Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:24 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

catman wrote:

You specifically said that they are being taught to be ashamed which is not backed by evidence. What women are being taught is that they can have the same opportunities as men. So many women are torn between the choice of having relationships early on vs having a career.

It's not an either-or decision, Catman, so no one would naturally come to the conclusion that they have to choose. Someone or something is obviously giving them the false impression that they have to choose, and moreover, pushing them hard in a particular direction. "I feel guilty about having a wonderful, stable relationship," is not a rational, coherent idea which springs up on its own. It simply isn't.

But whatever. Because I can't quote the "Feminist Bible" and show you where it says, "Hey, avoiding commitment in your twenties is a good thing, you need to focus obsessively on your career, with maybe some casual sex on the side," you can play the, "Women suddenly saying they feel guilty about wanting relationships isn't because of feminism," obfuscation card, and we're not going to get anywhere. And even if I do search through the Internet and find some self-proclaimed feminist or another, on record, saying women shouldn't get into committed relationships in their twenties, so what? That won't mean anything to you, you'll just shrug it off. This is obviously a dead end. That's fine.

catman wrote:

I'm sure you would not want to deny them that choice like some reactionaries would?

I'm fine with choice, but this isn't about choice. It's about strong-arming a cultural result, and it's working. This is the result.

Yes, it is a choise. Thanks in large part to the feminist movement women now have the choise of pursuing their own careers. Unfortunately many men are against that as is seen on this thread. Other women are content with being housewives. Just not as much as 50 years ago.

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

Yes, it is a choise. Thanks in large part to the feminist movement women now have the choise of pursuing their own careers.

Inflation and diminishing wages forced women into the labor market. The culture then rationalized this as a value and it took on a life of its own.

As if answering phones or stocking shelves is preferable to tradition. Most women - the 99%? - aren't Sex in the City career girls. They're office drones.

Quote:

Unfortunately many men are against that as is seen on this thread. Other women are content with being housewives. Just not as much as 50 years ago.

What about 500 years ago? Why always the reference point to the 50's?

Because that's about the most early TV goes back and that's where we find our historical references.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:48 am Post subject:

Titus wrote:

What does the future hold. Why should we care?

Jack Donovan in The Way of Men (here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-of-Men-ebook/dp/B007O0Y1ZE ) calls it The Bonobo Masturbation Society:

Quote:

The future that our elite handlers have in store for us advertises more of the same. More detached pleasure, less risk, freedom from want, more masturbation.

xxx

In the future that globalists and feminists have imagined, for most of us there will only be more clerkdom and masturbation. There will only be more apologizing, more submission, more asking for permission to be men. There will only be more examinations, more certifications, mandatory prerequisites, screening processes, background checks, personality tests, and politicized diagnoses. There will only be more medication. There will be more presenting the secretary with a cup of your own warm urine. There will be mandatory morning stretches and video safety presentations and sign-off sheets for your file. There will be more helmets and goggles and harnesses and bright orange bests with reflective tape. There can only be more counselling and sensitivity training. There will be more administrative hoops to jump through to start your own business and keep it running. There will be more mandatory insurance policies. There will definitely be more taxes. There will probably be more Byzantine sexual harassment laws and corporate policies and more ways for women and protected identity groups to accuse you of misconduct. There will be more micro-managed living, pettier regulations, heavier fines, and harsher penalties. There will be more ways to run afoul of the law and more ways for society to maintain its pleasant illusions by sweeping you under the rug.

xxxx

If you�re a good boy and you follow the rules, if you learn how to speak passively and inoffensively, if you can convince some other poor sleepwalking sap that you are possessed with an almost unhealthy desire to provide outstanding customer service or increase operational efficiency through the improvement of internal processes and effective organizational communication, if you can say stupid shit like that without laughing, if you record checks out and your pee smells right � you can get yourself a J-O-B. Maybe you can be the guy who administers the test or authorizes the insurance policy. Maybe you can be the guy who helps make some soulless global corporation a little more money. Maybe you can get a pat on the head for coming up with the bright idea to put a bunch of other guys out of work and outsource their boring jobs to guys in some other place who are willing to work longer hours for less money. Whatever you do, no matter what people say, no matter how many team-building activities you attend or how many birthday cards you get from someone�s secretary, you will know that you are a completely replaceable unit of labor in the big scheme of things.

If you�re a good boy, you can curl up in the womb of your safe little Soviet-nouveau bloc apartment with your comfy stuff and enjoy your measured indulgences, your gourmet food, your micro-brew. You can busy yourself trying to master the art of erasing your own carbon footprint.

Maybe you�ll pay someone to let you play a game or run a race or put on a safety harness and climb fake rocks. If not, you can always watch someone else do it on TV.

Whatever you do, just find some way to busy yourself.

A vapid, depressing reality. No?

I've heard of this guy before. He is a gay bear who is going to save civilization from effeminate males. Laughing

(and women).

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:12 am Post subject:

You're using his homosexuality as a pejorative? How insufferably liberal of you.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:03 pm Post subject:

Catman talks about choice. France is also walking down the feminist path a short ways ahead of us. Let's have a look at their "choice."

French President Francois Hollande wants more dads to stay home with their babies and more moms to get back to work faster.

Quote:

While most French mothers work, their salaries, pensions and career prospects can suffer from taking long maternity leave. Giving fathers more flexibility with parental leave could help make it easier for mothers to return to their jobs.

Hollande's proposal would allow fathers to take up to six months of paid leave after the birth of a child and extend other long-term parental leave benefits to fathers. Speaking at an equality conference Thursday night, the French president promised to get the idea written into a draft law by May.

...

Hollande's government is hoping to shrink the length of time the subsidy can go to mothers to encourage fathers to also put in for the leave. The legislation would also provide more state aid for single parents whose partners fail to pay child support.

The government is considering reducing the total amount of parental leave allowed from three years to two-and-a-half years, in order finance some extra six-month leaves for fathers � a move aimed at keeping costs down for a government struggling to trim spending.

The government also argues that the measure could keep women in the work force and theoretically boost the economy.

Cut maternity leave for mothers to push fathers into "choosing" paternity leave and mothers into "choosing" go to back to the work force. And then they talk about boosting the economy! Dad at home and mom at work boosts the economy!

The same article talks about choice-focused Sweden:

Quote:

Sweden takes things even further. Swedish couples can share 16 months of parental leave, providing that it's split so that one of them � normally the man � takes at least two months. The government pays 80 percent of the homebound parent's wages, up to a ceiling, and sometimes employers pay more on top of that.

You get 16 months of parental leave, but the woman cannot choose to take it all. That's not choice. It's the exact opposite of choice, and it's feminism is action.

I'm fine with a woman working if that's what she really wants to do, but not only is Titus correct that there are economic pressures on women to work even if they don't want to, but with policies like these governments are slowly moving to push things even further than that. Sure, ostensibly there's a choice, but the factors brought to bear to strongly encourage the "right" choice is made.

And this doesn't get into cultural pressures, but because there isn't some quotable compendium of cultural values from which people are directly and specifically educated, evidently such pressures do not exist! I agree with Kuros and Leon that these pressures are currently less present in, say, the American midwest than on the east coast or in a country like Sweden, but the American midwest is an importer of culture, so I'm not willing to shrug my shoulders and say everything's fine just because a midwestern farmer's daughter might still not feel the fullness of the pressure to be a "career woman" at the expense of all else just quite yet.

Choice is fine. Options are fine. An array of economic and cultural forces making the simple, pleasant family life generations without count took for granted an uphill battle is not okay.

GF

Joined: 26 Sep 2012

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:06 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

On a personal level, what is there to be bitter about? I found what I needed in a mate, a lovely, feminine, virginal lady for whom motherhood was a priority.

I'm glad to hear that. Virginal ? I hope I don't seem crude by picking that out, but it's interesting - a rare thing for a liberal explicitly to value in a woman. Is this an artefact of your Jewish heritage, or how did you arrive at this ?

Quote:

No, my concern -- and I believe the concerns of fellows like Titus and GF -- are for broader society; for our fellow men and women, who are being denied what they need, both for personal fulfillment and for building a stable, thriving society, for the sake of gratifying a certain ideologically-extreme minority who make their living off of this crap.

I approach the question through natural law. Obviously, breaking the natural law does not lead to individual or community good, but that's actually secondary to the sacred imperative. This is an abstract distinction, rather than an existent one, of course.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:50 pm Post subject:

GF wrote:

When a man lives his entire life in a dry, thirsty desert, and is suddenly presented with an oasis full of fresh, sweet water, he doesn't need to "arrive" at a theory of its value. He sees the value directly, knows it in his heart. Right? I strongly suspect men in general can directly perceive the intrinsic value of virginity in a potential mate, if they're being honest; if they haven't been taught to lie to themselves. In the modern era of free casual sex, men may make excuses for it, saying things such as, "I wouldn't want to marry a virgin, I need someone experienced," but I live my life without excuses.

She is not the first woman who wanted to marry me, but she's the first one I seriously considered marrying; the first one worth marrying. Her pre-martial virginity was not the alpha and omega of her desirability, but at the same time, as a logical conclusion of her suite of character traits, she would not have been the same person in its absence. Some of the more feminist males here might scold me, saying something like, "Fox, you coward, you should want a strong woman!" To this I say: she is a strong woman. Resisting hedonistic casual intercourse requires strength; giving into it requires none. Putting out after a man has bought you dinner in a nice restaurant is not an act of strength, it is a business transaction. I see nothing admirable in it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and other men do not feel that way, in which case, they're welcome to what they want.

Last edited by Fox on Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Titus

Joined: 19 May 2012

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:55 pm Post subject:

Quote:

To this I say: she is a strong woman. Resisting hedonistic casual intercourse requires strength; giving into it requires none.

Yes.

GF

Joined: 26 Sep 2012

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:32 pm Post subject:

Titus wrote:

Quote:

To this I say: she is a strong woman. Resisting hedonistic casual intercourse requires strength; giving into it requires none.

Yes.

It was a stroke of good fortune that I asked that question. If virginity is intrinsically valuable in a potential spouse (and especially in a woman), this is bad news for the feminist movement, which has been libertine since Wollstonecraft.

GF

Joined: 26 Sep 2012

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 5:44 pm Post subject:

Quote:

[The dictionary definition of feminism] was probably formulated by men in the ivory tower, and misses the emotional reality behind feminism �on the ground,� the mixture of resentment, pride, and lust that made and still make up the guts of it, underneath the smooth dermis of equal rights claims. This pathology is part of why feminism has never been able to show the kind of moderation proposed by the dictionary definition. Always impatient, always dissatisfied. So there is a distinction to be made: while someone like Fox is definitely feminist in the abstract, the mainstream is both feminist in the abstract and in its emotional reality.

Wollstonecraft is a prime example.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:39 pm Post subject:

Feminism-run-amok and sexual politicking causing lower birth rates? Good. People! Who needs em? A couple generations down the road the economy will either adapt to the new, lower population, or provide some real incentive to up that population again a la the baby boomers. It's not like there's the room for unlimited growth no matter how much our big business ruled, consumer driven economy demands it anyway.

stilicho25

Joined: 05 Apr 2010

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:00 pm Post subject:

It is lowering the birth rate for those who are educated and can afford to raise children well. It has no effect on the hulking mass of meth/crack addicted underclass

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:41 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Feminism-run-amok and sexual politicking causing lower birth rates? Good. People! Who needs em? A couple generations down the road the economy will either adapt to the new, lower population, or provide some real incentive to up that population again a la the baby boomers. It's not like there's the room for unlimited growth no matter how much our big business ruled, consumer driven economy demands it anyway.

So the answer to limited global resources is to adapt our boom/bust economic cycle into a boom/bust population cycle?

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:43 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

So the answer to limited global resources is to adapt our boom/bust economic cycle into a boom/bust population cycle?

I think it already does that, due to obvious reasons, i.e. when people don't have a job or money they don't have babies.

Speaking of limited resources and population, there is a lot of really interesting international relations research/articles about how resource insecurity and demographics are two of the biggest causes of instability and conflict.

Here is one somewhat famous piece from Thomas Friedman arguing that the recent conflicts in the middle east was caused by water shortages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-other-arab-spring.html?_r=0

Also, there is the current problem with the growing Asian populations who are now finally being able to afford things like cars and mass consumption, which causes an increase on the global costs, and does horrible things to the Chinese and Indian environment, as well as the worlds environment. A low American birthrate is potentially a problem, and if it stays at 1.93 that could cause trouble, but there is a good chance that as jobs return, if jobs return, the birth rate will go up. I would rather have our demographic problems, than those in the Middle East.

Also Fox, why complain about the Swedish parental leave system, which already gives Moms more time to be with their new children, and gives them money so that even if they normally need to work for money, they don't have to worry about that. That is far superior to the American system of maternal leave, also a woman is much more likely to be required to work in America due to financial reasons than Sweden. Also, what do you have against fathers staying home from work to spend time with their new child? I think the financial requirement issue that you speak of is less a function of feminism, and more a function of the elite gaining greater control of the economy, and globalization, and etc. So perhaps your aiming a bit at the wrong targets in that regard.

Just out of curiosity, and Titus and GF can play along too, what is your opinion of original feminist issues, such as women voting, greater legal protection, etc.

Anyways I'll leave it at this, I think we both know we the other stands on this issue.

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:28 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

I think it already does that, due to obvious reasons, i.e. when people don't have a job or money they don't have babies.

I'm pretty sure the opposite has proven to be true in developed nations.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 4 of 10

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe