I came across this in yet another psych lecture I was “entertaining” myself with. (Yes, I know I have some very bizarre ideas when it comes to entertainment!).

And I laughed out loud, scaring all the people and pets in the house! And for 99% of the time Humans have been around, this has been so. The ideas that men tested, became our drive to tame and civilize and improve the arena in which the Human race “did it’s thing” of producing the next generations. And women tested the men for desirability of traits (genes) to seed forward into those next generations. Yes, I know there were things like arranged marriage, concubines, rape etc; but existing more as the exception than the norm on a broader scale And for the most part women have had “the final say” in the genetic identity of upcoming generations; because even if they were forced to be with sub-standard or undesirable men, they could find all kinds of ways to sabotage against either the act/success of procreation OR sabotage the offspring they were almost entirely responsible for raising at least through the formative years.

So share your thoughts. Do you see this as the system that was for the most part in place, for much of Human existence.




23 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. Author
    griz 10 months ago

    Oh, and lest anyone might get too bent out of shape on this, it was clearly presented as just a supposition and not a psychological axiom!

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  2. five2one 10 months ago

    Misogynist. Common disease.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  3. Gina 10 months ago

    While we are on this topic, the idea of feminism isn’t about over-taking men. It’s about one simple word: Equality.

    “Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Woman are already strong. It’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength.” ~G.D. Anderson

    “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
    ― Margaret Atwood (That’s something to think about for a while.)

    Even though we were not given all the chances men have been given throughout time, women have persisted, and excelled…and that makes us bad ass! Here are a couple of sites of female inventors.

    http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/06/14/10-female-inventors-you-need-to-know

    http://www.women-inventors.com/

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 10 months ago

      @Gina
      My personal thought is that women are strong enough that they don’t need a movement that tries to reframe all the world’s issues as issues of just 1/2 the population.

      Women can do far better, than feminism. Especially the recent waves of it.

      That Margaret Atwood is a clever one, and that quote poignant. Mocking laughter is a far easier weapon to get on a plane or into a lecture hall. It is easy to tell someone is in peril if they are being physically attacked. But a psychologial or emotional coup de grace almost always goes unnoticed by the masses.

      So what are your thoughts on the quote I opened the thread with?

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Gina 10 months ago

        @griz My lists of women inventors is my response to your initial quote.

        Our “feminism” movement is going to put many women in political office which will help change laws to protect women and families, which will include men. Knock it all you want, we are a movement that is on a roll; a movement that is filled with women, men and children. There are now 30,000 women who have signed up for political office in all levels of government.

        I found this in the internet:

        Dorothy Allison once wrote, “Change, when it happens, cracks everything open.” Right now, we are living through a pivotal moment in history that can feel equally parts triggering, terrifying, and hopeful.

        For far too long, the “dynamics of inequality have preserved the system in which the more power a man has, the more sexual access he can get away with compelling.” #MeToo has forced those in power to stop and listen like never before, and this could change workplaces, schools, and society in ways that the law never could.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @Gina
        The supposition includes more than just the last smallest fraction-of-a-tick of the second-hand on our species’ proverbial 24-hour clock.
        I’m not denying the capability of women to work with ideas. The supposition is based on the manifest reality that for the sake of the rise of our species, men tested the ideas that resulted in civilization as we know it . . . and the women tested the men for their genetic sufficiency to sire the next generation. This is less a judgement or “indictment” . . . than observational analysis.

        We have in our midst these days, an alarming number of social movements trying to lay out a hierarchy of power based entirely upon the interplay of “oppressors and the oppressed”.
        Consider soberly, that this is Marxism. And that every society that has dabbled in Marxism has paid a horrendous price in savagery and “rebound oppression” — where the oppressed became an even worse kind of oppressor than those they sought to depose.

        I happen to think that together we are clever enough to avoid this. But I’ve already had to bring to attention a number of “rebound oppression” processes, happening at the applause of the society.

        We need to step cautiously — and identify the infiltration of ideologies that have time and time again, resulted in such egregious human rights violations. (And it’s interesting that the US in particular, with their fear of socialism, would not have spotted this snake in their midst)

        Let’s remember that feminism particularly, gleans almost ALL of it’s power from the “victimhood” scenario of the oppressed . . . and thrives on the fear of just 1/2 of a quintessental archetype: that of the “wicked oppressor”.

        With absolutely ZERO recognition of the other 1/2 of that archetype, the “wise king”. It would be like a social movement out to empower men based on just the “wicked witch” (or evil queen/stepmother) out to control you with her charms, just 1/2 of the feminine archetype — paying absolutely no heed to the other 1/2 of the nurturing mother/wise queen. (Both history and mythology are replete with both of these archetypes — so feigning ignorance of them is just . . . ignorance)

        And then imagine this movement using the fear-of-the-worst to re-write school procedures and learning techniques and laws and cast everything that was just our species taking care of what each sex was given to take care of . . . as some kind of evil patriarchial oppression.

        “Equality” . . . doesn’t need to resort to such unbalanced ideologies.
        There is room to improve the equality of the sexes. But we need to guard against not recognizing how far we’ve come and the demands for more-more-more . . . to the point where the Marxist socio-political movement will fall in line with all other similar social experiments.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  4. five2one 10 months ago

    Evolution is a bunch bullshit God cooked up because their hearts are hard. And yes, this means giving them all the evidence in the world that they wanted so badly. Anything but getting stuck here. With US.

    Unlike you, I don’t have a woman taken out of my flesh. So, I don’t have the physical attraction and bonding done because of that. (The bonding of God is different. God is one, but there are many components. Then there are hierarchies.)

    (I do have a wife, as my dad does too. She came out of my Spirit, and took a female form. But, this is very different.)

    Testing people is a lot of what I do.

    Men are terrible at testing ideas.

    Women test everything. They are far better judges in many cases then what men do, in many cases.

    For me and my wife, there isn’t any comparison. However.

    But for Adams and Eves… that is how it is.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 10 months ago

      @five2one
      Evolution the theory perhaps.
      But evolution the process is self-evident.

      Nature produces all of this variation within a species and those ideas/perceptions that are “wrong” for the conditions that exist . . . are killed dead.

      (Connect this with the post-modern ideology that teaches all “variations” are valid and that no one should be granted “canonical precedent” over others.)

      I’m not sure of what to make of the “woman taken out of my flesh” comment.

      Historically, men being good (or at least passable) at testing ideas is what caused society to rise. Not because of any “wicked oppression plan”, but simply because the women were already busy making up for a high infant and child mortality rate in a dangerous world.

      A dangerous world where men were passably good enough at testing ideas that they could stand as buffer between the women and the harsh reality.
      (But when the harsh reality pushed and the men functioning as buffers bumped into the women of the last few seconds on society’s “clock” . . . the women presumed it was just the men pushing them.

      Or worse, just “the wicked oppressor” pushing down on them. Yes, it happened. But we wouldn’t be here as a species if the other 1/2 of the quintessential male archetype, the wise king, hadn’t prevailed.

      And why? Perhaps because both men and women test different thing — and test them differently — than the other.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • five2one 10 months ago

        @griz The truth, you probably won’t be able to believe. Maybe one day, a thousand years from now. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe when you read this.

        (And just a note, before I continue, as I have this one conversation claiming I am Jesus — I am not Jesus, but I have the authority to use his ID.)

        We live in God’s mind. All of this evolution stuff, and so very much more — wherever people apply telescopes and microscopes to try and escape the truth.

        They were given the lie they wanted to believe.

        By their own heart’s desires.

        It is useful. I am thinking we may keep the world for a long time in this belief set. It keeps people busy. Exploring the stars. Figuring out the secrets of the human body and mind. Even if all the provable secrets are lies.

        I did not personally agree to these lies, and ultimately am against them. But, I am just against them for blinding my own sons and daughters. The world should have them.

        My “unconscious” did agree to these lies.

        And, to be clear, when I say “I”, I am speaking for, God the Father.

        I may have not even given Jesus small intestines, a stomach, and all this such. But just water there. Why did the spear bring out water.

        But, he had and has blood too.

        It is really quite simple: the Church was corrupt. People wanted to find God. But, instead of looking inside their hearts and on their very tongue… they wanted something else. Some other “God”.

        They wanted to be gods. To have brought themselves into being through evolution.

        So, they have this delusion of their own making.

        Provable. Of course evolution is provable. I can make it provable that literal monkeys can fly out of your butt. People do not want to know what all God can make provable.

        Provable and true are two very, very different things.

        I like cars. I like video games. I love movies these days, and tv shows. Air conditioning and heating. Digital watches.

        Enough that I sacrificed my only son to save the world.

        I saved the world through him, for him, and for everyone else.

        Worse, everything Jesus said and did came from me. He did as he was told. He is the Lamb, He is the Lion.

        And so am I.

        You may want to tell your self, this is all somehow untrue, but you have the Spirit, so ultimately you can not deny it. But, it raises more questions then answers it provides.

        We are immortal.

        “Christ”, like “Michael”, or “Satan” — people forget, these are also generic terms. Though, there is ultimately the true and main Christ, the true and main Michael, and the true and main Satan.

        These bold claims must mean I am only Satan or God.

        And I am not Satan, that is for sure.

        I am always ahead of everyone. They may see my back, but never my face.

        We are all anointed, the anointed one. That is what children are.

        I do not lord it over people, nor does my son. That is the old way. Jesus is the Teacher, God is the Master. Faith in God is required to advance further.

        There are no shortcuts around faith. As so many think.

        I can make faith easy or hard. Depends on my mood.

        Depends on the seat the person I am speaking to decides to sit in.

        Humble your self, I will exalt you. Exalt your self, I have nothing more to say.

        I do not care what glory a person has known, all deeds are given to them by me. And I can remove their place, so they are just a candle in the abyss.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @five2one
        I will have to work to express proper adulations for limitations you put upon me from the get-go, in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  5. Georockstar09 10 months ago

    Why don’t you read the Red Queen and the Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins – if you’ve heard of him, lay aside whatever prejudice and really read his book, it’s very neutral and presents clear data). They will answer all your questions.

    Sigh… here goes… During courtship behavior, both men and women test each other (men need to make sure she’s not psycho, too, you know, and that she’s healthy etc.). Remember, HE usually asks HER to marry him. There is absolutely no reason for a woman to sabotage her own offspring. Yes, they have 50% of HIS genes, but they also have 50% of HER genes. And those genes are much much more important to her than any act of spite against HIM. Those genes, in a sense, are her own self.

    There are plenty of women who did and do contribute to the advancement of civilization by testing their ideas, but for the longest time most women did not get the same level of education and self-confidence instilled in them that men did.

    So sorry, no, women are not evil.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 10 months ago

      @Georockstar09
      I remain very cautious of of assertions of “Just read this book and it will answer all your questions”. That would seem to elevate it to the realm of “sacred text”!
      As for why I don’t just read it? Time — at this juncture in my life. Intelligent works full of rational thought need to be studied and don’t let themselves well to the fragmented reading that is my main recourse these days. But consider this: I will dedicate myself to reading it with an open mind if you dedicate yourself to reading “Finite and Infinite Games” by James P. Carse with an open mind. I will make no claims that it “will answer all your questions”. But it will test what you think you know about life. (And it has NOTHING to do with “the battle of the sexes!”)
      Let me know if you accept. You will have to provide time for me to acquire the book and to give it the attention it deserves in my hectic schedule. But is is thoughtfully written in a way that DOES lend itself to fragmented reading. Some chapters are only a sentence long.
      (But I would re-invite you to first re-examine your assertion that your selection will answer all my questions”! Really??)

      I tend to rely these days on the ability of intelligent people to understand and articulate the ideologies they are employing and “cleaving to” as their fundamental determiners of perception and thinking. But I find that such people are few and far between. Most people are more “minions” of an ideology — many not even recognizing just what ideologies they are espousing, and the number of times in Human history that ideology has already been tried (and to what end effects).
      So I “invite” them to rationally and intelligently examine what it is they believe, and why. (And at this point many will call me a name or accuse me of something un-substanciated or un-related!)

      Your identifying of the process by which we enter into “procreation agreements” is accurate. Consider though that the man takes the initial risk, employing something both very important and very vulnerable (his male ego which if crippled, will affect his ability to attract high-quality mates for a VERY long time) — and the woman has the ultimate say. Various “testings” aside, the man take the first risk; the woman makes the final determination.
      (An inequity that I think you will find most men are OK with). And the risk for the woman choosing poorly, is that she could soon find herself in a very vulnerable state, occupied away from the full gamut of outside realities for up to 18 years . . . with no support if she choose a clod.

      It’s interesting that you would end with “no, not all women are evil”.
      Exactly what is “the patriarcy” in the ideology of feminism?

      (Hint, it’s just 1/2 of the quintessential male archetype of the evil tyrant vs the wise king. Fear is attached to just the worst 1/2 of the archetype so a power-hierarchy of “oppressed vs oppressor” can be maintained — and then applied to the whole as justification for any and all acts of empowerment over and control of the male side of the equation. Consider just how much “oppression” of young boys is currently being perpetrated in our public schools under the guise of “equality” — but having more to do with “controlling the evil tyrant” out of them. It leaves our society’s boys VERY oppressed and conflicted. One doesn’t “cure sexual oppression” by oppressing the next-weakest sexual group!).

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Georockstar09 10 months ago

        @griz I’m sorry, I guess I’m used to a different website where people state, “what is your evidence” and I’ll be like, “here it is, you can see it for yourself” and then people there usually actually look at what I give them for themselves and find it really interesting. So when I said, “you should read this book” I said that because you brought up this topic, which I assumed you were interested in, so I gave you these references that talk ALL ABOUT exactly what you mentioned. They are also really good books worth reading that flipped my mind a little but it’s all biology, and it’s part of university and graduate curriculum and they’re fascinating. But I didn’t think you’d react that way.

        On second thought, maybe you might find very simple summaries and youtube videos online that do the same thing, provide the same info. I was able to find the Selfish Gene online.

        About the male ego: There are both ugly males and ugly females, and yes, usually males take initiative – only towards attractive females. So rejected males tend to flirt less and less, and so do ugly females. Instead of investing energy in futile attempts to obtain a mate, they might instead reserve that energy to invest in nieces and nephews, or other family members, which is also procreation, or perpetuating your own genes. So it’s not necessarily a complete loss. Whether bachelor uncles or aunts really do help with upbringing of their siblings’ kids and how successful they are would be an interesting study. I actually don’t know.

        The evil thing: Well, you talk about women sabotaging a man’s offspring if she finds him undesirable, and one can interpret that as evil and spiteful. So in the previous comment I explained why that is not the case, because she’d also harm herself. Nothing, in fact, to do with feminism but with what you had stated. Now, there are studies in mice where females do this, but they have offspring every few weeks and jump to different partners each time, whereas humans only have 2-3 kids on average, and with the same mate. Female mice would want to expend less energy on offspring of unattractive males, in order to save it for raising offspring from attractive males. But we can’t conclude that humans do this too and it’s hard to put them in labs etc. With humans, females cheat (Yep, this is an “evil” that is scientifically proven) and if she were to treat her unattractive husband’s kids worse than her lover’s, her husband might get suspicious and would stop providing. But if they were to divorce… who knows. Maybe – now that I give it some thought. Again, would be nice if some humans sacrificed themselves in the name of science and became lab rats.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Georockstar09 10 months ago

        @griz Also about the evil thing: You gotta put yourself in the shoes of a woman reading this. Wouldn’t you feel a little groan if someone were to say the exact same thing about men, that if a man has an undesirable wife, he will sabotage her kids?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @Georockstar09
        Equality dictates that they should be equally required to walk a mile in the man’s shoes.

        I have never maintaines that “oppressions” have not existed.

        Only that committing oppressions to protect the oppressed from oppressors is not just a foolish rationale disconnect, it’s dangerous.

        I’ll have to set aside appropriate time at a later date to deal with your longer response above.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Georockstar09 10 months ago

        @griz And I never said otherwise.

        I’m not sure what you mean by oppression. I never mentioned that. But I need to make a correction in what I said – when I was talking about sabotage, in those mice it was not sabotage but neglect. Sabotage involves active abuse. That only happens, I think, with the mentally ill.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @Georockstar09
        Oppression is a core foundational tenant of the socio-political ideologies we are discussing.

        I appreciate your comment about mental illness. I would maintain that mental health like physical health doesn’t “just happen”. And anyone can languish into illness without proper care and protection from toxins.

        Examining the ideologies we espouse and why we champion them, is just a part of good mental/psychological (/spiritual?) hygiene.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Georockstar09 10 months ago

        @griz There’s nothing socio-political or ideological about simple genetic biology. And I don’t want to go down the route of that kind of discussion.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @Georockstar09
        Then James P. Carse’s book I recommended might not be appropriate.

        I would instead recommend reading a newspaper. Biological genetic identity-groups are persistent front-page material, for extremely political reasons.

        It would be wise to remember the number of nations just in the past 100 years that have gone down to ruin because they failed to recognize and critically examine the ideologies they were actively espousing.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Georockstar09 10 months ago

        @griz I read research papers from scientific journals as the information comes out. I mostly read paleontological papers, as I’m a PhD student in paleontology, but I’ll also read interesting research papers on evolutionary biology if I can understand the jargon.

        Stuff that comes out in newspapers and magazines is already 10-20 years old, simply because they usually present a summary of all the findings about a subject, and present it in regular language. Problem is, they may only be as good as the journalist’s understanding of the topic, and said journalists may also add their own ideologies into it.

        There should be absolutely no ideologies in a research paper. Only raw numbers and an interpretation that other scientists aren’t obliged to agree with, plus some general background and hypotheses you are testing, as well as methods you used to conduct the experiment. Everything should be transparent and reproducible and statistically sound, and absolutely nothing fabricated. If it’s not, you can lose your degree.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @Georockstar09
        That’s a source of raw information. And you’re right that the cold hard jargon can be a real challenge.
        That is why I like listening to and reading books from intellectuals and philosophers. They fold in the human touch — and also reveal much about their own humanity along the way.

        A variety of sources is important too. Using the same source over and over just makes you a “fan” (or a plagiarizer?). Several differing sources makes you a student, or a researcher!

        So for the moment I suppose I’m a bit of a fan of Dr. Jordan Peterson, because I’m following a course of study he teaches at the University of Toronto. But I appreciate that he documents his sources and provides a reading list of books from classic intellectuals that many of differing slants have found useful.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Georockstar09 10 months ago

        @griz Oh that guy! (Just looked him up). Yeah, I remember the interview, posted on Youtube. I remember thinking that I didn’t agree with either one of the two, but at least Peterson was more logical and coherent. His data was correct (and interesting), but I disagreed with his conclusions about the data. It’s a shame that the lady made it too painful to watch till the end.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 10 months ago

        @Georockstar09

        There are videos of some of his psych lectures from the U of T and his personal blogs where he lays out compelling threads of rational thought and critical analysis for trends in the world — and as a highly-renowned clinical psychologist he very effectively unpacks very feasible (if not dead-accurate!) assessments of why we as humans find ourselves in the places we find ourselves.
        He is in a very different mode than when being “invited to do battle” with feminist reporters! (Was that the video where she totally mis-interpreted his line of critical analysis to conclude he was saying we needed to re-order our society to live like lobsters?)

        He does a LOT more than just “conclusions from data” — which regrettably has become the only thing we want to give any credit to. (It’s the intelligence-favored “candy” the masses have grown to prefer, over something they might have to work to chew up and digest for themselves)

        Actually, he points to another process that is rampant in our society; that of post-modernism. In a nutshell, it creates an artificial reality of total subjectivity within its ideologues whereby they are able to by-pass things like logic and rational thought to dismiss something based entirely on the unshakable foundation that “I didn’t like it”.

        Part of our march to civilization involved forums where people didn’t agree with conclusions of the thinkers and philosophers, but didn’t hold their own biases and prejudices in such high regard that they instantly dismissed anything that their feelings didn’t like.
        We’ve grown quite silly in this. Even to the point where feminist groups will actively try to control Universities who are inviting speakers who hold positions they “don’t agree with”! They don’t even want to entertain anything that doesn’t come from within their own comfortable echo-chamber! And then if they don’t succeed in blocking, come the petitions, the protests, the disruptions, the threats.
        Post-modernism has made us tragically afraid to even touch anything that might cause “suffering or oppression” to our subjectively-ordered artificial reality.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

©2018 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account