A woman in the aftermath of Traditional Conservatism and Feminism

Author: Analgesic.Spectre

Posts

Total: 43
Topic's author
#1
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
After lifting the humiliating shackles of Traditional Conservatism, and unhinging herself from the infuriating jealousy and irrational fear of men proffered by Feminism, she finds herself in the realm of reality.

She no longer desires enslavement to the cuckold husband, because she is responsible and capable of forging a path in her life. She doesn't see herself as a goddess, unable to pay her own bills and carve her own career. She doesn't see herself infantilised and incapable of responsible action -- far from a "do nothing bitch". She's ready to embrace attraction to the alpha male -- the one she's truly attracted to. She's ready to consider sexual relationships in the honest light of exchanging resources, rather than the nebulous and deceitful "love".

She's no longer forging a career purely to spite men. She thinks about the strengths of women, instead of destroying the strengths of man. She's not afraid of being feminine, but is ready to value masculinity. She's no longer having reckless sex to spite her absent father. She's no longer perpetually victimised by the emotional lacerations Progressive dog-whistlers inflict. She's ready to forge her destiny without seething at the shadow of men. 

This is a woman in the aftermath of Traditional Conservatism and Feminism.
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Good, now how about you bow before this alpha male or shut up with your nonsense.

There is such a thing as a masculine-minded, dominant woman. They are real and while they are the minority of their gender they are not something to dislike. It's just as horrific to say that effeminate men are sinister cuckolds who their partners are enslaved to (which you just said) as to say that women should aim to be something they are not.

Stop thinking all women are built the same. There are actually dominant females, they are just the minority is all.

#3
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Are you female?
Topic's author
#4
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ethang5
Does it matter?
#5
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Does it matter?
To the owners of this forum who put that question in their profile questionnaire, yes.

But I can see you want to keep that private, so I withdraw the question. No offence meant.


#6
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
This is somewhat of a wholesome thread. 

she finds herself in the realm of reality. 

What makes you think the realm being entered is any more reality than the one being left? For example, 

She's ready to consider sexual relationships in the honest light of exchanging resources, rather than the nebulous and deceitful "love

It may be empirical to state that resources(wealth) and financial stability play huge roles in relationships. But that is not the only necessary component. If "reality" entails an abandonment of love, for purely calculated exchanges of benefit, that doesnt sound like reality at all. That more sounds like running scared from traumatic emotional consequences if such relationships go awry. 

Feminism was as you pointed out, offering the kind of emotional security that comes with groupthink opposition to, and fear of men. "It's not my fault, its the patriarchy". That is a path that offers hollow meaning. 

But instead, by your judgement it seems, Women are running from the security of an eschewing of assuming responsibility for themselves, to another form of security, in avoiding vulnerability altogether 🤔

"Ready to embrace the masculine"

Ignoring that a part of masculinity is in protection of others, yes, through aggression, but that is necessarily transposed with the capacity to be gentle with those they are protecting. This gentleness necessarily entails vulnerability, letting ones guard down. 

If the future standard is to be cold and calculating exchanges of resources for self-interest, then you are fmpov, merely removing much of the necessary component of vulnerability in romantic relationships. And if the end goal is meaningful(material and spiritual) co-existence, then such a course of action would necessarily preclude that. 

And then we will start reaping the rewards that we sow with children born of such relations, and the necessary societal failings that result thereof. 🤔 
Topic's author
#7
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ethang5
To the owners of this forum who put that question in their profile questionnaire, yes.
If men and women were equal, then why would it matter which you were? If they are not equal (a sane suggestion), what advantage would one have in stating his/her gender? 

I think if one ponders this question thoroughly, a seemingly innocuous request holds a plethora of underlying psychological bias, which is fascinating in an arena designed to be of the cognizant, rather than subconscious.

But I can see you want to keep that private, so I withdraw the question. No offence meant.
It's not necessarily that I want to keep it private, it's that it doesn't matter at all, and making it matter defeats the purpose of a debate site.

Topic's author
#8
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Buddamoose
What makes you think the realm being entered is any more reality than the one being left?
Interpretation. Believing that marriage is about "love", when it's a convoluted exchange of resources, makes a world of difference. Ramifications parallel cults.

But that is not the only necessary component. If "reality" entails an abandonment of love, for purely calculated exchanges of benefit, that doesnt sound like reality at all. That more sounds like running scared from traumatic emotional consequences if such relationships go awry. 
The issue is the notion of "love": an evanescent lust coupled with nonsensical interpretations of said lust. At its core, sexual relationships are of transactional nature (most commonly: money and security exchanged for access to a vagina). This accurately explains desertion of marriages worldwide: the moment women are no longer financially/societally required/shamed to stay with men, they leave in droves. Hence, there is no "abandonment of love" because it never existed.

Feminism was as you pointed out, offering the kind of emotional security that comes with groupthink opposition to, and fear of men. "It's not my fault, its the patriarchy". That is a path that offers hollow meaning. 

But instead, by your judgement it seems, Women are running from the security of an eschewing of assuming responsibility for themselves, to another form of security, in avoiding vulnerability altogether
Firstly, female infantilisation is something worth running from -- I hope we can agree with that.

Secondly, I have no qualms with women forming relationships, I merely think they should be conducted in an honest capacity. Rather than feigning helplessness in order to extract resources covertly (female infantilisation), women should be honest about what they find attractive (alpha males, status, money etc.) In fact, pursuing such desires is tantamount to *more* vulnerability, given that she no longer relies on the safety of a beta cuck, but pursues the hard-to-please alpha male with an abundance of options.

Ignoring that a part of masculinity is in protection of others, yes, through aggression, but that is necessarily transposed with the capacity to be gentle with those they are protecting. This gentleness necessarily entails vulnerability, letting ones guard down. 

If the future standard is to be cold and calculating exchanges of resources for self-interest, then you are fmpov, merely removing much of the necessary component of vulnerability in romantic relationships. And if the end goal is meaningful(material and spiritual) co-existence, then such a course of action would necessarily preclude that. 

And then we will start reaping the rewards that we sow with children born of such relations, and the necessary societal failings that result thereof.
Not cold, just honest. If a woman enjoys a man's capacity to protect her, then she should pursue that. If a woman doesn't enjoy a cucked, weak beta male, then she shouldn't rope him into a marriage under the pretense she's attracted to him, only to extract his resources through misandric divorce and family court ten years later.

Vulnerability, in concordance with insane interpretations of lust (i.e. "love"), is woefully unsatisfying to both men and women, and one of the major concepts I advocating against in my thread. It is entirely possible that women can be "vulnerable" in their attraction to protection, without the fantasy of love.
#9
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
If men and women were equal, then why would it matter which you were?
Because men and women have equal value, but are not the same.

If they are not equal (a sane suggestion), what advantage would one have in stating his/her gender? 
If you feel you have no advantage, just don't. Methinks thou forth protest too much.

I think if one ponders this question thoroughly, a seemingly innocuous request holds a plethora of underlying psychological bias, which is fascinating in an arena designed to be of the cognizant, rather than subconscious.
I think you mean, "a seemingly innocuous request CAN hold...." Your thoughts and reality are different things.

It's not necessarily that I want to keep it private, it's that it doesn't matter at all,....
Then I am very lucky that you decided that for me. The question has been withdrawn, what exactly is your issue now?

and making it matter defeats the purpose of a debate site.
If this is true, then your entire OP is nonsense.
Topic's author
#10
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ethang5
Because men and women have equal value, but are not the same.
How did you reach this conclusion?

If you feel you have no advantage, just don't. Methinks thou forth protest too much.
What exactly are you suggesting?

I think you mean, "a seemingly innocuous request CAN hold...." Your thoughts and reality are different things.
My comment needs no correction. Thoughts are born of a reality, not Tabula Rasa.

If this is true, then your entire OP is nonsense.
Not quite. There is a vital distinction.

It doesn't matter in the sense of the writer (i.e. a woman/man writing 1+1=2 is always correct, regardless of gender).

It does matter when considering gender and its place in society.

#11
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Because men and women have equal value, but are not the same.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Sorry. Ethan never plays obtuse games. There is too little time in life for such games.

If you feel you have no advantage, just don't. Methinks thou forth protest too much.

What exactly are you suggesting?

Do or don't. Pontification is not necessary.

I think you mean, "a seemingly innocuous request CAN hold...." Your thoughts and reality are different things.

My comment needs no correction.

Sorry. I assumed you preferred your comments to be true. That was rash of me.

Thoughts are born of a reality, not Tabula Rasa.

And still thoughts remain different from reality.

If this is true, then your entire OP is nonsense.

Not quite. There is a vital distinction.

It doesn't matter in the sense of the writer (i.e. a woman/man writing 1+1=2 is always correct, regardless of gender).

It does matter when considering gender and its place in society.

...and making [gender] matter defeats the purpose of a debate site.

If it is true that making [gender] matter defeats the purpose of a debate site , then your entire OP is nonsense, for you made gender matter.

Forgave me but I have a distaste for doublespeak.
Topic's author
#12
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@ethang5
This post is as silly as the average Smithereen's comment.
#13
Zeichen
Zeichen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 186
0
1
6
Zeichen's avatar
Zeichen
0
1
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
After lifting the humiliating shackles of Traditional Conservatism, and unhinging herself from the infuriating jealousy and irrational fear of men proffered by Feminism, she finds herself in the realm of reality. 

She no longer desires enslavement to the cuckold husband, because she is responsible and capable of forging a path in her life. She doesn't see herself as a goddess, unable to pay her own bills and carve her own career. She doesn't see herself infantilised and incapable of responsible action -- far from a "do nothing bitch". She's ready to embrace attraction to the alpha male -- the one she's truly attracted to. She's ready to consider sexual relationships in the honest light of exchanging resources, rather than the nebulous and deceitful "love".

She's no longer forging a career purely to spite men. She thinks about the strengths of women, instead of destroying the strengths of man. She's not afraid of being feminine, but is ready to value masculinity. She's no longer having reckless sex to spite her absent father. She's no longer perpetually victimised by the emotional lacerations Progressive dog-whistlers inflict. She's ready to forge her destiny without seething at the shadow of men. 

This is a woman in the aftermath of Traditional Conservatism and Feminism.
You clearly have a very poor grasp on reality. Although, neither me nor any other commenters in this thread should be surprised. All you have done upon joining this website is throw wildly inaccurate claims around -- claims which have clearly been formed as a result of acute mental illness on your part. To phrase it bluntly, you are little more than a demented troll.

To that extent, I pity you.
Topic's author
#14
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Zeichen
You clearly have a very poor grasp on reality. Although, neither me nor any other commenters in this thread should be surprised. All you have done upon joining this website is throw wildly inaccurate claims around -- claims which have clearly been formed as a result of acute mental illness on your part. To phrase it bluntly, you are little more than a demented troll.

To that extent, I pity you.
Your moderately veiled trolling fools no one, troll.

#15
Zeichen
Zeichen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 186
0
1
6
Zeichen's avatar
Zeichen
0
1
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Your moderately veiled trolling fools no one, troll.
This is most unimpressive.

#16
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
This post is as silly as the average Smithereen's comment.
Then you should be ashamed at not being able to address it. You should have learned by now that stupidity is not a good debate tool.

But as it isn't yet illegal, knock yourself out.

#17
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Women have the most amazing ability to give birth to a child. A woman who doesn't want to raise up a family isn't appreciating the gift she has been given. The gift of womanhood.

Humiliating shackles of conservative traditionalism? Sounds like self centered petulance to me.




#18
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Are you a woman?
#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond
You are asking that question because you think "traditional conservatism" is somehow male domineering.
The bible says that husbands should love their wives like Christ loved the church. That means with truth, mercy, and self sacrifice.
You could argue that "traditional conservativism" is shackling and oppressive for men too, but I would say a stable family is preferable to having all these orphans running around who don't have the advantage of a good healthy family life.




#20
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
You are in no position to yell me what I think, in fact I doubt you could tell you what you think and I don't appreciate your preaching, but in relation to my question are you answering that you don't know?
#21
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond
I can't tell you what to think, certainly, but I can tell you that sexual immorality and loose attitudes towards sex have obvious effects on society.

The problem posed in the OP is only relevent to fornicators, it is a nonexistent problem to those who have healthy attitudes towards sex.

Whether I am male or female has no elationship to whether or not I am telling you the truth. If a rock could speak to you and say something that was true, would you discredit the truth of what the rock said because it didn't come from a source you like?

You are clearly asking me whether or not I am a woman out of sexism. It's irrelevant.

#22
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Read what I wrote and try again. When your first seven words are what I wrote being misconstrued you need to do better.
#23
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond
I am not yelling at you, I am typing at you.

Clearly. 

And if we were in the same room, face to face, I would not be yelling at you. I do not yell at people.

But I will confess to one error. I was responding to your post as if this was the topic about "yes meaning yes" and consensual sex.

And if you think I would intentionally misconstrue what you are saying, I would ask you to show me a bit more charity than that.






87 days later

Topic's author
#24
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Mopac
Women have the most amazing ability to give birth to a child. A woman who doesn't want to raise up a family isn't appreciating the gift she has been given. The gift of womanhood.
You are conflating child-rearing with Traditional Convervatism. The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.


Humiliating shackles of conservative traditionalism? Sounds like self centered petulance to me.
Tone-policing is not an argument.
#25
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
"humiliating shackles of conservative traditionalism" is not an argument either.
Opinion for opinion.

#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I don't think that traditional marriage is any more humiliating for the woman as it is for the man. 

But it isn't possible for the humble to be humiliated.

Topic's author
#27
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Mopac
"humiliating shackles of conservative traditionalism" is not an argument either.
Opinion for opinion.
So, you intentionally posted an unfounded opinion. Thanks for keeping the standards of the site high.

Anyway, the piece was more poetic than anything else.

Besides, I think the economic (not allowed jobs) and cultural (shamed into marriage) oppression of women is sufficient grounds for humiliation. In England not too long ago, women weren't charged for any crimes they committed, as the husband took full responsibility for her crimes. She was forced to produce babies and look after them -- there are the shackles.


Topic's author
#28
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Mopac
I don't think that traditional marriage is any more humiliating for the woman as it is for the man. 
More useless, unsupported opinion.

#29
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
You know, if you are going to get on me for something, you shouldn't be doing it yourself.

Congratulations on being a post man hating woman. My married life is very fine, and we are Orthodox. That's about as traditional as you can get. 

Sorry to hear that you find our relationship humiliating.

Meanie...



#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Opinion for opinion.
So, you intentionally posted an unfounded opinion.

So did you genius.

The difference is that mo admitted his was opinion. You either think your opinion is fact, or cannot distinguish your opinion from fact. Eitherv way, you are confused.