Men?

[anart]

The reason I wrote the above with certainty was because, no I haven't ever come across a women who has got beyond her mechanical nature, not in the flesh anyway and I certainly haven't come across a women who is interested in the kind of subjects discussed here except maybe some the PSI and astrology stuff...

Well, that makes me feel kind of sad for you, actually - but that also explains why you've said what you've said.

I'm living proof that your take on this is not accurate, as is Laura and many others here whose names are not as well known (at least seven women come to mind off the top of my head, as the most active of those many women here) - so, perhaps you are looking at things through a lense that is not as clear as you might think? I don't get the impression that you're trying to be rude or insulting, by the way; I just get the impression that since you've seem to have had experiences with only a certain type of woman, that your understanding has been shaped by that - but I could be wrong.

 

[Adaryn]

Moonwalker (and others interested), I suggest you to read "Women who run with wolves, myths and stories of the wild woman archetype" by Clarissa Pinkola Estes, a Jungian psychologist and storyteller. It's quite enlightening, as an explanation of the complex and rich feminine psyche and creative feminine potential (IF the development of those things in each and every woman were allowed and encouraged by this society - which is apparently not the case, rather the opposite).

 

[StrangeCaptain]

My working hypothesis is that there is much more psychopaths among men than among women, but on this particular issue I am not aware of any rigorous research.

Lobachevsky quoted some kind of statistics to this effect, but I do not remember the basis for his comment.

 

[vinny]

as depressing as it sounds, I can actually understand how people come to conclusions like moonwalker's, about both men and women. Around me in everyday life, there is such an overwhelming proportion of people who are just like that, mechanical and superficial and calculating and unglorious, and generally wasting away through some kind of feeble substitute of life. it is horrible, and it is real.
for someone who is not paying full attention, it could easily look as if that's all there is.

and then I come onto the cassiopaea sites and the SOTT forum, and I realise that there are some people left in the world who have an ounce of 'sparkle' still in them :)

 

[joejoeba]

WOAH!
I originally wrote 'Racket 234' with a 3am revenge slash bitter slash tongue in cheek slash 'hopefully she'll read this behind my back' feel......

And I posted it here to see what the response would be I guess
I think that Moonwalker had an intelligent insight In the first post made, when relating to the dramas and conclusion gained after that 3am moment for myself.

I do feel that despite that first spark of akin-ness, the 'mechanichal nature of women' approach was not where I personally was coming from and I am hopefully not incorporated into that vast generalisation. I do believe that there is an aspect of instinct that comes into play with both sexes.

Anart...You seemed very put out by Moonwalkers certainty, however I see your point that there are more than exceptions. I personally only love one woman, and she is very difficult as I am and it makes me poetic.
I refer to roughly seven woman - creativly. 1; my grandmother. 2 my mother. 3 my sister 4. my partner 5. the encompassment of every woman I have never got along with or would never want me 6 every woman I could have had or could have wanted me. 7. the wise woman who is so unattractive TO ME however I deeply respect her intellect.
It's simple It's primal, It's brash, but it's honest. I think Moonwalker may have been suggesting that kind of approach yet deeply missing out on the simple brash harsh instincts of the primal man also, but I wasn't as the poem was a double gender sword.

I am obsessed by instinct quite obviously.

All our views must be shaped by experience.


And thanks for the pointer prayer for the rain.

 

[anart]

Anart...You seemed very put out by Moonwalkers certainty, however I see your point that there are more than exceptions

Just for clarity's sake - nope - I wasn't 'very put out' - I simply wanted moonwalker to explain what he meant and find out why he would make such a sweeping statement. Moonwalker's been around a while, so I figured that he wouldn't make such a statement without thinking about it - and what I 'figured' seems most likely correct from his explanation, which I understand - so, sorry, no ill will here at all.

 

[Ruth]

Well, I get very disappointed with the mechanical nature of men and because they 'rule the world' it seems to 'force' women to become mechanical or at least pretend to be in order to get what they want.

I can definately see how biologically our natural inclinations are opposites. Women tend to be very selective about who they chose to procreate with (an would be more so if patriacal society allowed it), men are not. Its a very mechanical world. I'm constantly frustrated by this seeming 'requirement' for people to be mechanical in order to 'fit in' - but who 'created' and 'runs' this world we live in? Sadly it is a very imbalanced situation.

 

[shellycheval]

Hello Forum Members,
I hardly know where to begin-I concur with Anart 's statement to Moowalker that she is sad for him, and "that also explains why you've said what you've said."

I am truly astonished at Moonwalker's definitive description of the character and nature of women. One has to be so shockingly ignorant (in its literal denotative usage "destitute of knowledge or lacking comprehension" ((Webster 10th ed.))) and so naively steeped in the in the formulaic, patriarchal programming of the PTB to make statements like the following and believe that they are self-evident truths-clear to all "rational" observers, and thereby the stating of which shows no offense, or intention to offend:
(my thoughts are interjected in the parenthesizes)

"Appeasement (!!!!what healthy functional adult wants appeasement for anything? How about equitable resolution of the inevitable dialectical tensions inherent in all intimate relationships?) is futile (you are learning), women are like children (no personal power?) in this respect they have to know where the boundaries are. (NO implication whatsoever intended to Moonwalker, but "they [women] have to know where the boundaries are" is a common statement made by many men trying to justify/rationalize their abusive treatment of women)

Moonwalker asserts: They will keep pushing and testing until they find those boundaries. (whose?) When a woman pushes and feels that resistance (what specifically does this resistance look like???) it allows (!!!!! permission granted) her to feel secure with you. This is what she is looking for. (evidence?) But if she doesn't feel that resistance then she will keep pushing (setting healthy boundaries for herself) until she has walked all over you. (removed herself from your control).

Moonwalker continues with:
The reason I wrote the above with certainty was because, no I haven't ever come across a women who has got beyond her mechanical nature, (so therefore you feel informed enough to make unbelievably offensive statements, on a nearly public forum, regarding the nature of women in general?) not in the flesh anyway and I certainly haven't come across a women who is interested in the kind of subjects discussed here (perhaps Moonwalker should increase the types of places where he goes to meet women, and get beyond selecting a woman according to her "replication value [which] is almost purely based on her looks" and then he may find a woman who has an intellect equal to or beyond his own.) except maybe some of the PSI and astrology stuff, (How can someone who has contributed as many thought provoking, intelligent, rational, insightful, and interesting ideas to this forum as Moonwalker has, not "hear'' the blatant, sexist, condescending tone of this statement? Only the incessant and powerful programs of a patriarchal controlled media and cultural offer any explanation.)

Moonwalker writes: I mean how many women do you think are active on this forum, I'd be willing to bet not many, no where near as many as men anyway. (see Ark's intelligent reply to this a few entries back) As for the descriptive box is it a box? These emotional circuits are real and exist in the billions of women (and men-the receptors needed to decode/feel the electro-chemical messengers transmitting emotion are present in varying degrees throughout the human body, male or female, ((read molecular biologist Candice Pert's work)) and are the primary motivating factor in all human choices, male or female, until one has done enough self observation and work on changing one's self to get beyond the knee-jerk reactive emotional programming we are all subject to.) in varying degrees and yes I accept that women can use logic and reason to determine a course of action but often they are instead used to rationalize the action after the fact." (see my above statement regarding condescending, sexist sounding messages)

Moonwalker goes on to say:
"A women's survival and replication value is almost purely based on her looks. That is a terrible thing to say. But it's not a denigration it's a statement of fact. Men are programmed to inseminate as many pretty women as possible. Thus a women's sexual value to a man can be easily determined by her physical appearance. I'm not trying to offend women here and I'm not saying this behavior can't be transcended, but that's how it is ask any man, it's hard coded."


Moonwalker's assertion that "Men are programmed to inseminate as many pretty women as possible." is a biological deterministic theory developed by men, encoded in the inviolatalble principles of pure "science" (also created by men and this is "not a denigration it's a statement of fact"), and used by many men to rational their predatory sexual behaviors toward women.

I believe in Moonwalker's sincerity in stating "I'm not trying to offend women here" and that is what makes his words all the more shocking and destructive, because their banal presentation reveals a mindset and belief system common to patriarchal cultures-especially in the younger men in their twenties, and many men from puberty to their forties and beyond.

Under patriarchy both men and women are programmed with the ideological misrepresentations that define both sexes from birth. They become part of our identity scripts and personal belief systems; therefore we see "evidence" of la differance everywhere, rather than recognizing these incarcerating ideas to be products of irrational and unfounded prejudiced thinking and stereotyping of the sexes.

Humans are set up with this cultural behavioral conditioning because, one, it helps preserve the status of those in power (mostly men-also a fact), and two, it creates an immeasurable amount of emotional suffering between men and women, and we members of the SOTT Forum all know who benefits and feeds on the misery of others.

I en courage Moonwalker and all readers who agree with his evaluation of women to learn ways to recognize such limiting assessments for what they are-false premises that habituate one to remain programmed and unable to see the humanness that many people of both sexes share.

Sincerely,
shellycheval

 

[brainwave]

As I have also studied evolutionary psychology, I'll just say it is not written in stone in the manner that Moonwalker implies. I understand that his women=emotional, men=whatever you may add due to fitness and reproductive value- is a framework that many evoloutionary psychologist work from. I have my ideas on psychology being the description of evolutionary psychopathy. Studying things that do not conform to moonwalker's box is not encouraged. People used to believe that women could not excel in some academic disciplines and used evolutionary theory to try to support these beliefs. We know otherwise.

We also know that cognitive structures can and do change as can aspects of physiological structures . I could agree that latter is changed within limits but I could even be wrong there.
I see more and more that we can't begin to fathom the limits of cognitive structures. In fact there is much that is unknown so I don't ever believe in definitive statements although they "may" be useful to someone at sometime. Obviously it has been useful to the leaders of our ponerized society. Besides, structures both psysiological and psychological develop in environments and each influence the other-that too is evolutionary theory. As Ark correctly points out, the environmental constraints on women and men, I may add, makes the reality that Moonwalker describe all that there is for those who cannot imagine much less work toward something different. There is such a thing however, as potentiation. You can cause changes in neural circuits by changes in behavior and vice versa although I agree that genetics influence the quality of the change. Some may call that a sort of genetic determinism but I don't think it is there are too many exceptions. The fact is there can be changes.

What moonwalker promote makes one believe otherwise. You might as well have said this is how men are and this is how women are and thats the end of the story.
What if one were to stop conforming to the constraints of the imput-output box?
As David Buss-an evolutionary psychologist, said: "...evolutionary theory does not imply genetic determinism, it does not imply that we are powerless to change things"
The existance of the QFS shows that one is not totally limited by these so called cognitive states of being in the manner that moonwalker describes but maybe he cannot perceive that.

As for more psychopaths are males. It would seem to be the case. I will look up some studies as I recall this statement being suggested in different papers. The evidence have to be reviewed. Some genetic traits that result in behavioral symptoms that mimic aspects of psychopathy (but is not psychopathy) tend to occur more in males or show worse symptoms. I worked on a study about social interaction deficits in schizophrenia. As my subjects were to be males, when I originally wrote the proposal for a small grant it discussed the earlier onset and higher incidence in males as a reason to look at this. I also wanted to look at females in a pilot for comparative reasons. Never got to study the females and I was told I should remove the part that discussed incidence in males as part of the justification for the study. I understood why my male mentor suggested I remove it. The grant was from a foundation that supported women in research science. He thought they would have issues with it. He must have known better being one of the better funded in all of neuroscience. Although it was to support more women researchers and not what women researched. I need not say more.

That this men thread was posted under creative acts is appropriate because one has to be creatively blind to not see the limits of moonwalker's reasoning.

 

[herondancer]

The reason I wrote the above with certainty was because, no I haven't ever come across a women who has got beyond her mechanical nature, not in the flesh anyway and I certainly haven't come across a women who is interested in the kind of subjects discussed here except maybe some the PSI and astrology stuff, I mean how many women do you think are active on this forum, I'd be willing to bet not many, no where near as many as men anyway. As for the descriptive box is it a box? These emotional circuits are real and exist in the billions of women in varying degrees and yes I accept that women can use logic and reason to determine a course of action but often they are instead used to rationalize the action after the fact.

If my statements still seem limited then please go ahead and advise, I'm very open to discussing this.

Hi Moonwalker,

There are many excellent, deeply reasoned posts in response to this topic. I would ask a more personal question. If in fact you "haven't ever come across a women who has got beyond her mechanical nature, not in the flesh anyway", maybe it was that there were mechanical cues and responses on your part which evoked those "mechanical" responses that so disappointed you? Especially as you also posit that it is physical attractiveness (only?) that will catch a man's attention in the first place.

The suggestion of widening your social circle seems sound. Perhaps so far you've been meeting women in places where being sized up as potential genetic material is the main activity? Not all environments are conducive to the Forum's sort of esoteric conversation.

Herondancer

 

[Beau]

I certainly agree with that last sentence nktulloch. Also, I do agree that there a plenty of people who fall within the mechanical traits of their gender. Of that, their is no doubt. Definitely one's experiences color the view as well. I understand Moonwalker's cynicism because their is a great number of people who cannot break the chains of mechanicalness. But to apply your views in such a blanket way sets you up to not only expect what you are hypothesizing, but perhaps to also be blind to anyone who might be "out of the box". I notice Moonwalker didn't really mention men as much in regards to certain behavior. Perhaps you are frustrated? Do not limit yourself. I would hope you would alter your reasoning to a more open-minded approach, just for your own benefit :)

 

[John G]

I think one's normal genetic personality type and society have a bigger effect than gender. From a personality test point of view there is one gender bias for feeling vs thinking such that 2 out of 3 women are the feeling type. That still means there are BILLIONS of the thinking type women on the planet. Don't confuse emotions with personality type. Emotions can be a sign of immature development of personality traits (a different thing than your genetic personality bias). Men and women do express immaturity differently. Men tend to stomp around and throw a temper tantrum like a two year old and women... well let a woman answer that.

As for society effect, take me for example, I actually am in the group of one out of three men who are the feeling type... yet I'm an electrical engineer/programmer by trade (by the way there were tons of thinking type women programmers at IBM where I worked). I also spend my time here mostly in the physics discussions even though my two papers and one article are on Jungian Pyschology (my feeling type struggling to get out)... the article was coauthored with a guy on the editorial board for the Journal of Psychological Type, a really premier journal, learning is fun! The reason I'm so high on Tony Smith's physics' math is because of its usefulness for personality types, I often wonder what I'd think of it if I didn't know personality theory. Tony himself mentions Jungian personality types:

Carl Jung, who around 1921 AD developed a theory of Personality Types, was greatly influenced by the I Ching, and thus indirectly by IFA. He described 8 = 2^3 types, based on 3 binary choices, similar to the 8 Trigrams of the I Ching:

Introvert - Extrovert
Intuitive - Sensing
Feeling - Thinking

Interactions among people with each of the 8 Personality Types would then, like the I Ching, fall into 8x8 = 64 different types of interaction. From the 1920s to World War II, Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers expanded Jung's Personality Types from 8 to 16 = 2^4 by adding another binary choice:

Perceiving - Judging

The additional binary choice of Briggs and Myers makes a theory of 16 Personality Types and 16x16 = 256 Interaction Types that is closer to the 16 Tetragrams and 256 Odu of IFA. 16x16 = 256 pairs of Tetragrams, correspond to the 256-dimensional Cl(8) Clifford Algebra while I Ching is based on the 64-dimensional Cl(6) Clifford subalgebra of the Cl(8) of IFA.

Tony is correct historically but math-wise it is really Introvert - Extrovert that turns Cl(6) into Cl(8)... Intuitive - Sensing are ways of perceiving our space as in say the spacelike rotations of Cl(2)... Perceiving - Judging, these closure traits add a timelike dimension as seen in say the Cl(4) added boosts. Feeling - Thinking, Cl(6) as in feeling third density translations vs. thinking conformally at higher densities. Introvert - Extrovert as in stay in your shell or go to the other end of your Kaluza-Klein Cl(8) world to add positive as well as negative color/electroweak charges. I could go on and on if I dropped down into the Lie Algebra instead of just the Clifford Algebra but that's what the paper was for though it needs updated cause I didn't know Lie Algebra root vectors as well back then.

Hope I haven't lost the bubble too much (a military term via my Lockheed-Martin engineer father)... I'm now a stay at home dad who spends too much time here while the pitter-patter of juvenille feet are at school and thus the house is way too messy. Luckily I don't have a psychopathic spouse who tears me down for it. My wife and especially my Mother-in-law were woke up to the Israel then 9-11 conspiracies long before me so why am I the one here and not them? It's probably the esoteric stuff even though I'm male and they are female.

 

[Ben]

I can definately see how biologically our natural inclinations are opposites. Women tend to be very selective about who they chose to procreate with (an would be more so if patriacal society allowed it), men are not.

I find this to be a rather sweeping statement and disagree with it. What I would say is that men and women have different criteria which they rely on to select a partner, although there are also criteria which both sexes are interested in. However, it depends on many circumstances such as the kind of 'partnership' one is referring to.

 

[Ruth]

I can definately see how biologically our natural inclinations are opposites. Women tend to be very selective about who they chose to procreate with (an would be more so if patriacal society allowed it), men are not.

I find this to be a rather sweeping statement and disagree with it. What I would say is that men and women have different criteria which they rely on to select a partner, although there are also criteria which both sexes are interested in. However, it depends on many circumstances such as the kind of 'partnership' one is referring to.

I think you've just expanded my 'sweeping' statement to include partnerships, relationships and socialisation, instead of narrowing it. :D I was talking only about the biological urges for sex and procreation and it does seem that men are more likely to be indicriminate than women. Perhaps this why they have the greater sex drive? Biologically, it makes sense to me why our inclinations should be generally in opposite directions, as for each sex, these 'opposite inclinations' are likely to enhance the survival of the species. Of course, at an individual and personal level, a man or a woman has control over their own life as well as their level of consciousness and awareness.

I'm just wondering... if women were more likely to be psychopaths (and at the present time, this seems not to be the case), would that have effected whether our world was patriacal or matriacal dominated? Perhaps this is a bit like 'which comes first, the chicken or the egg?'.

 

[dant]

...
I was talking only about the biological urges for sex and procreation and it does seem that men are more likely to be indicriminate than women. Perhaps this why they have the greater sex drive? Biologically, it makes sense to me why our inclinations should be generally in opposite directions, as for each sex, these 'opposite inclinations' are likely to enhance the survival of the species. Of course, at an individual and personal level, a man or a woman has control over their own life as well as their level of consciousness and awareness.

I'm just wondering... if women were more likely to be psychopaths (and at the present time, this seems not to be the case), would that have effected whether our world was patriacal or matriacal dominated? Perhaps this is a bit like 'which comes first, the chicken or the egg?'.

I find this statement odd with my experience. My wife, ---------------------------- sexually active
at all, quite the opposite! I had to try to convince her to have kids and I was limited to two and
she would not have it any other way. She also timed it when she wanted to. She had no "biological
urges" at all and we had kids in my 30s. -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------. I just became contented to the situation and just let it be and eventually
my urges just stopped many years ago.

I have seen nympomanics on both sides of the sexes and they
seem to have the following cases:

Sex drives of
Man Woman
========
H.......L
L.......H
H.......H
L........L

I suspect that peer pressure may be one of the reason we "must" procreate. I KNOW that my
parents were on the side-lines saying to her: "When are you going to have kids?", and kept
harping this at her. Even after two girls which was to be final, the chorus kept coming: "Dan
wants to have a son, so are you going to have one?" My wife was royally displeased with my
side of the family, go figure!

Many couples I know have many reasons to have or NOT to have children.