repulsive as what he's railing against.
Perhaps the fact that he's writing to other men shows he does know.Oh, and I just realised what was, in fact, funny about the article - the author asks how women got from state A to state B. If he understood the true nature of the type of "feminine" he advocates, he would know the answer. That's pretty funny, in an ironic sense.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Looks like I'll need make a point by point analysis of that article to show its weaknesses.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
I concede that the writer of the article has some degree of emotional horror about feminine consciousness, and to that extent is leaning more to suppressing it (annihilation) instead of thinking about the real causes.
I think he shows a lot of courage to step out and take the ball on the full, so to speak. This is a horrible society for men to live in; if he speaks out in public against preserving the feminine, many powerful men will try to shut him up. It's understandable if he starts getting a bit worked up. There's a fine line in such circumstances between paranoia and political awareness.
If you like, point out the weaknesses in the article. But I don't think the fellow is claiming to be a philosopher, so you have to cut him some slack.
Women won't grow up by telling them to grow up, or slapping them on the face, or abusing them in these irrational ways. They and other men have to be shown the blatantly obvious consequences of their unthinking behaviour. It's not rocket science, it's just very basic level consciousness. I think there is a need for this sort of education, Dan, just like there is a need for people like Philip Mistlberger, as you yourself have said.
I think he shows a lot of courage to step out and take the ball on the full, so to speak. This is a horrible society for men to live in; if he speaks out in public against preserving the feminine, many powerful men will try to shut him up. It's understandable if he starts getting a bit worked up. There's a fine line in such circumstances between paranoia and political awareness.
If you like, point out the weaknesses in the article. But I don't think the fellow is claiming to be a philosopher, so you have to cut him some slack.
Women won't grow up by telling them to grow up, or slapping them on the face, or abusing them in these irrational ways. They and other men have to be shown the blatantly obvious consequences of their unthinking behaviour. It's not rocket science, it's just very basic level consciousness. I think there is a need for this sort of education, Dan, just like there is a need for people like Philip Mistlberger, as you yourself have said.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
1. Uh, told you so...
2. Some of it was pretty funny.
3. The hippie movement is the best thing that ever happened to America and maybe the world and how could he diss that wonderful bus of Ken Kesey?
4. But sadly, the article is one sided and extreme, so no wonder the feminists reacted against his kind. Yes, feminists complain too much and blame too much and pretend too much, but there WAS a glass ceiling. Women couldn't get admitted to college for Chist sakes! Men could beat their wives legally for Christ's sakes!
5. Is this basically about abortion?
6. yeah, women don't achieve like men, so let's just not let them even try!
7. Yes, the author IS jealous - of his impression/fact that when women get to choose who they have sex with, some males get way more than their share.
8. he asks, "Why does the media do this?" (Show a woman doctor.) Well I have news for him, about half of all doctors are now women, and I happen to think they are particularly well suited to it.
9. I agree with this:
Because of women entering the workplace en masse in the 1980’s, the price of homes and vehicles EXPLODED. Why? Because people could charge more for homes and vehicles because working women created the dual income household. No one is going is going to ask 250K for a home if no one can afford it. So now women are forced to work, whether they want to or not, victims of the economy they created; 95% of them stuck in low paying, dead-end jobs that
10. Some of his facts aren't straight and he exxagerates
11. There is no where in any forum, under any circumstances ever, 365 days a year, 24/7 that women will ever intelligently and openly debate the most important issues in our lives; gender roles, relationships, and family.
Ha! Maybe you should contact the author and show him this place.
2. Some of it was pretty funny.
3. The hippie movement is the best thing that ever happened to America and maybe the world and how could he diss that wonderful bus of Ken Kesey?
4. But sadly, the article is one sided and extreme, so no wonder the feminists reacted against his kind. Yes, feminists complain too much and blame too much and pretend too much, but there WAS a glass ceiling. Women couldn't get admitted to college for Chist sakes! Men could beat their wives legally for Christ's sakes!
5. Is this basically about abortion?
6. yeah, women don't achieve like men, so let's just not let them even try!
7. Yes, the author IS jealous - of his impression/fact that when women get to choose who they have sex with, some males get way more than their share.
8. he asks, "Why does the media do this?" (Show a woman doctor.) Well I have news for him, about half of all doctors are now women, and I happen to think they are particularly well suited to it.
9. I agree with this:
Because of women entering the workplace en masse in the 1980’s, the price of homes and vehicles EXPLODED. Why? Because people could charge more for homes and vehicles because working women created the dual income household. No one is going is going to ask 250K for a home if no one can afford it. So now women are forced to work, whether they want to or not, victims of the economy they created; 95% of them stuck in low paying, dead-end jobs that
10. Some of his facts aren't straight and he exxagerates
11. There is no where in any forum, under any circumstances ever, 365 days a year, 24/7 that women will ever intelligently and openly debate the most important issues in our lives; gender roles, relationships, and family.
Ha! Maybe you should contact the author and show him this place.
Truth is a pathless land.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Oh, he pushes all the buttons all right. Most of them, anyway. Clearly he has been passed over for a promotion in favor of a woman, or else he found his wife blowing his business partner. If not, he should shut up because he has no first-hand knowledge of anything and most likely watches too much TV. He whines and complains that women whine and complain too much. This "essay" is like the things I used to draw in my notebooks in 6th grade, cartoons of the teacher with fangs and drawings of turd piles...
Even if he were dead accurate with this inane stereotype, he loses me with:
Even if he were dead accurate with this inane stereotype, he loses me with:
Oh, but he's a down-trodden man. Let's do a point-by-point. How about let's not and say we did? Just because this rant isn't very humorous doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. This is supposed to be a genius forum. If you don't coddle emotional females, then you should treat the one-sour-note author of this "essay" the same way....and this is virtually all women today.
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
I thought some parts of his argument were poorly considered. Take the following, for example:
Personally, I think it's good if women become more financially independently, because it means that men won't have the burden of looking after them.
I'm still tossing-up whether to include a link to the page on my Misogyny Unlimited site, because I'm thinking the material is just a bit too low-brow and juvenile in its nature.
I could link to the site with the text: This link is not endorsed by this site, but makes some interesting points..
An interesting point, is that genetic research has indeed found that, historically, only about 30% of men get to breed, while 70% of women do. Clearly, it is only those men who are rich and powerful (or manipulative, like priests) who get to breed, along with those who are successful rapists — which explains a lot about why our society is so screwed up right now.
He seems to be suggesting that women should not make themselves more financially independent, just because this will increase the supply of money, which increases prices.Because of women entering the workplace en masse in the 1980’s, the price of homes and vehicles EXPLODED. Why? Because people could charge more for homes and vehicles because working women created the dual income household.
Personally, I think it's good if women become more financially independently, because it means that men won't have the burden of looking after them.
I'm still tossing-up whether to include a link to the page on my Misogyny Unlimited site, because I'm thinking the material is just a bit too low-brow and juvenile in its nature.
I could link to the site with the text: This link is not endorsed by this site, but makes some interesting points..
An interesting point, is that genetic research has indeed found that, historically, only about 30% of men get to breed, while 70% of women do. Clearly, it is only those men who are rich and powerful (or manipulative, like priests) who get to breed, along with those who are successful rapists — which explains a lot about why our society is so screwed up right now.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: The Problem With Women Today
This is an interesting statistic. What do you mean by "historically"? Do we mean across all borders and in every era? Because if that's the case, then our society should be no more "screwed up right now" than at any other point in time.Kevin Solway wrote:An interesting point, is that genetic research has indeed found that, historically, only about 30% of men get to breed, while 70% of women do. Clearly, it is only those men who are rich and powerful (or manipulative, like priests) who get to breed, along with those who are successful rapists — which explains a lot about why our society is so screwed up right now.
I'd like to see the research basis for this statistic.
Your analysis is questionable, though, Kevin. In "our society" the rich and powerful men tend to have fewer children, legitimate ones, at any rate. The less-educated male with the smallest income often has the bigger brood. And "successful rapists" do not seem to account for the world's largest segment of fatherhood, unless you consider the average husband a successful rapist. Which you might as well, if the average wife is going to be called a "whore," like in this "essay."
Oh, and priests prefer boys, Kevin, so there goes that part of your theory. Duh.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Dude's got issues.
He's just spewing hatred and bile.
He's just spewing hatred and bile.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Dan,
-
With your busy schedule, I can't believe you would consider doing such a thing. After all, only Kelly is impressed by the article.Looks like I'll need make a point by point analysis of that article to show its weaknesses.
-
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Actually, you're probably right. It will, at the very least, need to wait till I've finished my next Youtube vids on the nature of Existence - which are proving a challenge to script. Nevertheless, it might be useful to do it even if only to help Kelly spot weaknesses in such articles in the future. As I said, the article raises some important issues, but deals with them poorly. A person is far better served reading similar stuff at, say, Angry Harry's.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Problem With Women Today
I admitted he wasn't looking at the real causes for femininity myself. If you could combine his spiritedness and willingness to openly criticise women, with intelligence, then he'd be really something.it might be useful to do it even if only to help Kelly spot weaknesses in such articles in the future. As I said, the article raises some important issues, but deals with them poorly.
What is needed more than anything is that courage, but courage in the right direction. That's why I like it.
If a Dave Toast, a Jamesh, a Diebert van Rhijn, or a Jason, had that sort of spirit, they'd take off into the Superman like nothing else. Of course, these individuals are all different from each other in other ways, but they're not ascending high mountains.
Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.
What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.
Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?
Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?
Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?
Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one's hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?
All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.
But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.
Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.
What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, "I will."
"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold--a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou shalt!"
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things--glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values--do I represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus speaketh the dragon.
My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?
To create new values--that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating--that can the might of the lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.
To assume the right to new values--that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.
As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.
But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: ITS OWN will, willeth now the spirit; HIS OWN world winneth the world's outcast.
Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.--
Thus spake Zarathustra. And at that time he abode in the town which is called The Pied Cow.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
I haven't researched myself but have heard from researchers (...) that, on average, males have about 6 sexual partners during their lifespan. But a very small percentage have hundreds. That means that there are a lot of zero's to make up for the hundreds, which corresponds to the 30%. There are certain males that have been selected as "breeders". I've met a few that are very smart, others that are very dumb. The average is probably what we see around us.Kevin Solway wrote:An interesting point, is that genetic research has indeed found that, historically, only about 30% of men get to breed, while 70% of women do. Clearly, it is only those men who are rich and powerful (or manipulative, like priests) who get to breed, along with those who are successful rapists — which explains a lot about why our society is so screwed up right now.
Also it's been shown that, on average, a woman will time her affair with her lover (breeder male) at the precise peak of her ovulation. Though, she doesn't know she does this.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
The men that mate with hundreds of women are getting that mainly through appearance and intelligence. The women aren't being supported financially, so the males finances don't really come into it.skipair wrote:I haven't researched myself but have heard from researchers (...) that, on average, males have about 6 sexual partners during their lifespan. But a very small percentage have hundreds. That means that there are a lot of zero's to make up for the hundreds, which corresponds to the 30%. There are certain males that have been selected as "breeders". I've met a few that are very smart, others that are very dumb. The average is probably what we see around us.Kevin Solway wrote:An interesting point, is that genetic research has indeed found that, historically, only about 30% of men get to breed, while 70% of women do. Clearly, it is only those men who are rich and powerful (or manipulative, like priests) who get to breed, along with those who are successful rapists — which explains a lot about why our society is so screwed up right now.
Also it's been shown that, on average, a woman will time her affair with her lover (breeder male) at the precise peak of her ovulation. Though, she doesn't know she does this.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
Yes, but not in the classical sense. They have the appearance of intelligence in sexual communication. So it doesn't really matter if they're ugly or dumb.Rhett wrote:The men that mate with hundreds of women are getting that mainly through appearance and intelligence.
Re: The Problem With Women Today
I say Thank You to this brave person for so much untasteful truth, clap, clap!
For sure this one live and experience for himself insanity of sick American culture, I dont think any other culture come close to this state of social disease, Please all you foreigners if not spend many days in USA please be quite you not know what you talking about!
I feel bad for American male how lousy a place to live unless born to wealth and power.
Before you challenge author of this revealing site, effective point-blank truth, before you challenge first live like he live and only then you can know the horible reality. Just shut up you from where comes wizard of Oz have you no idea your life is like King compared to average man in America. Not can know by reading words and brousing internet, never you have any idea how little a man rate in the great usa-ha!
where can I spit?
Congrat I say to brave creator of website here at top, ready to sacrifice himself in ways all you comfy protected writers never do, you are sickening "maybe I connect to his site but say we dont agree" you COWARD! How dare you try to connect his site without first ask permission! If was me I NOT give you permission, you coward.
For sure this one live and experience for himself insanity of sick American culture, I dont think any other culture come close to this state of social disease, Please all you foreigners if not spend many days in USA please be quite you not know what you talking about!
I feel bad for American male how lousy a place to live unless born to wealth and power.
Before you challenge author of this revealing site, effective point-blank truth, before you challenge first live like he live and only then you can know the horible reality. Just shut up you from where comes wizard of Oz have you no idea your life is like King compared to average man in America. Not can know by reading words and brousing internet, never you have any idea how little a man rate in the great usa-ha!
where can I spit?
Congrat I say to brave creator of website here at top, ready to sacrifice himself in ways all you comfy protected writers never do, you are sickening "maybe I connect to his site but say we dont agree" you COWARD! How dare you try to connect his site without first ask permission! If was me I NOT give you permission, you coward.
- FOREIGNER