Doom Marine
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > My Theory
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


Posts: 14164
Registered: 01-01


This is a theory I came up with last night when I was arguing about religion or something on #zdoom. I guess it was the result of Dr. Pepper and lack of sleep. This will probably offend all you religious people, so be warned. Also, I'm not claiming I invented this theory, I just have never heard of such before. In fact, I have this funny suspision that Trent Reznor explored this very subject in The Downward Spiral. Anyway, here it is:

PART 1 - FREUDIAN ROOTS:
This all begins with Freudian psychology, a school of thought that includes such great things as penis envy and the Oedipus Complex. Personaly, I belive most of what Freud taught was a bit off. One thing I do believe is true is the whole concept of the power through the phallus. It is a subconsious belief among all males that power can be weilded through the phallus.

Throughout history, phallic symbols have also been symbols of power, such as the sword, the scepter, the gun, the scyscraper, and the rocket. Whan a man feels threatened by something his own phallus cannot handle, he will attempt to compensate by creating such an object to to the job for him. A man may try to buy the most expensive car, or boat, or whatever to prove to women that he is sexualy adaquate when in fact he feels he is really not. Weapons like swords, guns and nuclear missiles all are all symbols used by man to prove his superiority to his enemies by pointing it at them, ready to penetrate. Like it or not, this is how males think on a subconcious level, and so this is how society often works.

PART 2 - IN THE BEGINNING
This is where we get to my main point. When man first began to be aware of his surroundings on a level higher than instinct, he realised he had no fucking clue how the universe works. This scared him, and he responded the only way he knew how. He created the ultimate phallic symbol to gain power over reality itself. He created a god. Though not phallic in imagry, it is *******ely a something to compensate for the void he finds lacking in himself which is his own ignorance.

Now he has this god to conquer his own lack of understanding of everything, much the same way he uses his penis to conquer women. Of course just as he wishes his penis to be better than every other man's, he also wishes his god to be known before all others. And thus began religion.

PART 3 - MATRIARCHAL RELIGION
Now, the Earth's history has unfortunatley been run by males, due to the fact that females tend to be physicaly weaker than males, and always seem to be surrounded by testosterone-filled phallus-weilding individuals. But if it had been different, how would that have effected religion? Without their need to compensate, women would have been satisfied with just their sensibility of the world immediately surrounding them. All-powerful god-units would have not been invented and worshipped. Women, seemingly more attuned to that which surrounds them as opposed to that which only theoreticaly exists would most likely choose to worship nature itself and its many components which work together to form a whole instead of an imposing figure waiting to rape the lands of his followers if they disobey him.

Now how would that have impacted history? Being a more reality-based society, there would have been far, far less holy wars, genocides, persecution, and opression due to distant ideals infused in the masses by the 'gods'. On the downside, science and technology would probably have not progressed nearly as far as they have due to a lack of a need of making what the people posess bigger, better, and stronger.

PART 4 - PROOF?
Though my theory is pretty outlandish and was hastily constructed within the span a only a few hours, there is some proof. Societies where religion is more prominent tend to opress the women more. For instance, in the Islamic countries where the laws of God are the laws of the state, women have little or no rights. They are opressed under the phallic theocracy, like an abusive husband who would rape his wife. The same is true within China, where the godlike emperors have been replaced by the idealistic religion of communism.

Unfortunately, my theory isn't supported by a counter-example. The societies that have existed without opressive religions (the native Americans and the druidic Celts being the only examples I could come up with), aren't particularly female-oriented as far as I know.

EPILOGUE
Keep in mind that this theory was created last night, and expanded on only as I lay in bed last night staring at the cieling and as I wrote this very article. I never said that this is the truth or that you should believe all that I have written. In fact, I have posted this here for the sole purpose of its being debated. The most inaccurate part is probably the one relating to females, seeing as how I'm male and can't really tell you a whole Hell of a lot about the thought patterns of women. They are only guesses I have observed through studying the way females tend to operate.

As the title of this forum says, 'flame on'!

__________________
-D(A)N

Old Post 05-24-02 00:16 #
Danarchy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Fredrik


Posts: 11685
Registered: 05-00


Yeah nice

Old Post 05-24-02 00:19 #
Fredrik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Black
Loser


Posts: 78
Registered: 03-02


Makes sense to me. I'll be on your side as soon as someone constructively tries to denounce it. : )

Black

__________________
LIFE = DESTRUCTION

Old Post 05-24-02 00:29 #
Black is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
IMJack
Web Radio Geek


Posts: 3704
Registered: 10-01


I'm down with this.

__________________
Listen Up!!! http://radio.utdallas.edu/ Monday nights 10-midnight Central

Old Post 05-24-02 08:53 #
IMJack is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Scientist
False Prophet


Posts: 663
Registered: 03-02


:-) How nice everybody agrees...
Well I don't so lets start flaming:

It's a nice theory but I have some problems with it:

the_Danarchist said:
Throughout history, phallic symbols have also been symbols of power, such as the sword, the scepter, the gun, the scyscraper, and the rocket. [...] Weapons like swords, guns and nuclear missiles all are all symbols used by man to prove his superiority to his enemies by pointing it at them, ready to penetrate. Like it or not, this is how males think on a subconcious level, and so this is how society often works.

I must say that I find the idea that these things are formed after a penis is a bit far-fetched. If you want you can see the penis shape in everything (pen, pencil, chimney, cigarette, mushroom, ect ect.)
Things like swords scepters guns scyscrapers and rockets aren't shaped after the phallus. The shape of things is for the most part defined by function. The sword became popular because it was an effective weapon not because is has shape of a phallus.

the_Danarchist said:
PART 2 - IN THE BEGINNING
This is where we get to my main point. When man first began to be aware of his surroundings on a level higher than instinct, he realised he had no fucking clue how the universe works. This scared him, and he responded the only way he knew how. He created the ultimate phallic symbol to gain power over reality itself. He created a god. Though not phallic in imagry, it is *******ely a something to compensate for the void he finds lacking in himself which is his own ignorance.

Now he has this god to conquer his own lack of understanding of everything, much the same way he uses his penis to conquer women. Of course just as he wishes his penis to be better than every other man's, he also wishes his god to be known before all others. And thus began religion.


sounds logical I guess

the_Danarchist said:
PART 3 - MATRIARCHAL RELIGION
Now, the Earth's history has unfortunatley been run by males, due to the fact that females tend to be physicaly weaker than males, and always seem to be surrounded by testosterone-filled phallus-weilding individuals. But if it had been different, how would that have effected religion? Without their need to compensate, women would have been satisfied with just their sensibility of the world immediately surrounding them. All-powerful god-units would have not been invented and worshipped. Women, seemingly more attuned to that which surrounds them as opposed to that which only theoreticaly exists would most likely choose to worship nature itself and its many components which work together to form a whole instead of an imposing figure waiting to rape the lands of his followers if they disobey him.


"Without their need to compensate" This I find a bit odd. In my experience there is more rivalry among women than among men. They spend more time compensating eachother than we. Just think of make-up, clothes and jewelry. Next to this they tend to pay much more attention to the way other women behave (dress) than men pay attention to other men. Further women tend to use the information gathered from this paying attention to talk more negatively about fellow females than men do about fellow men.

the_Danarchist said:
Societies where religion is more prominent tend to opress the women more. For instance, in the Islamic countries where the laws of God are the laws of the state, women have little or no rights. They are opressed under the phallic theocracy, like an abusive husband who would rape his wife. [/B]

In many cases religion helped the "liberation"of women.

the_Danarchist said:
The same is true within China, where the godlike emperors have been replaced by the idealistic religion of communism.[/B]

I didn't quite get your piont here. Are you implying that communism liberated women from oppression or that it is just another form of oppression of women?

Last edited by Scientist on 05-24-02 at 12:39

Old Post 05-24-02 12:21 #
Scientist is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dsm
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 9907
Registered: 12-01



"Without their need to compensate" This I find a bit odd. In my experience there is more rivalry among women than among men. They spend more time compensating eachother than we. Just think of make-up, clothes and jewelry. Next to this they tend to pay much more attention to the way other women behave (dress) than men pay attention to other men. Further women tend to use the information gathered from this paying attention to talk more negatively about fellow females than men do about fellow men.


I agree on that. I believe that women are no better than men, they just have their different ways. And I also find that women are more worried about things like weight and looks than men are.

It's a nice theory danny, but I just can't agree with it - at least not on this point.

__________________
"Welcome to reality, welcome to Hell"

Old Post 05-24-02 13:31 #
dsm is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


Posts: 14164
Registered: 01-01



Scientist said:
I didn't quite get your piont here. Are you implying that communism liberated women from oppression or that it is just another form of oppression of women?

Sorry, I was kinda assuming everyone knew that women have been opressed by China for centuries. They were slaves before the revolution, and now they get killed as infants there (i think they have like a 5-to-1 ratio of men-to-women there).

__________________
-D(A)N

Old Post 05-24-02 19:28 #
Danarchy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Black
Loser


Posts: 78
Registered: 03-02


Well, traditionally it seems that the male species has tended to always be the one who has to be 'dressed up' in order to attract the female species. I'm sure there are exceptions but for the majority of the time this is true for all lifeforms that reproduce sexually. It seems however humanity has that reversed probably because we as men had the natural strength over women and way back then that was probably all anyone had. Your own physical attributes. Hence our mind-set with male/female stereotypes. That's just what I think. That was a valid point though Scientist.

Yeah, the entire phallus thing was kinda out there, but with a little thought and some more work we could probably make it seem logical. :)

Black

__________________
LIFE = DESTRUCTION

Old Post 05-24-02 21:06 #
Black is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dsm
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 9907
Registered: 12-01


You know, I get the impression that women aren't physically weaker than men in every aspect.
I read somewhere that women are tougher when it comes to operating below water and I've heard someone say that women are better at handling pain (in some situations) than men - giving birth to a child is really damn painful.

Anyway, back to the actual topic: I have the general impression that women care more about their looks than men - like I said above, they typically worry so damn much about going a *tad* up in weight.

I have yet to meet a man who would say stuff like "Shit, my hair isn't all smooth" or something like that.

__________________
"Welcome to reality, welcome to Hell"

Old Post 05-24-02 22:02 #
dsm is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
nxn
meephead


Posts: 5398
Registered: 09-01



Black said:
Yeah, the entire phallus thing was kinda out there, but with a little thought and some more work we could probably make it seem logical. :)

You're not supposed to make stuff up in a theory, a theory should be based on evidance and experiments. Like Dan said religion was made up to seem logical, most of us know it's not though.

__________________
What once was moose is now all meep.

Old Post 05-24-02 23:11 #
nxn is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


Posts: 14164
Registered: 01-01


Huh? What did I make up now?

Anyway, women are actualy physicaly better in most respects. The one thing they lack in though, is physical muscular strength. Their muscles last longer atleticaly, and they can take pain easier, but they do lack the muscle mass that men have.

Also, concentrate on part 2. Part 3 may not be so valid, considering I was wanking when I first thought of it. :P

__________________
-D(A)N

Old Post 05-25-02 00:47 #
Danarchy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
nxn
meephead


Posts: 5398
Registered: 09-01


I don't get why we must judge life soo much when all it is is just limited time to reproduce and keep your part of the gene pool alive.

__________________
What once was moose is now all meep.

Old Post 05-25-02 00:51 #
nxn is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Fredrik


Posts: 11685
Registered: 05-00


Bah. Everything is not about penis.

Old Post 05-25-02 00:54 #
Fredrik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


Posts: 14164
Registered: 01-01



orion said:
I don't get why we must judge life soo much when all it is is just limited time to reproduce and keep your part of the gene pool alive.

Because there are so many fucking fun things to do in the meantime!

__________________
-D(A)N

Old Post 05-25-02 01:00 #
Danarchy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Fredrik


Posts: 11685
Registered: 05-00


Yeah just spam on and ignore the rest

Old Post 05-25-02 01:07 #
Fredrik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
nxn
meephead


Posts: 5398
Registered: 09-01



the_Danarchist said:

Because there are so many fucking fun things to do in the meantime!


yeah and worrying about whether or not a sword was made because it resembles a penis isn't one of those fun things.

__________________
What once was moose is now all meep.

Old Post 05-25-02 01:11 #
nxn is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Fredrik


Posts: 11685
Registered: 05-00



orion said:

yeah and worrying about whether or not a sword was made because it resembles a penis isn't one of those fun things.

Damn right.

Old Post 05-25-02 01:15 #
Fredrik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


Posts: 14164
Registered: 01-01


Sure it is.

I enjoy expanding my mind. Thinking about all the possibilities within the universe is intriguing. Psychology, religion, politics, science, whatever. And arguing about them opens the mind to even more possibilities.

I think it was Freud who thought of that anyway. I was just using it for supporting evidence and flavor. :)

__________________
-D(A)N

Old Post 05-25-02 01:17 #
Danarchy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fodders
OWNS YOU


Posts: 5810
Registered: 05-00


I can see you singing the song from Friends that Joey sang, "All you need is a winkle" :)

__________________
Fod's page Son's place De Man's place
You are my opponent, but not my enemy, for your resistance gives me strength. Your will gives me courage. Your spirit ennobles me. And, although I aim to defeat you, should I succeed, I will not humiliate you, instead I will honour you..For without you, I am a lesser man.

Old Post 05-25-02 02:11 #
fodders is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
nxn
meephead


Posts: 5398
Registered: 09-01


eh, whatever floats your boat I guess. I'll admit I end up thinking about stuff like that from time to time aswell, but in the end I alweys end up being in the same spot I started because there's no way of proving most of the things I think about.

The last thing that I thought of that was like that was the whole box in a box hypothesis. I'm thinking that everything makes up something bigger. Like look at an atom, and then look at an galaxy. They have some similarityes. Could it be possible that there might be some kind of life in an atom? Or that the galaxy we live in makes up something larger? It's possible I guess, but thinking about it won't really get me anywhere except to the conclusion I wasted a good hour. So I go to sleep instead.

__________________
What once was moose is now all meep.

Old Post 05-25-02 17:59 #
nxn is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Wobbo
Of course, I could be wrong


Posts: 1253
Registered: 05-01


Its good that youre thinking, but youre wrong about women being better than or worse than men in any physical aspects. Modern biologists agree that there have only been very minor genetic TRENDS (not actual genetic changes) in women compared to men, and only for the past 15,000 years or so, and even then only in certain places (Amazon...). The only exception would be minor bone structure issues for the carrying of babies. Remember that Any "evidence" you see claiming that there are actual genetic differences between the sexes should be regarded with the highest levels of suspicion. It has been a long standing staple of right-wingers AND left-wingers to manipulate science to justify evils which have only recently arrived because of their veiws, genetics being another opportunity.

Otherwise good thinking, i never EVER though of the cross as a phallic symbol, but thats excellent

My view: spirituality used to be a TEMPORARY method of explanation in the place of science that probably was NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY by human beings. Do not confuse that with the slavery/capitalism/authorty/suffering endorsing "religion" of today. Current religions are nothing more than TOOLS for the ruling class - more specifically - ways to justify the differences in class and the need for authorty (i.e. bullshit like "original sin" and "the need to be saved")

ANARCHY SCORES!

Old Post 05-29-02 21:57 #
Wobbo is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
pritch
Super Moderator


Posts: 6135
Registered: 11-01


I agree with most of dan's neat argument there, phallocentricism IS evident in symbolic constructions, or dare I say, erections? :P

I would go into more detail but my uptime is +17 hours already and I'm beat, I finished my last exam today, YAY!

__________________
I'm the magic man. I got magic hands.

Old Post 05-29-02 23:35 #
pritch is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fodders
OWNS YOU


Posts: 5810
Registered: 05-00


Good luck

__________________
Fod's page Son's place De Man's place
You are my opponent, but not my enemy, for your resistance gives me strength. Your will gives me courage. Your spirit ennobles me. And, although I aim to defeat you, should I succeed, I will not humiliate you, instead I will honour you..For without you, I am a lesser man.

Old Post 05-30-02 01:04 #
fodders is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Danarchy
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


Posts: 14164
Registered: 01-01



Xian said:
Its good that youre thinking, but youre wrong about women being better than or worse than men in any physical aspects. Modern biologists agree that there have only been very minor genetic TRENDS (not actual genetic changes) in women compared to men, and only for the past 15,000 years or so, and even then only in certain places (Amazon...). The only exception would be minor bone structure issues for the carrying of babies. Remember that Any "evidence" you see claiming that there are actual genetic differences between the sexes should be regarded with the highest levels of suspicion. It has been a long standing staple of right-wingers AND left-wingers to manipulate science to justify evils which have only recently arrived because of their veiws, genetics being another opportunity.


Grr...isn't anyone paying attention?

The only thing I said that females lack physicaly compared to males is muscle strength, but thats mostly due to the fact that they tend to be smaller, thus less muscle mass.

__________________
-D(A)N

Old Post 05-30-02 05:53 #
Danarchy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Little Faith
Rigtige mænd er voldtægtsmænd


Posts: 3253
Registered: 05-02


From a (slightly outdated) survival point of view it is quite logical that females should be physically superior to males. The reason behind this is that males are the "expendable" ones. While the loss of female lives are very harmful to the breeding capacity (one less womb to carry babies, one less pair of breast to feed babies) the loss of male lives do not have such a direct impact. After all one male and several females could produce several babies simultaneously while several males and one female only can produce one baby at a given time (unless she had twins of course). Therefore it makes sense that the female should be the "survivor" of the species. It also makes sense that males should be the ones to take on the risky jobs far from home, since they are the ones we can afford to sacrifice.


Of course this system is totally obsolete and has been so since the neolithic revolution (when man discovered agriculture, the most important era in human history).

__________________
I am, therefore I suck.

Old Post 05-30-02 09:43 #
Little Faith is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lüt
Administrator


Posts: 9170
Registered: 05-00



the_Danarchist said:
The only thing I said that females lack physicaly compared to males is muscle strength, but thats mostly due to the fact that they tend to be smaller, thus less muscle mass.
*cough*

Xian said:
spirituality used to be a TEMPORARY method of explanation in the place of science that probably was NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY by human beings.
And how do you know this?

Xian said:
Do not confuse that with the slavery/capitalism/authorty/suffering endorsing "religion" of today.
ROFL, what religions are you going on about?

Xian said:
Current religions are nothing more than TOOLS for the ruling class - more specifically - ways to justify the differences in class and the need for authorty
Sheeeeesh, for the last time, just because people abuse and misuse religion does NOT make the religion itself bad. Some people will take advantage of anything they can, and religion happens to be one of the easiest things to use to further their own personal agendas. These people are not the true followers of the religion and should not be mistaken as such.

People get suckered all the time, and if these abusers didn't use religion, they would come up with another way in no time. Guaranteed.

Xian said:
(i.e. bullshit like "original sin" and "the need to be saved")
Heh well if there is Hell awaiting, I'd say there is quite a need to be saved.

Little Faith said:
It also makes sense that males should be the ones to take on the risky jobs far from home, since they are the ones we can afford to sacrifice.
Uh, yeah maybe if the only purpose of human life was breeding, that would make sense. That theory seems to be completely ignoring anything else that people might do during their lives besides breed. People can't pass fair judgements of who should do what on any other kind of basis than per-person.

Little Faith said:
Of course this system is totally obsolete
Heh, yep.

__________________
Technology sucks.

Old Post 05-30-02 16:03 #
Lüt is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dsm
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 9907
Registered: 12-01



pritch said:
I would go into more detail but my uptime is +17 hours already and I'm beat, I finished my last exam today, YAY!

Lucky bastard, I've got to go through 24 more days!

__________________
"Welcome to reality, welcome to Hell"

Old Post 05-30-02 17:34 #
dsm is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Little Faith
Rigtige mænd er voldtægtsmænd


Posts: 3253
Registered: 05-02


Humanity have made Darwin's model of evolution totally obsolete. Without ever bothering to think up an alternative.

In my view much of human nature, both physically and mentally, is out of sync with the world we live in. The socio-economo-cultural developement have simply been too fast for the physical to catch up. Yet we are doing nothing about it only bothering about the part of human evolution that is actually working: Disease resistance.

__________________
I am, therefore I suck.

Old Post 05-30-02 18:10 #
Little Faith is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Black
Loser


Posts: 78
Registered: 03-02


You are all over-thinking on this topic and thus your input has became mundane. Typically men have dominated over women. Your opinions, thoughts and statistics would have meaning in the ideal world that you all seem to live in when trying to hold what you percieve to be a debate, but you all fail to acknowledge the 'two-faced' reality behind anything.

The fact of the matter is women became oppressed -a weakness was exposed- and men exploited it. Since women were percieved to be weaker they became weaker. Physical strength is not everything. Nor is intellectual strength.

If you wish to challenge this I ask you first to consider why we live in a male dominated world. Perhaps women found male domination practical at one time or maybe they were simply oppressed. Either way I highly doubt that they thought they were superior for any of the argued reasons. And if they were, it was to a minimal extent.

Even now, your opinions, thoughts and statistics are damaged. You neglected to acknowledge that we have nearly perfected an artificial womb. Thus your entire argument behind 'women having to be stronger for reproduction reasons' no longer stands as powerfully as it once had. Their superiority (almost to the point of their existance) from a genetic standpoint has become nearly irrelevant.

I will stand next to the_Danachist because he is becoming the subject of your values and opinions, and I am not in the mood to see you shove them down his throat.

In all technicality, the_Danachist was right when he related muscular strength with male superiority because humanity (in it's masses) has always favored war, battles or other acts of power/strength over intelligence or "genetic superiority." This is especially true since males are naturally physically stronger (and yes Lut, there are exceptions, although I think the_Danachist was arguing from a traditional standpoint, since during this day in age there is really no reason to be physically strong whereas in the past it probably would have been more of a necessity) than females. And again, the fact that we live in a male dominated world totally derived of male philosophy and male defined values, morals, laws, etc. would (in my humble opinion) point to male superiority. I think this is still true although not to the extent as it was in the past. Even a child could figure this out with about ten minutes of thinking but I suppose not everyone thinks before they start talking about something that they virtually know nothing about. In any case all these things would show that males are superior in world practice and thus it is more likely that they founded the principles by which we live. I'm making reference to the_Danachist's theory.

This, in no way should seem sexist since I am simply stating it how I see it. I will not take a side and I do not necessarily agree with the means that these things take to achieve their status. Take this as you will. I feel as if I could easily argue from this standpoint and undoubtedly win.

The King of Thieves,
Black

Little Faith, this is no reason to make up an alternative to Charles Darwin's theories about Evolution because it is still practical to the world in which we live in. Humanity will not evolve as long as we can hide behind our technology.

__________________
LIFE = DESTRUCTION

Old Post 05-30-02 19:33 #
Black is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
dsm
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 9907
Registered: 12-01



Lüt said:
*cough*
And how do you know this?


They don't have as many (or as big) muscles as male body builders, so the argument falls to the ground.

__________________
"Welcome to reality, welcome to Hell"

Old Post 05-30-02 19:41 #
dsm is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > My Theory

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.