A quick explanation of my frustration

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

 

The situation in Sweden gets more frustrating by the day, it seems. I am strongly opposed to feminism, but I hardly even dare to open my mouth about it. This guy gets it. 

[rsc204 21,866]

 

Quote

 

noun

1.

the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2.

(sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3.

Older Use. feminine character.

 

Whilst I think it's illogical to say men and women are the same, we aren't. The principle of feminism is one only a bigot could object to.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It really depends on your view of feminism.  The Prime Minister of Canada is a declared feminist.  But what does that mean?  Some radical thinkers want to promote matriarchy, and this kind of thinking kind of went out of fashion about 3000 years ago.  However, if you look closely at the Roman Republic you will find a secret Cult of the Mother hidden among the highest ranks of the patrician women.

Feminism has been alive and well for millennia.  It just hasn't found any radical voices until recently.  Vive le difference.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Vote with your feet. Move to the American heartland (Mid West or Far West), as I have. The coastal cities in the USA are no better than Sweden and are full of radical "feminists" who are really matriarchal misandrists (AKA feminazis).

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

The term Feminazi itself is just a cheap derogatory term for basically every Feminist, by trying to marry it to the idea of Nazis. Essentially its Godwins law all over again, meaning that the people that use it have no historical perspective and their arguments are generally hollow and devoid of meaning. Basically the same type that would call people with different political ideals Communist Nazis.  

As for the people that use it, there are two kinds. One kind that will concede that they agree with 'moderate' Feminists and in principle agree that men and women should be equal, but who will call even the most moderate Feminist a Feminazi, the other kind just hates all Feminists and doesn't bother to pretend to be a 'nice guy'. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

The term Feminazi itself is just a cheap derogatory term for basically every Feminist, by trying to marry it to the idea of Nazis. Essentially its Godwins law all over again, meaning that the people that use it have no historical perspective and their arguments are generally hollow and devoid of meaning. Basically the same type that would call people with different political ideals Communist Nazis.  

As for the people that use it, there are two kinds. One kind that will concede that they agree with 'moderate' Feminists and in principle agree that men and women should be equal, but who will call even the most moderate Feminist a Feminazi, the other kind just hates all Feminists and doesn't bother to pretend to be a 'nice guy'. 

1. I do not use the term Feminazi lightly and disagree with patriarchal misogynists (macho pigs)

2. Nazis pretended to be socialists but communism is the polar opposite of the violent fascism of the Nazis.

3. I'm the "kind that will agree with 'moderate' Feminists and agree that men and women should be [treated] equal," but I do not say any moderate Feminists are Feminazis because that is ridiculous. If you don't see that your first example is merely a middle-ground, you will move up my rogues' list to position 1 from position 8.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think girls are pretty. I think boys are ugly. As a boy I do not gain anything by feminist advances, but as a self loathing person and one who sees nothing of beauty or value in men I do not object to it.

I think in half a century gender will cease to exist anyway. Feminine and masculine will just be styles of appearance and manner.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Deleted.  Comment no longer relevant.

[Meg 368]

The pendulum swings one way, then it swings the other, rarely stopped at a balanced midpoint.

Evolution has done a sad number on the genders.   Sexually, men prefer frequent sprints while women prefer less frequent marathons.    This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.   The best way to maximize your genes in the next generation is different for each gender.  Men can have hundreds of children so they are wired to have as many kids as they can, far and wide, and some of them are bound to survive.  Women can only have a handful so they are wired to slow down so they can chose their partners wisely.

To put it another way:  the male drive to have sex far exceeds the male drive to raise the resulting children.  (btw, this is how I know "intelligent design" is a myth because that design is not intelligent.  But that's a different topic.)

This leaves everyone in a bad situation.     But, instead of dealing with the overall picture, the pendulum swings one way, then it swings the other, rarely stopped at a balanced midpoint.   

and, yes, of course there are many honorable men who meet their responsibilities.   But I suspect that, if the only people on the planet were those who had fathers who were truly interested in being an involved father, the planet would not be overpopulated.

So, yes, it's easy to say all of the problems in the world are because men are the way that they are.   Even if that was true (and it isn't), it doesn't solve anything so why harp on it?  

 

 

[SteveMSim 275]

Over in neighboring Norway, a preschool cancelled its annual carnival a couple months ago because the girls wanted to dress as princesses and the boys as superheroes.  The school said that it does not allow gender stereotypes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/27/norwegian-preschool-drops-carnival-for-enforcing-gender-roles

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"Some day my prints will come."

[Duke87 1,070]

On 3/22/2016 at 9:51 PM, Meg said:

and, yes, of course there are many honorable men who meet their responsibilities.   But I suspect that, if the only people on the planet were those who had fathers who were truly interested in being an involved father, the planet would not be overpopulated.

And for that matter, we wouldn't have rape if not for the fact that a willingness and ability to force females to mate with you against their will is an adaptive trait from the perspective of natural selection.

As humans we're self-aware and as a society try to fight this, but not every individual goes along with it. And in the animal kingdom? Ha, there are plenty of species to whom the concept of consent is absurd and all mating occurs by one partner forcibly subduing the other.

The thing about nature is that it has a way of achieving balance through an equilibrium between opposing forces, creating perpetual conflicts that no one is supposed to ever win. Mutualistic relationships where both parties benefit without any appreciable conflict are the exception, not the rule.

[Sabretooth78 808]

10 hours ago, SteveMSim said:

Over in neighboring Norway, a preschool cancelled its annual carnival a couple months ago because the girls wanted to dress as princesses and the boys as superheroes.  The school said that it does not allow gender stereotypes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/27/norwegian-preschool-drops-carnival-for-enforcing-gender-roles

How is it a stereotype if the person wants to do it?  More politically correct (if you can even call it that) BS.  Then again it is a school, and something most of them have in common is a penchant for teaching you how to think instead of to think.

[krbe 193]

On 22/03/2016 at 2:51 AM, Meg said:

Men can have hundreds of children so they are wired to have as many kids as they can, far and wide, and some of them are bound to survive.  Women can only have a handful so they are wired to slow down so they can chose their partners wisely.

To put it another way:  the male drive to have sex far exceeds the male drive to raise the resulting children.  (btw, this is how I know "intelligent design" is a myth because that design is not intelligent.  But that's a different topic.)

A perfectly intelligent process when people tended to die a lot more than they do today. The problem is that while we've been busy eradicating diseases, we've not replaced the drive to procreate with something equally as enjoyable.

That can change very rapidly however. Studies show that electricity significantly impacts the amount of sex people have, and down the road, the amount of children. While women no longer need to work the entire 16 hour day (due to appliances), men spend their time either on entertainment or work (due to TV and lightning). And of course, it lays the groundwork for computers, heavy machinery, etc.

[Meg 368]

 

11 hours ago, Duke87 said:

And for that matter, we wouldn't have rape if not for the fact that a willingness and ability to force females to mate with you against their will is an adaptive trait from the perspective of natural selection.

 

Exactly!   One problem with this is it leads to the conclusion that men are predisposed to raping women.     Many men find this to be insulting and I can't blame them.

Over the years, societies have dealt with this in different ways.   Historically, a lot of the laws about women not being able to do X, Y, or Z stem from the belief that men can't really control themselves so they have to control the women.

Currently, many societies believe that it is up to men to control themselves, although that doesn't go as far as some would like it to.   For example, women have been taught for decades what situations to avoid to minimize their chances of being raped.   Only recently have men been told "Don't rape". 

I remember when the marital rape laws were being debating.   Some men were truly confused at the concept.   "If you can't rape your wife, you can you rape?" and "Marital sex can not be rape" were common reactions.    The general thinking was that a wife was a man's property and a man can do whatever he wants with his property.    In many societies today, women have decided they have had enough that that crap: women are human beings, not property.   On other societies they do not yet feel empowered to do so.    (btw, that was the original definition of feminism:  The radical idea that women are human beings.)

A lot of it has to do with economics.   Where I live a woman can say no and still get to eat next week.   A lot of women worldwide do not have that option.

 

11 hours ago, Duke87 said:

The thing about nature is that it has a way of achieving balance through an equilibrium between opposing forces, creating perpetual conflicts that no one is supposed to ever win. Mutualistic relationships where both parties benefit without any appreciable conflict are the exception, not the rule.

 

In general, that is true.   But I go back to the Matrix quote: 

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

It would be nice to think that we are intelligent enough and self-aware enough not be behave like a virus but evidence shows that is wishful thinking.

 

 

 

[krbe 193]

In the days of old, people died. Disease, poverty, wars. As all other mammals, humans move; but we've removed all the actions that used to keep us in check. The big problem is simply the world is not as nasty as it used to be.

[Meg 368]

4 minutes ago, krbe said:

 The big problem is simply the world is not as nasty as it used to be.

 

We have not yet adapted to what the world is now.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

At the time of the arrival of the Europeans in North America the indigenous peoples were living more or less with nature and mostly at peace.  Then this disease arrived.

[LexusInfernus 908]

4 hours ago, Meg said:

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

It would be nice to think that we are intelligent enough and self-aware enough not be behave like a virus but evidence shows that is wishful thinking.

Hardly. Just because a quote sounds nice doesn't make it true. 

In the case of human expansion, well we have done what every species has done or has tried to do. We have simply been the most successful at it. In any case, throughout the worlds history there have been plenty of species that were either so successful that they destroyed the ecological balance of their surroundings, killing them off, or who evolved into some kind of niche that turned out to be a dead end the moment circumstances changed. 

Besides, we are spending ever more on sustainable development. In a number of places, its now cheaper to produce green energy than it is to produce energy with coal, oil or gas, without it requiring tax incentives or subsidies from the government. But these things take some time.

4 hours ago, Meg said:

We have not yet adapted to what the world is now.

We do actually, or at least we are in the process of doing so. In the West, birthrates are dropping, and everywhere else they are expected to drop within the next few decades. Basically, the only places that still have high birthrates are places where some remnants of nastiness are still around. 

Besides, this takes time. We are dealing with several generations of people who are still alive and who have witnessed radically different times. 

[Meg 368]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Besides, this takes time. We are dealing with several generations of people who are still alive and who have witnessed radically different times. 

 

Good point.   When my mom was a child there were former slaves walking around.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

22 hours ago, Meg said:

 Only recently have men been told "Don't rape".

How recently? Rape has been a major crime for centuries. Chivalric and Romantic codes have been teaching men not to rape long before feminism was even a thing. Although most of these rules typically only applied to the nobility and upper class. If a nobleman or knight were to rape a peasant few would have had the power to bring such a person to justice.

 

Read this the other day which I think relates to Duke's comment. It's from Sexual Personae (I know, I can't get enough Paglia!). Just some food for thought:

"The female body’s unbearable hiddenness applies to all aspects of men’s dealings with women. What does it look like in there? Did she have an orgasm? Is it really my child? Who was my real father? Mystery shrouds woman’s sexuality. This mystery is the main reason for the imprisonment man has imposed on women. Only by confining his wife in a locked harem guarded by eunuchs could he be certain that her son was also his. Man’s genital visibility is a source of his scientific desire for external testing, validation, proof. By this method he hopes to solve the ultimate mystery story, his chthonian birth. Woman is veiled. Violent tearing of this veil may be a motive in gang-rapes and rapemurders, particularly ritualistic disembowellings of the Jack the Ripper kind. The Ripper’s public nailing up of his victim’s uterus is exactly paralleled in tribal ritual of South African Bushmen. Sex crimes are always male, never female, because such crimes are conceptualizing assaults on the unreachable omnipotence of woman and nature. Every woman’s body contains a cell of archaic night, where all knowing must stop. This is the profound meaning behind striptease, a sacred dance of pagan origins which, like prostitution, Christianity has never been able to stamp out. Erotic dancing by males cannot be comparable, for a nude woman carries off the stage a final concealment, that chthonian darkness from which we come.

Woman’s body is a secret, sacred space. It is a temenos or ritual precinct, a Greek word I adopt for the discussion of art. In the marked-off space of woman’s body, nature operates at its darkest and most mechanical. Every woman is a priestess guarding the temenos of daemonic mysteries. Virginity is categorically different for the sexes. A boy becoming a man quests for experience. The penis is like eye or hand, an extension of self reaching outward. But a girl is a sealed vessel that must be broken into by force."

"Rape is a mode of natural aggression that can be controlled only by the social contract. Modern feminism’s most naive formulation is its assertion that rape is a crime of violence but not of sex, that it is merely power masquerading as sex. But sex is power, and all power is inherently aggressive. Rape is male power fighting female power. It is no more to be excused than is murder or any other assault on another’s civil rights. Society is woman’s protection against rape, not, as some feminists absurdly maintain, the cause of rape. Rape is the sexual expression of the will-topower, which nature plants in all of us and which civilization rose to contain. Therefore the rapist is a man with too little socialization rather than too much."

"Feminism, arguing from the milder woman’s view, completely misses the blood-lust in rape, the joy of violation and destruction. An aesthetics and erotics of profanation—evil for the sake of evil, the sharpening of the senses by cruelty and torture—have been documented in Sade, Baudelaire, and Huysmans. Women may be less prone to such fantasies because they physically lack the equipment for sexual violence. They do not know the temptation of forcibly invading the sanctuary of another body.

Our knowledge of these fantasies is expanded by pornography, which is why pornography should be tolerated, though its public display may reasonably be restricted. The imagination cannot and must not be policed. Pornography shows us nature’s daemonic heart, those eternal forces at work beneath and beyond social convention. Pornography cannot be separated from art; the two interpenetrate each other, far more than humanistic criticism has admitted. Geoffrey Hartman rightly says, “Great art is always flanked by its dark sisters, blasphemy and pornography.” Hamlet itself, the cardinal western work, is full of lewdness. Criminals through history, from Nero and Caligula to Gilles de Rais and the Nazi commandants, have never needed pornography to stimulate their exquisite, gruesome inventiveness. The diabolic human mind is quite enough."

[LexusInfernus 908]

8 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

How recently? Rape has been a major crime for centuries. Chivalric and Romantic codes have been teaching men not to rape long before feminism was even a thing. Although most of these rules typically only applied to the nobility and upper class. If a nobleman or knight were to rape a peasant few would have had the power to bring such a person to justice.

So basically men weren't told not to rape, they were told, if you rape, rape a peasant. Rape someone who has less power than you, rape someone who can't tell on you. Yeah, that sounds more like society telling men to carefully pick their victims. 

Oh and if you think that just happened in the past, nope, still happens. Cops raping people they arrested or soliciting sexual favors in promise of not to turn people in. College athletes who rape drunk minors and who get all the protection from everyone. Frats who rape girls at house parties and get away with it. All of them cases of guys going after people who have less power than them, who have to fight an uphill battle in order for anyone to listen to them. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ In other words, you object to the abuse of privilege.  A laudable thought. 

The male sex drive is strongest in the post-puberty teen ager when, lacking experience and proper supervision, these children are often tempted to experiment.  Unfortunately this is often met by curiosity on the female side as well, and this can easily give rise to "accidental" pregnancies.  Our current western society has taken the sting out of this by not requiring that the pregnancy go to term and the putative father support the offspring.  Whether this is the proper moral solution is moot.  That roll in the hay with honey should always have a cost, if only some anxiety. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

So basically men weren't told not to rape, they were told, if you rape, rape a peasant. Rape someone who has less power than you, rape someone who can't tell on you. Yeah, that sounds more like society telling men to carefully pick their victims. 

Well even among peasants rape was highly frowned upon. Raping another man's wife or daughter had serious repercussions as long as you weren't a knight or nobleman who could, with money and prestige, shirk off such allegations. While this is a more patriarchal opposition to rape it still recognizes the gravity of said crime. The biggest problem was that the justice systems and courts at the time weren't set up for common people.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Oh and if you think that just happened in the past, nope, still happens.

I didn't mean to imply that, I don't think I did.

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Cops raping people they arrested or soliciting sexual favors in promise of not to turn people in. College athletes who rape drunk minors and who get all the protection from everyone. Frats who rape girls at house parties and get away with it. All of them cases of guys going after people who have less power than them, who have to fight an uphill battle in order for anyone to listen to them. 

People with power commit crimes on people with less power and they can sometimes get away with it. Happened in the past, still happens now. However people of today, no longer peasants (depending on where you live), have the means to seek justice. It doesn't always work, but victims are far more empowered than they ever were in the middle ages or even just a century ago.

The issue I have with the "teach them not to rape" mantra is the idea that people rape because they don't know it's wrong. Yes, as families and as a society we should instill moral systems like "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't rape", and to some degree that might help curb some of our more barbaric tendencies, but there will always be people who do these things either out of necessity or desire. Some people steal not because they're poor and they need to survive, but because they enjoy the thrill - they enjoy breaking the rules. Such people know what they are doing is wrong and they do it anyway. That college frat guy who sees a passed out girl knows having sex with her is rape, he just isn't thinking of the consequences. The criminal may say "I didn't know it was wrong" and in some cases they might be genuine, but most of the time it's just an excuse.

Moral principles aren't arbitrary. Most people know stealing, killing, and raping are wrong not because there are social constructs known as laws that prohibit and punish these things, but because they have empathy. We choose not to steal because we know how it would feel to have something stolen. We choose not to kill because we value life, even if it belongs to someone we hate. We choose not to rape because we know the damage it could cause another person or to oneself.

The "Don't rape" mantra puts rape prevention in only one direction. A girl who goes to drink at a frat party should have her guard up. A minor should not be drinking with college athletes at a party in the first place (a 15-16 year old can be confused for a college aged girl). That in no way excuses a rape, I'm just trying to say that responsibility has to be exercised on both ends. On one hand you need a guy with moral principles who should know how to keep his libido in check and on the other you need a girl who knows that no matter the amount of social conditioning, not all people are good and otherwise good people can make horrible mistakes.

  Edited March 24, 2016 by MilitantRadical  

[Meg 368]

@MilitantRadical  Interesting food for thought.     Rather creepy in some ways.

Here is some additional food for thought.   Guys, Here’s What It’s Actually Like To Be A Woman   (Warning for language and discussion of body parts.) 

Not saying that it's perfect but it is the best article of its kind that I have seen. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

On March 23, 2016 at 6:25 PM, SteveMSim said:

Over in neighboring Norway, a preschool cancelled its annual carnival a couple months ago because the girls wanted to dress as princesses and the boys as superheroes.  The school said that it does not allow gender stereotypes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/27/norwegian-preschool-drops-carnival-for-enforcing-gender-roles

I'm so glad I don't live in the crapsacharine hole called Scandinavia!

 

Once their natural resources run out, Scandinavia and Arabia will collapse.

[LexusInfernus 908]

6 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

I'm so glad I don't live in the crapsacharine hole called Scandinavia!

 

Once their natural resources run out, Scandinavia and Arabia will collapse.

You do realize that Scandinavia constitutes of several different countries right? And of those countries, I think only Norway has enough natural resources with value that they managed to pay for a lot of their services. Denmark doesn't have significant oil resources, nor does Sweden or Iceland. And either way, I think those countries will do just fine for the time being. 

[krbe 193]

On 3/25/2016 at 4:17 AM, OcramsRzr said:

I'm so glad I don't live in the crapsacharine hole called Scandinavia!

That 'crapsacharine' hole called Scandinavia -- while sharing common languages, much history and having had much contact with each other since around 700 AD, is not a uniform collection of countries (hardly, there are only three of them in a cultural sense).

If you care to take a closer look you'll find that Sweden is an extreme case as far as embracing feminism and multiculturalism goes; it forms the political bedrock in Sweden, to which all socially acceptable politicians and media outlets subscribe to. In Denmark, on the other hand, the public discourse eschew any form of conventionalised and internalised form of feminism and multiculturalism. In Norway one generally talks nicer to each other; while proponents of the Swedish model are easier to find in Norway, they are still a small minority, with cases such as the one reported being the exception.

Coming from Norway and living in Denmark, Sweden seems very different from the world I live in. It looks familiar, it smells familiar, I understand everything that is going on, said, written; the food is pretty much the same, the streets and cityscapes are familiar (if not a little better looking, at least city centres); but the politics, the situations that matter, the way things are talked about is totally different. Everything ranging from playgrounds and kitchen utensils to the education of children is part of the Swedish state feminism scheme.

This is not something that has happened because the Swedes differ that much from Danes or Norwegians; rather, that is just how the Scandinavian authoritarianism and the pathological need for consensus happens to have defined Sweden.

Now considering your economic argument, it is of course wholly flawed. Only Norway has a resource-based economy (reminiscent of third-world countries); while it is currently collapsing, it is not the first time Norway has had to turn its economy around -- at the age of sail Norway had the third largest merchant navy in the world, rendered worthless by the steamship. Meanwhile, both Sweden and Denmark have managed to build solid economies because they have had to: You already know HM and IKEA, the consumer giants that are joined by the Swedish technological and defence industry; and much of their stuff is likely carried by the Danish company Maersk Line and its subsidiaries, the world's largest container shipper. Your diabetes is treated by innovations by Novo Nordisk, the largest corporation in the Danish medical industry. We could of course go on and on about how oil and gas does not define Scandinavia or how the Swedish infatuation with its state feminism and multiculturalism is not in itself going to destroy the country.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 3/25/2016 at 9:18 PM, Meg said:

@MilitantRadical  Interesting food for thought.     Rather creepy in some ways.

Yeah I see the "creep" factor. There's a certain coldness.

On 3/25/2016 at 9:18 PM, Meg said:

Here is some additional food for thought.   Guys, Here’s What It’s Actually Like To Be A Woman   (Warning for language and discussion of body parts.) 

Not saying that it's perfect but it is the best article of its kind that I have seen. 

Very interesting read, but I can't help but think it's kind of neurotic and it portrays women as being very frail and paranoid. None of the women and girls I've known very well have described such strong fears to me. Physical violence is committed on men at a much higher rate than physical violence against women. A man has just as much reason to fear another man (physically, not sexually) as a woman.  Men are technically physically stronger, but even among men there is a whole range. There are many physically weak men who are just as vulnerable to attack. Their attacker might not rape them, but physical assaults can be pretty severe. This isn't to devalue the experience women who suffer from sexual violence, but the idea that fearing physical harm from a man is a predominantly female experience is wrong.

And then it says stuff like this:

"It’s hard for guys to appreciate what it would be like to grow up being stared at and sexually harassed every day of your life from age twelve onward. "

It's funny how these kind of feminist articles treat women like they're passive objects just being acted upon by the world. Not denying that women get harassed more frequently, but every day? Kinda damages the credibility of the article when they say things like this. As if girls don't themselves stare, "harass", and objectify. At twelve, the girls in my school would chase around any boy they found cute and poke and prod them. They'd whisper about us, send notes, get frisky (well maybe not exactly at that age). That kind of thing worked both ways. At clubs women grab asses and on the street they cat call. Again, I'll grant you that this behavior is less frequent, but lets not pretend that they don't play the "game" too.

I'm not saying that what they describe in the article doesn't happen at all. I've seen some of the things they're describing first hand, but everything is so generalized, as if all women experience this, they don't (at least not to the degree they're describing). And in the end the whole thing is just a very long way of saying "have empathy" which most people (men in this case) have.

Another:

"To attract women, you must be able to take their point of view and think of them not as marketing vehicles to objectify, but as living, thinking, feeling individual humans. You have to subjectify them: accept, understand, and acknowledge their individual, subjective consciousness."

Uhm, duh. Is this written for an alien, a robot, or a psychopath? Now remember: "you have to think of them as people". Oh, brilliant advice.

The whole article has a "nice guy" neuroses where it sets up the reader as a rare good guy in a sea of evil who must do his part to understand women and rescue them from the clutches of the many "nasty sociopaths" trying to hit on her. Yet in a weird way it assumes the reader doesn't have the basic empathy to understand that women are people. On second glance it kind of reads like a sociopathic nice-guy's guide to picking up women - by understanding them (shocking!). How To Pick Up Chicks, The Feminist Way.

Anyway, despite my disagreements it's always nice to get a different perspective and wouldn't have read the article if you didn't post it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There are clearly neurotic signs here.  I've always believed in the chemistry between the sexes.  Pheromones do their job if you let them.  The danger is letting them operate completely unfettered.  Both young men and young women need to understand their drives and not act upon them precipitately.  "Let the old earth take a couple of whirls" and see if there is any difference in your feelings before you act.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The quote is from the September Song, so don't wait too long.