User Tag List

First 192728293031 Last

Results 281 to 290 of 317

  1. #281
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538
    There are 107 boys born for every 100 girls.

    So nature finds the necessity for so many men.

  2. #282
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,410

    Default

    Can't we all agree that both males and females suck?

  3. #283
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,538
    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    Can't we all agree that both males and females suck?
    Mbti shows there is a sucker born every minute.

  4. #284
    Senior Member Derpravity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    112

    Default

    How about instead of less men in general, solving the perceived problem by finding a way to make the men who are assholes less dangerous to society? I don't think the problem, based on the original post, is the number of men, but more that men who are jerks tend to act up in bigger, or more obvious ways to society than women who are jerks, who are probably in roughly equal proportion. And if you just had less men, that jerk proportion would still be the same, just on a smaller scale. Not reaching the heart of the issue at all.

    I'm not sure how to combat the issue exactly, but I've always felt that a big part of the problem with society is a lack of awareness, or acting on awareness. Education, direct discourse, less focus on media drama and more focus on real people and actual problems and solutions. People are distracted by so much fluff, they seldom see even very basic ways of improving everyone's lives.

    What I'm saying is, essentially, why go throwing out all the nice, benign guys with the bathwater?



    If you can't tell, I detest treatment of the gender dichotomy as any more than a normative construct (essentially, a myth).
    Rational idealist. Ethical hedonist. Secular humanist. Libertarian centrist. Lawful neutral. Melancholic. Medicated Bipolar I. Cat person. Kuudere. Dark magical girl. Slytherin. Alcoholic milkshake enthusiast.
    Johari | Nohari


    The dream to awaken our world.

  5. #285
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    You know historically its the opposite, rite?

  6. #286
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I'm going to attempt to answer the OP seriously: war.

    Men used to be killed off in larger numbers by war, and richer men often had concubines or harems or multiple wives.

    I honestly don't know if it's social conditioning or biology, but men seem to have this instinct to go to war, and if men aren't properly socialized into domestic life, that's when you get domestic violence, child abuse, rape, all the things that you're complaining about that men do in larger numbers than women...it's that warring instinct misguided in a wrong and powerless and ignorant way. That's why classically educated "gentlemen" in society didn't do these things; gentlemen know better, they are educated to direct those instincts into hunting, business competition, salesmanship, sport, chess, the military, etc.

    I really do hesitate to blame biology as much as people want to. I tend to balk at the idea that women are sexually excited BY MONEY. I am not. And trust me when I say that lots of money and a big house and a sexy car are NOT enough to make me genuinely sexually attracted to a man. I think women are more attracted to physical characteristics than men are comfortable with, they have to be confronted with the reality that we don't want them to be obese, stinky or significantly older than we are; we really don't. That's societal conditioning, I believe this 110% that rather than "biology" propelling women to the richest guy, women did this historically because they weren't allowed to own property or have jobs. It was a survival tactic for the poor and a social tactic for the middle class and wealthy.

    I've also known too many men attracted to older women or to women their own age to believe that all men are biologically wired to want to have sexual relations with sixteen year old girls.

    I think a lot of what we are is social conditioning, but yes a little of it is biology, of course.

    Contrary to popular belief, not all men are helpless sex fiends, some men willingly become priests, monks, yogis, scientists locked in labs, and eternal bachelors.

    I've also known men (admittedly probably ISxJs or ESFJs, all of them) who actually show pointed DISGUST at the idea of casual sex or promiscuity or using "vulgar" words like pussy, for example.

    Soooo....yeah I know this is what it looks like, but I think a lot of it is socialization, not necessarily that we need less men.

  7. #287
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    I honestly don't know if it's social conditioning or biology, but men seem to have this instinct to go to war
    There was a higher (direct) dependency on land and raw materials in the past, which in turn, made it a life or death scenario if you lose them (our global economy still has these issues, but distribution and our modern political systems, and the nature of work itself, relieve some of the stress of one's location). So you're not given much choice except to fight (for your right to party).

    War has always been about the "spoils of war". Not any instinct or biological impetus. It's purpose is to get free shit. It's tied to the other age old crime of thievery. Biologically speaking, primates (especially us) are capable of much more than territorialism. Territorial behavior is part of our reptillian brain, and falling back on it is virtually regressing back millions of years of evolution. In one sense, it is "instinct". It's the most instinctual part of our brain to behave in these ways. It's literally ignoring one's potential and doing the easiest thing. Once men get into the cycle of it, they drop complex social behaviors (and instead rely on heirarchal structures and power plays), and stop devoting their brains to any creativity that diverges from the bottom line of "acquiring as much territory as possible".

  8. #288
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    You know historically its the opposite, rite?
    Hehe, that much is true.

    Good to see you back, after-ban Marm.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  9. #289
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    MARMIE!! Thanks for dropping in!

    Yeah, I agree war is what guys do well, due to their biological make-up. And I agree that war is a primitive way of achieving something quicker than working for it yourself; believing that most systems default to one of economics--attaining something by the easiest means available.

    Violence is learned though. Whether on a societal level (think Sparta), or familial level (domestic violence). Women are learning violence as much as men are, they have to be, but it must just be manifesting in some different, less obvious way. Men can more easily get what they want from direct violence, so they use it (economic principle). Women must just be more passive-aggressive about it, using manipulation and taking it out on the kids. Maybe that is why women are more likely to have BPD, because if they were men, and had more 'real' power (strength), they'd just be batterers.

    I think Kdude is on to something. I think we are too higher level to be acting like animals anymore. Especially with our technology. We are poised for greatness. If we can overcome our hedonism and sloth and treachery we might end up being better than our ancestors after all...
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  10. #290
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    There was a higher (direct) dependency on land and raw materials in the past, which in turn, made it a life or death scenario if you lose them (our global economy still has these issues, but distribution and our modern political systems, and the nature of work itself, relieve some of the stress of one's location). So you're not given much choice except to fight (for your right to party).

    War has always been about the "spoils of war". Not any instinct or biological impetus. It's purpose is to get free shit. It's tied to the other age old crime of thievery. Biologically speaking, primates (especially us) are capable of much more than territorialism. Territorial behavior is part of our reptillian brain, and falling back on it is virtually regressing back millions of years of evolution. In one sense, it is "instinct". It's the most instinctual part of our brain to behave in these ways. It's literally ignoring one's potential and doing the easiest thing. Once men get into the cycle of it, they drop complex social behaviors (and instead rely on heirarchal structures and power plays), and stop devoting their brains to any creativity that diverges from the bottom line of "acquiring as much territory as possible".
    I would totally be in agreement with this line of thinking: it's the mirror image of this so-called "biological" explanation that women are attracted to money. NO WE ARE NOT.

    Women are not attracted to money. If we were, would there be so many single mothers on welfare in the ghetto? It's something that certain groups of men have been content to tell themselves, that women will marry you no matter how old, ugly, boring, or poorly groomed you are, because all chicks want is a rich and powerful man, even if she's seventeen and he's thirty-five; even if she's thirty and he's sixty-five. BULLSHIT.

    It's just that for many a year, things were set up in such a manner that any woman who married for love or sexual attraction was a dope who was putting her very survival in jeopardy, or at least her social standing.

    Yes, and now that women have more rights, note that men are being more and more objectified sexually in the way women historically were. Note that women have less use for "useless" men, and have a much lower tolerance of other behaviors women tolerated in earlier times out of sheer need to survive. (this is where the idiotic notion that "women don't like sex" comes from...um because they were often forced to marry men old enough to be their fathers, had no say in the matter (or very little say) and sometimes even married men who were old enough to be their grandfathers...women enjoy sex a lot more when they're actually attracted to their partners).

    It's a misogynistic line of thinking that actually thinks women get aroused over money, and it's probably a misandrist one which assumes men are biologically "built" to be violent or dangerous.

Similar Threads

  1. New Evidence for the Necessity of Loneliness
    By LovecraftianMonstrosity in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2016, 04:54 PM
  2. Should military restrict the speech of service(wo)men when it's not intel related?
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 10:41 PM
  3. The root of so, sx, and sp
    By elranger1 in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 12:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO