On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:41:58 -0800, Hardpan  wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:21:42 -0500, "nSCOURGE"
> wrote:
>
>>That human females are the only female species which are sexually receptive
>>in perpetuity is a uniquely deferential adaptation(placing the onus of
>>sexual contact upon the male where resolution of refractory female
>>behaviors had become superfluent in the wake of an immutable estrus
>>state), designed for passive selection of any dominant male with the
>>*fitness to approprite her.
>>
>>Female selection is therefor qualified only within a context of male
>>selection, and is relegated to the passive display of physio-sexual
>>cues(carnal beauty) against which male-overt selection is qualified(men
>>are designed by nature to 'choose', while women are designed to
>>'submit').
>>
>>[* Bear in mind that popularly endorsed criterion for genetic 'fitness'
>>are not at all accurate in their qualification, and are merely asserted in
>>support of ill-conceived and artificial selection pressures.
>>
>> Increased height is not an adaptive trait, nor eye-color, facial
>>features, lean body-type, etc; all meaningless and superficial
>>considerations that western females enjoy the freedom to adopt as strict
>>selection qualifiers.
>>
>>Body fat, in particular, is essential in maintaining adequate body
>>function in harsh and unforgiving conditions - it helps regulate body
>>temperature, provides a stock-pile of energy stores to draw upon in times
>>of famine, helps ward off infection at the surface of the skin -
>>adaptations that would put the vaunted lean-bodies of today at a marked
>>disadvantage in their prospects for surviving a less hospitable, and more
>>contestable, environment.]
>>
>> This validates the strict and exclusionary female selection practices
>>that remain inert within the male of the species.
>>
>>Without accounting for this further, a more differential selection process
>>connotes a markedly diminished libido function, which can then be reduced
>>and balanced as a commodity to be leveraged for material and social
>>advantage.
>>
>>Thus, female biology predisposes them to leverage more pragmatic concerns
>>in their approach to reproduction, by design - female orgasm(response to
>>sexual contact) is designed to affect passivity during invasive
>>copulation, rather than initiative.
>>
>>Unfortunately, many of the 'liberties' afforded women by western
>>stratification models only serve to obfuscate the neccessity of this
>>'maternal pragmatism', encouraging them(esp. through the internalization
>>of mass-media exposure) to indulge more whimsical and impulsive selection
>>criterion without regard for the nurturing of healthy offspring(the
>>bad-boy syndrome, etc.).
>>
>> Material independence has thus conferred selection initiative upon
>>western females via the arbitrary exclusion of sexually viable males,
>>thereby nullifying population growth(A high frequency of divorce is often
>>a social indicator of null population growth - divorce means that women
>>can afford to willfully abandon or reject men) and marginalizing adaptive
>>traits within the gene-pool(not to mention effecting aberrant and
>>pathological male behaviors - but appreciate how any deviation from
>>popularly accepted standards of behaviour warrant the 'pathological'
>>label, before considering how truly plastic these designations are over
>>time.).
>>
>>And it is these same ruinous female 'selection initiatives' which invoke
>>the material exploitation of men with impunity, and without obligation.
>>
>>But what exactly is it that has propogated such  phenomena?
>>
>>It's undeniable that contemporary social models are largely the product of
>>the reduced male capacity to abstract beyond his competitive and adpated
>>animal behaviors.
>>
>>It is these very qualities which have been exploited to subserve the male,
>>forcing him to retreat into a psyche comfort-zone whereby he rationalizes
>>his delusion(*exacerbated through chemical dependencies) that he is
>>'competing' against other men(for mating privelege), when in fact he is
>>merely being stratified according to arbitrary selection qualifiers(which
>>do NOT favor adaptive traits) imposed upon him by the object of that
>>competition.
>>
>>A perfect expression of circular logic in service to animal drives.  But
>>NOT competition.
>>
>>(*Of the few men with a flowering apprehension for the true nature of
>>their exploitation, alcohal is too frequently plied as the obfuscating
>>agent of choice in maintaining the conciliatory disposition necessary for
>>the suppression of reactionary pathlogy in those without the aptitude to
>>digest such knowledge in a more reasoned capacity.)
>>
>>Competition between males has always implied male sovereignty over the
>>nature, boundaries, and rewards of that competition.
>>
>>In reality, men compete only within the strict confines of hierarchal
>>qualifiers and environmental pressures which stratify them without regard
>>to personal initiative.
>>
>>In true competition, proclivities effect selection pressures thereby
>>activating latent adaptive traits(in those with the right genetic
>>templates) which in turn compete and frequently dominate.
>>
>>Unfortunately, 'natural' selection is subordinate to artificial selection
>>pressures imposed by hierarchal social models - I can not stress strongly
>>enough that this is not so much competition, as it is arbitrary
>>stratification.
>>
>>Women may in fact be dependent upon the aggregate of male labor, but
>>arbitrarily imposed punitive selection pressures have removed the
>>mechanisms which obligate women to defer to men the very things they are
>>designed to appropriate in exchange for their labor, support and
>>protection; sexual service and sovereignty.
>>
>>So unless men unify towards a common goal of subverting gender roles more
>>to their advantage, men cannot truly parlay while shouldering an unequal
>>burden in maintaining a model for which women are(ironically) the greatest
>>beneficiaries.
>>
>>In disqualifyinmg males who refuse to exchange mating privelege for a
>>lifetime of exploitation, subservience and female domination, or fail to
>>meet with a plethora of other arbitrary qualifiers, western selection
>>pressures are only serving to dilute adaptive traits within the gene-pool,
>>stymieing evolution in a perverse and antithetical mockery of natural
>>selection - survival of the most deferential.
>>
>>A time of reckoning is at hand; the west will either stir from it's
>>indolent slumber via the realization of higher ideology, or it will be
>>displaced(eventually) by alien populations, along with a re-activation of
>>more patriarchal models in it's stead.
>>
>>Lastly, I would like to say that I appreciate the desire of women to
>>remain functionally independent of men, and thus free of the implicit
>>obligation to exchange sexual service for material needs and comforts.
>>
>>But such sentiment IS in fundamental conflict with evolutionary biology,
>>and thus gender equality is doomed to failure through it's wanton
>>disregard for adaptive behaviors in the male of the species.
>>
>>As always, note that a resentment of contemporary western gender roles is
>>NOT a hatred and resentement of women, and is therefor not an expression
>>of misogyny.
>
>Nice piece!!
>
>It's too bad that it will go over the heads of 90 percent of the women
>who read it.
>
>It's so much easier to simply slap a "misogynist" label on any Man
>with the cojones to call the feminists on the carpet (no pun intended)
>in regards to the pussification of the western male and the so-called
>"impowerment" of the present-day western world female.

I am betting that 98% of all women read this and get to the part about
women being made to submit and they will run headlong into a brick
wall and read no further.

And as far as calling the femanists on their hippocracies.... I have
been carrying that Misogynist lable since day one here. I have been
railing about the boosting of femanine esteem at the cost of male
esteem for years.






--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/5/05 10:24:58 AM ---