- 19 Oct 2016 02:42
#14727644
And I will reiterate this point for the last time. I'm a traditionalist, yet I do support true equality because it will achieve traditional way anyways. It will also expose the unrealistic idealism of feminism. (Hence why women and feminist in practice do not actually aspire to true equality in liberal sense of the word. But only use this philosophy as means to achieve their ends. Which in practice seems to empower women at expense of men.)
This leads me to a good point. This is also a power struggle at the core of it. Women are seeking empowerment. But they can only gain this power at expense of men. So this is also human nature, if you don't have power over women they will seek power over you then.
The big irony though even big dady state is run and build by men. This whole feminism is bond to run on the rocks sooner or later, it's just matter of time. Hopefully sooner rather then later, I want to get married someday.
Saeko wrote:I did give you an actual reason for divorcing someone outside of the "traditional faults", i.e., falling out of love with your spouse. But maybe basic reading comprehension isn't really Albert's """thang""".Oh look at you...... I asked you what could be the reason why would you fall out of this "love" you speak off. What could be the cause? We are back full circle. You could not answer me, and I'm not surprised. And you won't be able to answer me cause you do not have ability to do so. Which proves my general point.
Even if that's true, it means women shouldn't be allowed to vote... why?We are discussing more then just voting now and this question is out of context with regards to what I wrote.
And I will reiterate this point for the last time. I'm a traditionalist, yet I do support true equality because it will achieve traditional way anyways. It will also expose the unrealistic idealism of feminism. (Hence why women and feminist in practice do not actually aspire to true equality in liberal sense of the word. But only use this philosophy as means to achieve their ends. Which in practice seems to empower women at expense of men.)
Uh no. That's not how evolution works. First of all, nature doesn't give two shits about "balance" between the sexes. All it cares about is relative reproductive fitness. Human females are the way they are mostly because human infants require lots of care for a long time. This is not the default in nature, nor is it some kind of universal reproductive solution. The situation is very different for other species.This is difficult to understand what you mean here exactly. But nature is interested in balance. And once we mess with it, it will bring forth natural means to restore it.
You could very well argue that we should abolish agriculture because it reduces the need for hunting, hence destroying the traditional hunter-gatherer social structure. That's idiotic, and so is your justification for traditional marriage.Agricultural revolution did not fundamentally change social structure and family structure. Industrial revolution also did not change that, even though material progress made many to believe so. Right now we are in an era where we are trying to take "evolution" into our own hands. It won't work, people like that are basically trying to play god, it's doomed to failure. Sure we need to adjust, but not play god and social engineer. I think there is a clear visible line between the two if you are not cough up in idealistic thinking.
Even if that's true, that in no way means that it was a bad idea or that things should go back to the way they were. Gasoline engines are not long-term sustainable, yet they were a good idea, and no one argues that we should go back to the horse and buggy. Again, that's just fucking stupid. And when we run out of gasoline, we shouldn't go back to horse and buggy either, we should find alternative sources of energy instead.Again gasoline did not get rid of family values. Or an airplane did not get rid of social hierarchy; we still have the captain who commands the pilots and the crew of the airplane. So similarly industrial revolution did not change humanities basic social structure.
What's wrong with that?Oh of coarse you won't see anything wrong with that. It seems to gives women basically no responsibility of motherhood yet being a mother, and now she can go play with boys. It definitely feels empowering. In the end its just illusion and causes suffering.
This leads me to a good point. This is also a power struggle at the core of it. Women are seeking empowerment. But they can only gain this power at expense of men. So this is also human nature, if you don't have power over women they will seek power over you then.
The big irony though even big dady state is run and build by men. This whole feminism is bond to run on the rocks sooner or later, it's just matter of time. Hopefully sooner rather then later, I want to get married someday.
Me, well I used to be known as Plaro....