GENIUS FORUMS

Cory wrote:But Nick, why didn't they address the hole in the ozone layer? What's your take on that?

That thing! Mt Erebus was always my chief suspect in that. It doesn't seem to be the problem it once was anyhow.

Mt Erebus - kind of interesting. Was unconvinced by the first half of the article, but by the end of the article I'd have to agree (if the stats quoted are more accurate than not).

http://www.predictweather.com/ozone%20d ... /index.asp

Aha! Just a few miles upwind from the Antarctic camp where all the readings about ozone-depletion originate from, is a rather large hill called Mt Erebus. Mt Erebus is an active volcano, which first erupted in 1982 (coincidentally about when the bigger hole was discovered). Mt Erebus spews out over 1,000 tons of active chlorine every day. Go there and look - it is puffing away all the time. This chlorine, far from being as cold as CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade.

It is a little tidbit of science that esteemed experts seem to have overlooked. Moreover, Erebus is not the only active volcano in the world. There are hundreds, thousands, throwing chlorine upwards every second. We can't cap all the volcanoes.

Interesting stuff about big picture planetary relationships about Global Warming on that site as well. That the author says stuff like "Around 549AD it appears a fireball may have swept through much of Europe, melting the facias of some castles" bothers me somewhat though. Not sure this person is quoting reputable facts or putting them together properly, but he is saying stuff I haven't come across before.

If there was a huge climatic event in 549AD in Europe, it would've showed up in such a dramatic way in the dendochronology that the issue would have gotten a lot more coverage.

But its not hard to argue that Western women have not been dumber than men... in previous generations. But now, women get more degrees, more advanced degrees, and young women, 21-30 years, make more money than young men. Anyone who's been to a rave and seen the way young males behave has to be worried.

The few young women I know report that its now the fairies who know how to act like gentlemen. I guess its to be expected of a generation of boys, [I'd not call them men] who were raised with a game controller or TV remote in their hands. They just dont know anything that the young women care about. Fairies, at least, tend also to have an artistic sensibility- in music, theater, art, that young women find of some interest.

The real question is where we are going from here, and its not back to the good old days. Gibbon noted how the morals must be maintained to maintain a republic, and that every effort to restore them once lost... has failed. History suggests that when an empire is run by an autocrat, he will see the limits to his power, and stop expanding; but republics tend to get on a roll and dont stop, but then either become tyrannies that slows the expansion and focuses on better control, or otherwise the whole system just disintegrates back to some lower order, where the men of sense move to where the local cost of management is lower, and leave the rest to anarchy and barbarism.

Its harder to draw the lesson in the case of the USA because of the empowerment of women, the like of which has not been seen in 5000 years. Sometimes you havta look at what they didnt find, but should have. The sheer number of documents found in the Silk Road towns written in a feminine hand, and all the personal letters, suggests that whatever the official form of government was, women ran the day to day affairs of business. The men were busy doing the leg work on the caravans. And the thing that seems to be missing is histories. Its all business and private correspondence or clerical documents and scripture. Course, the superior fine muscle control of the feminine hand may be the result of dictation by men, and we know that paper was a much more valuable commodity that required craftswomanship.

But this system of a peer to peer network of trading towns goes back before the domestication of the horse, and is seen in SE Europe over 7000 years ago, where we have the first examples of writing. There's been a lotta worry posted on the net of a tyranny imposed by Bush. And while that's certainly in character for the Neocons, I think their day has passed, and one clue is the CIA report on Iran that just came out, which yet again reveals Bush to be a fool. As if we needed any more evidence.

And before patriarchy can again arise to challenge feminism, it'll havta figure out how to spin the disasters of the Bush administration, the most macho outfit this nation has had in a damn long time. Its real easy to rant about feminism, but that's not going to get anywhere without some positive policy alternatives and real male leadership rather than just more Christian fundy demagoguery. Show me the money. Its the women who make more of it now.

Dan,

Actually, no,technically it's not mine; I just post here like everyone else.

And yet you have admin powers, unlike everyone else.

daybrown,

Show me the money. Its the women who make more of it now.

This has caused a real problem in my neck of the woods. Us women are quite wealthy, but most do not want to hook up with an uneducated man who steals money from them. As a result, the few men who have education, charm and money get to have about five women each. So as a result of our wealth and superior intelligence, we have to share our men.

Not me, though. I ain't sharing a man; I'd rather not have one.

-

...

The question about why such intense reaction against 'feminism' and why it seems to border on real anger and even rage, seems a very good one, Shahrazad. It seems to me a social phenomenon that could be studied fruitfully, since it hinges into and includes so many different issues. It also seems to me, so far, that the ones who most experience this anger or dissatisfaction are the ones least capable (and interested) in looking into it. That strange dude with the really weird head-gear who was the subject of a podcast seems a case in point (Rich...) My impression was that he was captured by his anger, that it controlled him, and while some of what he said may have been 'true', the purpose of his mission was to attract adherants who main purpose was merely to share their anger, to experience the feeling of solidarity.

I think one of the reasons for this sort of anger and this sort of site is a genuine reaction against not so much against women but against a social order that is emerging, that is actually moving toward a sort of peak evolution. Since the early 1900s US culture has been increasingly mediated by the corporation. (See POCLAD for a wide-ranginf critical perspective). It is modern corporations that produce culture, sift it and present it. A whole culture has arisen in which a huge mass of people work for these sorts of entities, and in that sense they are subjects, a quantity of individuals who are molded for various purposes, but principally to serve. The role they have is essentially 'feminine' as femininity was once defined. It is a quintessential service position, and in this men and women are treated more or less the same, in that enviroment they are equal.

It seems to me that what had been a traditional definition of 'a man'---what a man is, what a man does, what the value of a man is and should be---has certainly been shifting, especially in the US (I can't speak for Europe since it's been a long time since I was there). Obviously, a big part of the feminist movement, if you read the early writings, was quite genuine, there is almost no way to deny this. If you consider the situation of women in the 40s and 50s and what some writers (like Freidan and Stein) were actually writing against, it all makes good sense. But all that was also part of a whole social movement, with links to Civil Rights and to other regenerative, reforming movements. For good or for bad, it is hard to really say, the general thrust of the 60s movements was soundly defeated and transformed into trends that could be harnassed by business culture. And one of the main movements that had been 'coopted' in an acceptable way was the feminism movement, which was acceptable to many more main-stream feminists because it represented access. In that sense mainstream feminism cooperated with business culture (speaking very generally).

One thing is that business culture does not really have a place for traditional men. This is a very problematic arena, of course, this idea of men's nature. It really requires investigation to understand what it has been, and what it has become. While it is true that an unruly aspect of man---the sort of man who as you say 'steals' from women---was necessarily resisted, I think there is also another aspect of man that is simply no longer needed or wanted. I think that what the men on this forum (Genius) seem to be lamenting is a loss of contact with some original part of man's nature. They recognize, instinctively, that society is governed by a 'woman's culture', and to that culture and its demands they are asked to make sacrifice. You either get with the program or you don't get to play in the game. But my principal observation, totally unsubstantiated, is that men are asked more and more to 'become women' in the sense that the roles establsihed for them are service roles. You do not question, you do not deviate, you don't even necessarily add any of your own creativity, you merely serve. Oddly enough, women have a certain advantage at this part of the game, for many different reasons.

...

Cory Duchesne wrote:But Nick, why didn't they address the hole in the ozone layer? What's your take on that?

Probably because it has nothing to do with Global Warming. As for the hole itself, I haven't really looked deep enough into the subject to offer an informed opinion on it.

Dan Rowden wrote:The anti-socialism stuff is another problem for me.

Dan, I don't know how true it is in Australia, but in the US feminism has strong ties with socialism. Early feminism was heavily informed by Marxism (although that seems less true today as feminism has become more mainstream).

DHodges wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:The anti-socialism stuff is another problem for me.

Dan, I don't know how true it is in Australia, but in the US feminism has strong ties with socialism. Early feminism was heavily informed by Marxism (although that seems less true today as feminism has become more mainstream).

Socialism means more government control and higher taxes, something I am completely against. What are taxes other than an involuntary donation to what the state deems apporpriate? Wait, did I just said involuntary donation? I meant to say getting robbed! Socialism fails every time.

Nick Treklis wrote:Socialism means more government control

Ignoring the tax issue for the moment, that is what I am saying about feminism - in general it has focused on solutions that are based on mandates from the government - forcing corporations to provide child care, anti-discrimination laws, laws regarding divorce and child support, and so on. (A lot of this went well beyond equal rights.)

There is another side of feminism that focuses on empowerment of the individual, for women to take control of their own lives, by their own means, not through begging or through force of government, not at the expense of someone else; becoming independant and self-sufficient. That is good for everyone, and promotes true equality rather than mandated special rights.

For historical reasons, it is now misleading to refer to this second approach as "feminism," because it is outside of the mainstream of what is now known as feminism (i.e., promoting the perceived interests of women, as a special interest group).

Shahrazad wrote:daybrown,

Show me the money. Its the women who make more of it now.

This has caused a real problem in my neck of the woods. Us women are quite wealthy, but most do not want to hook up with an uneducated man who steals money from them. As a result, the few men who have education, charm and money get to have about five women each. So as a result of our wealth and superior intelligence, we have to share our men.
Not me, though. I ain't sharing a man; I'd rather not have one.
-

Polite discourse, especially on hot topics, is appreciated. Monogamy has always been fine in theory. I never had a problem being faithful to a wife, but because women are more social, they kept bringing other women home, or bringing me over there. But why would I, a normal hominid male, want to spend time with females I'm never going to fuck?

The hominids are not a mass herd species, but evolved in small, relatively isolated gene pools. This created racial diversity, but it also created an instinct for diversity in small tribal groups manifest as sex outside of marriage. Hillbilly women never wanted to bear all their kids by the same sperm donor; they were too inbred the way it was.

Another problem that's emerged is that because the practice of marriage was so poor, a lot of charming philanderers have left their DNA all over the county, and since birth control, they've vastly outproduced the honorable men- many of whom are now out of the gene pool by staying faithful to wives who bore them no sons. So, there are plenty of good looking charming men around. But as you imply, not that honest.

i remember last spring on CNN an interview with a set of about 30 young Mormon men, in court trying to get re-instated in their polygamist cult. I can see why their fathers wanted to get rid of them. Seated on the bleachers behind the interviewer, not a lard butt in the bunch. The visual contrast alone with what is being produced by monogamy is remarkable, but also each of the young men was well spoken and polite. No piercings, no tattoos, no baggy pants, and no weird hair. Is this a problem, or an opportunity?

CNN also did a piece on smart career women, dissatisfied with the local Y chromosome characteristics, going to Fertility clinics. I gather artificial insemination costs 300$; money well spent. Whatever the relationship with a sperm donor will be, its the kids that the women are going to have in the rest of their lives. Because sex appeal was not an issue, they looked at the biographies for sperm lines that had signs of intuition, social responsibility, charisma, smarts, & affection; and so far, seem to have been successful, and now have positive relationships with their kids.

So these two sets of women will be providing mates for future generations of women. Its too bad that this was not realized what would come of birth control a generation ago, that has now, as you see, resulted in a shortage of honorable men. The young women I know are building relationships with each other. First. And as regards the corporatism mentioned in this thread, they are working on their own entrepreneurial coop, trying to come up with a business plan. After they have that going, then they'll see what sort of men they want to help support their operations. But when the time comes, I'd expect the younger women to use fertility clinics. The kind of well educated responsible men you refer to are all too old to bother trying to build a mated relationship with. But as grandfathers, useful as mentors.

The kids wont care if they dont look sexy. We have been here before; in the original Aryan language, the word for 'grandfather' actually turned out to mean the mother's brother. Women lived in communal houses sharing the childcare. The Chalcolithic digs left us many couple figures, but they are all sexually ambiguous, or both female. Because females have always been traded, stolen, kidnapped, etc, they have always found themselves in new harems, and needed the emotional flexibility to adapt to new customs. A skill they use now in the corporate culture.

The women I personally know struggle to design their own cultural values; but amid the changes is the fact that they all see that monogamy is history. They are all, both young and older, aware of how frail men get as they age, and the stress older women have dealing with their older husbands. It'd be morally irresponsible for me, at age 68, to build a relationship because demographically, I have too few years left for it to be worth it. I've even estranged myself from kids because it is their mother that needs their emotional support.

Not me. The hominid males have always been expelled by the alpha male from the group to get on in the bush as best he can alone. Those of us who could not handle that died without living long enuf to become alpha and sire progeny. The irony is, that marriage as we've known it was the invention of the alpha males, who had no intention at all of being monogamous, but wanted it to prevent his warriors from fighting with each other over women. Meanwhile, each alpha has a harem. Women want a dominant alpha mate for the material perks he can offer, but are delusional in thinking he'd be faithful.

The corporate culture is delusional in this also. Focused on the profits of the nuclear family model, while at the same time its own cultural demands destroys nuclear families.

...

DHodges wrote:

Dan, I don't know how true it is in Australia, but in the US feminism has strong ties with socialism. Early feminism was heavily informed by Marxism (although that seems less true today as feminism has become more mainstream).

Informed is a good word here. I remember sitting in on group discussions on feminism in its earlier days (mid-1970s) and hearing profound disgreement about whether marxism or socialism could even coexist with feminism, let alone be a social vehicle for its advancement. The prevailing view seemed to be that a feminist-marxist was likely to be scizophrenic in the long run. I had no view myself, I was there to learn - and probably pick up coeds, to be honest - but I understand this perspective. It is less intimidating to reject socialism and find yourself politically for women's issues, IMO. If yielding power and resources (control over spending of wealth) is required of men if feminist interests are to advance, it's more comforting for that to occur in a social setting with which we (men) are familiar. Otherwise, the individual (myself) isn't so sure who is getting what he is relinquishing. In other words, I don't want equality of the sexes to be achieved by making life for men worse alone.
The opposing view held that equal pay for equal work, for example, could never happen in a non-socialist society. And to be fair, so far it hasn't. Marxist thinking is not dead as this generation builds its version of the world.
A lot of persuasion has to do with presentation. I remember reading Sisterhood is Powerful and thinking Feminism is doomed.

The last thing the state wants is self reliant, empowered, independantly capable individuals organising and living on their own terms, independent of state. Dependency is the backbone of the sates power and capacity to control. It cannot exist without it.

I just don't see this as true when I look around. If "living on their own terms" means disregarding laws, maybe. The state doesn't want or need reponsibilities it cannot pay for. The state is not an entity that exists apart from people. It is how people organize to provide group services that everyone in a geographically-defined place share.

daybrown wrote:why would I, a normal hominid male, want to spend time with females I'm never going to fuck?

I had some respect for you, but now you have some explaining to do.

Polite discourse, especially on hot topics, is appreciated. Monogamy has always been fine in theory. I never had a problem being faithful to a wife, but because women are more social, they kept bringing other women home, or bringing me over there. But why would I, a normal hominid male, want to spend time with females I'm never going to fuck?

"They"?
Holy shit, daybrown.
I happen to like female comapny. The best way to have female company is to keep it in your pants. Didn't you know that? If you have no ulterior motives, you can enjoy things. If you are attached to one specific female, stay that way. Be monogamous. That way you can talk to as many women as you want and no one cares. If you're not attached, get attached. If you don't want to be attached, fine. But if you are always thinking in terms of whether or not you are going to get to nail a broad, people start to notice that. Smart women will tend to avoid you. In fact, the ones that don't are almost not smart by definition.
You keep talking about women in this society, but you don't really like women, do you? I think you are afraid of women.

Daybrown wrote:

why would I, a normal hominid male, want to spend time with females I'm never going to fuck?

Then Elizabeth wrote:

I had some respect for you, but now you have some explaining to do.

You’re missing the point. Daybrown has unintentionally pointed to a universal truth – Basically, the majority of men are only drawn to women because of the involuntary sexual attraction they feel towards them, take that away, and there is no reason for men to go anywhere near women.

And if men are not permitted to relieve the sexual desire they feel towards her, then staying in relationship with her is just a torture anyway.

Sexual desire for men is like an uncomfortable hunger. When the body is high in testosterone, every woman is a potential partner. When the body is low in testosterone, no woman is a potential partner.

Women say that men are the most honest after orgasm, that’s true. Little do they know, their honesty is the result of no longer desiring women, the lack of desire and sexual discomfort allows men to think more clearly and answer questions more truthfully.

You’re missing the point. Daybrown has unintentionally pointed to a universal truth – Basically, the majority of men are only drawn to women because of the involuntary sexual attraction they feel towards them, take that away, and there is no reason for men to go anywhere near women.

She's not missing the point! There are tons of reasons men can have for wanting to be around women. I feel sorry for any one who thinks it's a universal truth that men have only one reason to go anywhere near women. Sexual attraction does not always have to be involuntary. It's retarded to downplay companionship, friendship, love, teamwork, family relations, and all the other possible flavors of relations between a man and a woman.

Brokenhead wrote:

She's not missing the point! There are tons of reasons men can have for wanting to be around women. I feel sorry for any one who thinks it's a universal truth that men have only one reason to go anywhere near women. Sexual attraction does not always have to be involuntary. It's retarded to downplay companionship, friendship, love, teamwork, family relations, and all the other possible flavors of relations between a man and a woman.

Yes, but all these reasons are preceded by the number one reason why men pursue women at all, reproduction. It all comes down to an involuntary biological urge that men have no control over.

For instance: if we were asexual beings, and able to reproduce without each other, there would be no reason for love, family, teamwork or all the rest of it.

People basically partner up because they are afraid of being alone, afraid of being judged poorly by others, and afraid of not reproducing and having a secure source of sexual security and comfort.

To address these fears is to address the reason why we are here - to step up to the challenge of existence, and see if we are strong enough not to fall victim to our deepest unconsciousness urges and desires.

brokenhead wrote:It's retarded to downplay companionship, friendship, love, teamwork, family relations, and all the other possible flavors of relations between a man and a woman.

Why would one need any of these things - other than to perhaps achieve some practical goal?

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:It's retarded to downplay companionship, friendship, love, teamwork, family relations, and all the other possible flavors of relations between a man and a woman.

Why would one need any of these things - other than to perhaps achieve some practical goal?

Because they make life richer. More pleasant. Isn't that practical enough? Why do men need other men? You don't "need" the things I listed in the sense that you need air, water, and food. But are you seriously suggesting you'd just as soon live without any of them?

Do you derive no joy from any of these things? Suppose you did have a practical goal. Suppose you were a member of a team in your employment that consisted of both sexes. Would you deliberately not enjoy working with the females because you didn't "need" to? And allow yourself to enjoy working with the men because you don't feel physically attracted to them? I'm trying to pin this down because I think you are doing yourself a tremendous disservice if you answered yes to the last two questions.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Brokenhead wrote:

She's not missing the point! There are tons of reasons men can have for wanting to be around women. I feel sorry for any one who thinks it's a universal truth that men have only one reason to go anywhere near women. Sexual attraction does not always have to be involuntary. It's retarded to downplay companionship, friendship, love, teamwork, family relations, and all the other possible flavors of relations between a man and a woman.

Yes, but all these reasons are preceded by the number one reason why men pursue women at all, reproduction. It all comes down to an involuntary biological urge that men have no control over.

For instance: if we were asexual beings, and able to reproduce without each other, there would be no reason for love, family, teamwork or all the rest of it.


People basically partner up because they are afraid of being alone, afraid of being judged poorly by others, and afraid of not reproducing and having a secure source of sexual security and comfort.

To address these fears is to address the reason why we are here - to step up to the challenge of existence, and see if we are strong enough not to fall victim to our deepest unconsciousness urges and desires.

You are the one who is missing the point.

What do you mean by "preceded"? Preceded in time? How?

You are misunderstanding your own biological nature.

If we were able to reproduce without each other - which we are not - there would be no need for love, family, teamwork, and the rest of it? I picture you waving your hand dismissively at "the rest of it." The rest of what? Humanity?

You can't possibly mean this. Do you know what a friend is? I don't need my friends, so why do I have them? Because I can't reproduce asexually?

What happens if we are "strong enough," as you say? If we have friends only because of our fear of being alone, and we are strong enough to conquer our fears, does that mean we can't have friends? "Alone and unafraid in a world I made"?

There's something joyless and bleak about your argument.

You are saying in effect that the species survives because people "fall victim" to something.

And what's "unconscious" about sexual desire? I think about pussy all the time. In addition to other things.

brokenhead wrote:

Polite discourse, especially on hot topics, is appreciated. Monogamy has always been fine in theory. I never had a problem being faithful to a wife, but because women are more social, they kept bringing other women home, or bringing me over there. But why would I, a normal hominid male, want to spend time with females I'm never going to fuck?

"They"?
Holy shit, daybrown.
I happen to like female comapny. The best way to have female company is to keep it in your pants. Didn't you know that? If you have no ulterior motives, you can enjoy things. If you are attached to one specific female, stay that way. Be monogamous. That way you can talk to as many women as you want and no one cares. If you're not attached, get attached. If you don't want to be attached, fine. But if you are always thinking in terms of whether or not you are going to get to nail a broad, people start to notice that. Smart women will tend to avoid you. In fact, the ones that don't are almost not smart by definition.
You keep talking about women in this society, but you don't really like women, do you? I think you are afraid of women.

I'm with daybrown here. When the girlfriend (of 40 years) brings over, "invites" whatever, 5-6 of her friends... the last thing i care to do is spend a few hours listening to their social discourse. Maybe the 5 minutes or so of greeting them (keeping it light) then the rest their time (in my house) i'll find other things to spend time on. They can take care of their selves...

Ditto for when she is invited elsewhere, i don't wanna tag along to hear the lastest "gossip" whatever that women like to do.

Once a year, perhaps, but thats it! The backyard barbeque social day... we're not talkig anti-social crazy.


Guys have their own times together, the last thing we need is one woman in the midst... and everything takes on a different "air".

Dig?


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran- 1971

.