Brilliant read

[XealotX]

The Wimp Factor: Gender gaps, holy wars, & the politics of anxious masculinity.

Please resist the urge to comment unless you've read the whole article. Thanks.

[Dilbert]

Not a lot that's new.

Basically says that a female interests lie in her own survival (and presumably that of her offspring). To that end, they are attracted to powerful men. Power, in turn, is earned not (or not just) by individual attributes, but one also needs the social support of others to achieve it. Power is also highly situational.

[Luminescence]

It seems to suggest (as I've read elsewhere) that females are in a way ''genetic gatekeepers''. They subconsciously weed out unuseful genetic, behavioural, social characteristics e.g social anxiety or personalities and traits that clash with the culture she lives in. A women is nothing without her culture.

[XealotX]

Originally Posted by Dilbert

Not a lot that's new.

Basically says that a female interests lie in her own survival (and presumably that of her offspring). To that end, they are attracted to powerful men. Power, in turn, is earned not (or not just) by individual attributes, but one also needs the social support of others to achieve it. Power is also highly situational.

Dude, I said read not skim. The article was actually more focused on the potential origins and ramifications of the male masculine identity.

"While all anatomically intact males have a penis, no one has a phallus - the mythic, permanently erect archetypal monolith of masculine omnipotence that signifies untrammeled invulnerability, and freedom from all dependency." P.2

Seriously, how did you skip past passages such the following to reach your rather shallow summary above?:

According to Ducat, and I agree, that the placement of this line of thought concerning the "gendering" of issues by ultraconservatives has, after a twenty-five year program of inductive propaganda through the use of "increasingly popular right-wing radio talk show hosts" [p.3], successfully linked "progressive" or "liberal" thinking and attached them to a "feminine" link to nurturance and compassion (the 'government' as the ultimate 'mommy,' with poor dependents sucking on its teat). But a grievous error has been committed because conservatives fail to mention to their radio listeners that corporate welfare and huge tax breaks for the rich do not seem to fall under the same "dependency." The common thread amongst conservatives seems to stress that the sucking of money upward into the higher echelons of society is OK because it makes the rich smarter and more powerful, while at separate times strongly suggesting that money trickling down to the poor it is bad for them because it makes them stupid and dependent. (This deliberate omission of these facts does have a name: In social psychology, this mental line of thought is called 'myth enhancing,' or 'hierarchy enhancing' -- but that subject is for another time and place).

At this juncture, the author imparts us with, what he considers psychology's reasoning, for this hatred of the feminine and its link with "progressive thought." His theory, and that of others, leads us to child development and the tearing of the young male away from the natural nurturance of the mother, and the "adjustment" into the "successful" aggressive male world through the rejection of the female because of her exact opposite behaviors of nurturing and "dependent" ways.

[Dilbert]

Originally Posted by XealotX

Dude, I said read not skim. The article was actually more focused on the potential origins and ramifications of the male masculine identity.

"While all anatomically intact males have a penis, no one has a phallus - the mythic, permanently erect archetypal monolith of masculine omnipotence that signifies untrammeled invulnerability, and freedom from all dependency." P.2

Seriously, how did you skip past passages such the following to reach your rather shallow summary above?:

According to Ducat, and I agree, that the placement of this line of thought concerning the "gendering" of issues by ultraconservatives has, after a twenty-five year program of inductive propaganda through the use of "increasingly popular right-wing radio talk show hosts" [p.3], successfully linked "progressive" or "liberal" thinking and attached them to a "feminine" link to nurturance and compassion (the 'government' as the ultimate 'mommy,' with poor dependents sucking on its teat). But a grievous error has been committed because conservatives fail to mention to their radio listeners that corporate welfare and huge tax breaks for the rich do not seem to fall under the same "dependency." The common thread amongst conservatives seems to stress that the sucking of money upward into the higher echelons of society is OK because it makes the rich smarter and more powerful, while at separate times strongly suggesting that money trickling down to the poor it is bad for them because it makes them stupid and dependent. (This deliberate omission of these facts does have a name: In social psychology, this mental line of thought is called 'myth enhancing,' or 'hierarchy enhancing' -- but that subject is for another time and place).

At this juncture, the author imparts us with, what he considers psychology's reasoning, for this hatred of the feminine and its link with "progressive thought." His theory, and that of others, leads us to child development and the tearing of the young male away from the natural nurturance of the mother, and the "adjustment" into the "successful" aggressive male world through the rejection of the female because of her exact opposite behaviors of nurturing and "dependent" ways.

Actually, I did notice the second (longer) passage that you quoted, and thought that it was an excellent and original perspective. Thing is, the piece of writing a whole wasn't really focused on a single thesis, so I focused on what was probably most on-topic for the forum.

[D-Boy]

X, you familiar with Zarathustra_fi over on Fastseduction? He's in his 50's now and has a professional background in psychology.

Gents,

Betaization is much deeper and complex than simply related to culture.

It is a biological process, there are biological factors involved.

One factor for sure present is impairment of male logic by the means of female hypnotic rich descriptions.

All the guys who have some experience in the field of covert hypnosis can understand very fast how the fast rate speech of the female of our species has a hypnotic effect on the male brain as it "shifts the focus" of the male.

Every male who has some experience of hunting ( well most of us I bet ) knows how important is KEEPING THE FOCUS in regard to every hunting activity (including war)

Home and the office desk are not the natural environment for a man.

Moving in woods and forests and hunting is the natural environment for the man.

When a man gets into the passive state of resting and "being at home" that destroys him slowly and changes him into a caricature of what a man is biologically by definition.

Now there is all the time new research about oxytocin and you guys will find this article interesting about the role of oxytocin and testosterone in men and women:

http://schooloftantra.net/worldpolya...roneJanet.html

Men are hardwired to "fuck it or kill it" and women are hardwired to "take it home".

In the phase of the falling in love the male develops one-itis for the female due to clear biological factors and that reduces or eliminates his tendency to "fuck it or kill it" for a certain period of time.

The time necessary for him being bonded to the female long enough.

Now a prolongate state of "sweetness, bonding, loving, being close and all the time horny for each other" is OXYTOCIN related BETA STATE.

The natural Alpha state is testosterone = "Fuck it or kill it"

I am going through hundreds of studies about the subject. Another important thing which I have been reading about oxytocin is this: in gynecology it has been know already for long the role of oxytocin in regard to maternal love.

In another article I read it was speculated the biological similarity between maternal love and pair bonding love in regard to the fact that BOTH rise oxytocin.

Tell me you guys what this brings to your mind: oxytocin is released in maternal love AND pair bonding.

In the ancient town of Sparta in ancient Greece men were taken away from mothers at six years of age and taken to live into the house of men.

One of the biological elements of betaization is a state of PASSIVITY and SWEETNESS created by biological factors to males which reduces their "fuck it or kill it" the times necessary for babies to be born..

Interestingly females with higher testosteron levels are more prone to promiscuity and react with increased aggression to bonding ( what AFCs define as a "promiscuous bitch" or "slut" )

For example this is an interesting study:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1691732

Correlation between level of testosterone and female choosiness in female dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis),

And you will find this even more interesting.

The polycystic ovary syndrome in the woman which causes elevated testosterone levels also causes promiscuous sexual behavior

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u21288t8131226l2/

So basically my point is:

Testosterone = Alpha, aggression, hunting

Oxytocin = sweetness, maternal, bonding

Tell me what happens to an Alpha male when he gets into the "sweet, maternal, bonding" state.

Feminine women know this by instinct and they show GREAT DEGREES OF ANXIETY when they sense that their guy is getting into "sweet state" and while being compelled by hormonal changes to have him into that they are also SCARED TO DEATH of being successful in it.

D-Boy

[themuz]

A very interesting article, but out of curiousity X, what talking points are you trying to get at? I read the article, and I'm wondering how you're relating it to the forum, and wondering if it wouldn't have been better posted in Serious Business.

[Dr. Timothy Von Icarus]

wow, read it, sorta, you guys are giant fags! JUST SAYING!!!

[Paulybobs]

Ha, that's funny D-Boy, the 3 girls I know with Polycystic Ovaries do indeed get about a bit.

[MTS91]

These threads are interesting but they don't actually do jack shit.