[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

yea, you are equivocating. Just because a guy wears panty hose doesn't mean he wouldn't put his fist through your little pussy face. And really, again, that has more to do with culture than anything ;\

Yeah, you fucking retard fuckwad, I do not think you understand what is going on here but are just nit-picking.

Culturally, the Celts wore kilts that resemble skirts and sometimes Romans wore tunics that resembled one-piece dresses with a belt. Of course it is totally fucking irrelevant...

However, some fucking indie faggot queer douche-de-la-vagine wearing make-up and a male thong can eat my fucking boots.

So Catherine the great musta had some high testosterone or something huh? Most of these qualities you are talking about are socialized more than they are affected by hormones. Granted, testosterone can make you angry unnecessarily and shit, but that doesn't mean women can't be aggressive.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women.

If women are so naturally aggressive, how come they have played second fidde to men in nearly every circumstance?

anyway, being aggressive is a passion. I don't think stoicism supports anger and aggressive tendencies. Cause you know, anger is a passion which can easily cloud the mind. So, being masculine, by your own argument, could easily lead to the downfall of the west.

Stoicism is about the suppression of such passions to some extent, however, few argued more patiently for the invasion and destruction of Carthage than the stoic Cato the Elder.

My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization. I would say the majority of the downfall comes from a sense of luxury and riches which lull the nation into a dreamlike, sated state of decadence.

What stoicism preaches isn't ANGER AND AGGRESSION but a peaceful calm. Men and women are both capable of this, and femininity and masculinity have nothing to do with it. In fact, they both have to overcome themselves and their emotions with reasoning. UNLESS OF COURSE BEING MASCULINE IS ALL CALM AND STOIC AND BEING FEMININE IS ALL CONSTANTLY INDULGENT AND SHIT. Which its not

I guess I got this a little wrong... I was not thinking of stoicism in the pure sense of the Greek philosophy but more in how it is portrayed in the way people act; I wasn't clear enough for you, or rather, I was, and you chose to pick out just one, small part of the argument.

Well, whatever.

The German concept of 'vir' is a good notion of what I am talking about here, I guess...

Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path.

Stoicism plays a certain role in all of this, naturally.

you're just an equivocator. and a maker of conveniently ridiculous definitions. Really, the tendency to label anything "Weak" as feminine has nothing to do with females or with males liking to look pretty, and more to do with the association of a simple dichotomy.

Also, maybe women are drawn more to emotional attachments because, culturally (in some cultures, anyway), that is the only type of attachments that they were allowed to fulfil. False cause -- confusing cause and effect.

(1) Beauty is a shallow value.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure. Maybe it is even environmental -- I guess if you were the physically weaker gender in an environment ruled by force, it would behoove you to be submissive and harbor differen values.

And furthermore, since women can be masculine, it follows that masculinity will still exist. All we need is female rule instead of male. The males can be the feminine ones and the females can be the masculine aggressive rulers. According to your argument, there should be nothing wrong with this; society hasn't been feminized, the roles have just been changed. So the west won't fall. In fact I think there are more women than men now a days so maybe we will be EXTRA MASCULINE.
being aggressive really isnt that necessary now a days anyway. there's more important things than being warlike. Ambitious, sure, but really there's no reason women can't be ambitious. Again, that is a cultural thing. Women werent ALLOWED to be ambitious. false causin it up i see...

your lame arguments have been refuted ;o

lol, what?

Because women can do something, it is all over? The arguments are done?

If you look to the exception to every rule as the rule, then you are an idiot.

Why do you even talk?

ok. Like men/romans don't indulge in things? ONLY IN THE STRONG THINGS. ITS OKAY TO INDULGE IN THOSE THINGS.

cause it gets them off, obviously. You're pretty feminine from what I remember of your pictures... you always struck me as a queer ;\

Well, Romans later went on to be feminine douche bags like all great civilizations that compromise their values.

And I think it is odd you think I am a queer. I eat more pussy than a woman's prison.

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

You moronic boob. Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors? Do you honestly believe that Rome fell just because men preened themselves too much? Are you that thick?

Feminization and opulence. Did you read my post?

Feminized value system; overindulgence in luxury.

Quickly! We all must enter into strict inflexible binary gender roles to save our civilization! Everything must be in a strict dichotomy! No room for any gender flexibility! No women can be leaders! No men can be nurturers!

I do not think that super-strict gender roles makes sense; there needs to be a sense of balance in everything but I think that as a general rule it is best for us to conform to basic standards.

Yes, actually, I do. There are few things I loathe more than a self-righteous vegetarian. However, unlike you, I don't get angry when people decide to be vegetarians on their own and don't try to push it on me. You, on the other hand, start squealing with indignation at the thought of someone wearing pantyhose when they aren't trying to convince you to wear it as well. Some men like to wear feminine things. If they aren't trying to convince you to wear them, then you should get over it.

I don't know why you seem to think that the term "phallocentric" is more offensive when its embraced by feminists left and right.

I think vegetarianism is irrational.

In our evolutionary existence we began as hunter gatherers; meat provides a lot of health benefits to us.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The feminization is what caused the the political and socioeconomic factors, hes prolly gonna say.
Hey which feminized political and socioeconomic factors were they? Curious for a more direct example.

Luxury bred out the warrior spirit within the Roman people, and it made peopel grow attached to the material and sated as opposed to desiring a more disciplined life.

People who live in the lap of luxury and live lives of leisure do not have accurate world views.

PS saying, "THEY LOST IN A WAR CAUSE THEY GOT ALL WEAK" is not a good example. Also, saying, "CAUSE THEY WERE ALL NOT GOOD POLITICALLY CAUSE THEY LET INDULGENCE GET TO THEM" is also not a good example.

see the problem behind all of this is the association with "feminine" and "masculine" with "weak, evil etc." and "Strong, good," respectively. However, I would have to cite Friedrich Nietzsche in mentioning that males were the ones who created these associations; not any inherently weak/evilness of females. Talk to a feminist (male or female) and they might reverse those associations -- especially when it comes to indulgences. What kind of indulgences have females historically been able to partake in? Almost none, because they were restricted from them -- be it sexual, monetary, drinking, fighting, gambling; they were also allowed to indulge in their feelings more, whereas women pretty much had to sit at home and work (depending on the culture).

If anything, women have been a model of stoicism.

How have women been a model of stoicism?

And women being given the right to indulge is usually a good sign that civilization is crumbling -- abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.

Women have generally been portrayed as the emotional upbringers of the children.

I've never seen my father cry but I could not count the times I have witnessed my mother or other female relatives cry.