Ryan, I hope you agree that the coherency of a message board discussion becomes very impaired when you fail to quote and respond to the last post and address the points directly. You settled for an indirect response, one which I found to be very evasive and condescending.
Ryan R wrote:Cory,
You have never raised a child so you are not an expert on the matter.
How does this comment logically follow from the premise of our discussion? In my opinion, it doesn't.
What we are debating here is this:
Ryan: Actually, the hardcore pornstar’s biology seems to be at a higher order than the conservative woman. A Mother’s genes are inferior in every way, she is designed to sacrifice her freedom for the sake of the offspring. So I’m considering the possibility of whether or not future women will be more like men sexually, and just engage in the act for leisure and nothing more.
Cory: I don't think this is very useful. These two types serve totally different functions, and I don't see how one is more valuable than the other. In fact, I'd say that an intellectual woman who is capable of raising a child interested in wisdom or truth, is of more value than a porn star who I doubt can raise a very conscious kids, due to her very unconscious hedonistic lifestyle.
So how much sense does it make for you to accuse me of trying to come off as the expert on raising children? Is it an unconscious tactic of yours, employed to aid you in your desired retreat away from the initial debate?
You seem to think that suffering on a matter of principle for the sake of the children is somehow a noble and virtuous act.
I'm saying that it requires more consciousness and masculinity to be a relatively good mother or father, than it does to be a porn star.
In fact, consciousness is generally characterized as an awareness of that which is (at least initially) painful or stressful to acknowledge. Unconsciousness is characterized as an escape into pleasure and fantasy.
However, you are so preoccupied with particular moments of your own childhood that this is why you are so fanatical about the ‘right’ way to parent children.
First of all, it does require a lot of single mindedness, passion and suffering for a young adult to spend some time analyzing and determining the flaws of his parents and the negative influences in childhood. Not many people dishonor their parents to the degree I have. Probably because it's easier on the head not to.
Second, my last post made no mention of 'the right' way to parent - so your comment above is really a non-sequitur. It's a crude, desperate, pseudo psychological assessment, perhaps its purpose being to distract from my points in the last post, and instead focus on what you would like to present as my personal character flaws, or at least your fancy of such.
Being a mother is an irrational act as far as freedom is concerned.
Again, you're just blurting opinions, not taking any care to make sure that they follow from the premises of the discussion.
Radical feminists have written many books on the subject. This is why very educated, intellectual people do not have children in the first place because it is too much of a sacrifice. Many female professors have no children, what does this tell you?
It tells me that they have found meaning in their life by teaching large classes of young people, which is a form of sacrifice/parenting.
It's either they make the sacrifices to raise a small baby into an adult, or they raise a bunch of young adults into higher consciousness. They can't have both, and since so many other uneducated women are having their own babies, it makes more sense to not have a baby, and instead serve as second mothers, upbringing the daughters and sons of other mothers into higher consciousness, through universities, schools, etc.
Of course, many female professors aren't necessarily a great influence, but the point is that no matter what, life is a sacrifice for the sake of serving others. You can try to escape from this fact, but it only leads to degrading, pathetic, laughable results.
If women are to be totally and unconditionally free, they will not be mothers. Do you know the misery and annoyance that is involved in raising a child from infancy to teenage years?
Do you realize how ridiculous this lecture your giving me is? You put forth the argument that we should encourage the ideal of evolving women into beautiful hyper sexual women, since, as you fancy, such women are genetically superior. I'm putting forth the counter-argument that such beautiful women are less conscious than women who didn't coast through life on their beauty, fixated on their reflection in the mirror.
That's all I'm saying.
Children will need to be raised by robots, and yes I remember that you told me about that documentary, but it wasn't the first time I was exposed to the idea. You act as if you are my only source of wisdom.
No, I'm acting like someone who sees how ridiculous it is for you to lecture me about how robots are going to be involved in the upbringing of children, when I mentioned the idea to you last week.
Mothers will be put out of a job by technology, and this will help to masculinize their minds in the long run.
The problem might be that you have confused or utterly false notions of what a masculinized mind is. Is it possible that you've taken your current hyper-sexual neurological configuration, and have made it the masculine ideal, believing that it's impossible for a human being to be any better than you are? Thus, the best future you can imagine for humanity, is one where the women have all become voluptuous hyper sexual sex machines.
I can't think of anything more feminine than what you're suggesting.
To be smugly self satisfied inwardly, unwilling to change, and from there, to dream of manipulating the outer environment to be more pleasurable to your ego.
This is precisely the nature of your idealizing. It's feminine.
It's the opposite of masculinity, which is to, out of dissatisfaction with the inner state, change this inner state, in order that it can regard the outer environment without being tugged by primitive impulses, and thus face the outer with impartiality.
If we have control over nature to the degree where we can evolve females into beautiful sex slaves, wouldn't it be more practical to just evolve out of our lowly-primitive lust? Why take that animal baggage with us?