• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 CuringTheSane

  • Guest
  • 43 posts
  • -28
  • Location:Washington D.C.

Posted 31 August 2010 - 09:34 PM


Posted Image
Why Females Prefer Immigrant Males


SIMON SHEPPARD

In this short article I wish to detail the phenomenon, which many nationalists and others will surely have noticed, of the female tendency to favour immigrant males. During my investigations into human behaviour, documented in my recently published book The Tyranny of Ambiguity, I surveyed this phenomenon, sitting at the side of a Dutch shopping mall with a clipboard. Its essentially female origin was confirmed and moreover, the trait appeared to be common to females of all ages and social classes.

No doubt many individuals have advanced their own theories as to the origins of this behaviour but the reality is that the sources of it are complex: no single explanation suffices. Although the policy of the mass media is Malign Encouragement, encouraging an opponent to pursue an adverse policy (Table 1), this phenomenon cannot be the product of media influence alone. One technique is to promote artificial media role models (AMRM's; successful businesswomen, swaggering female police officers and the like) but to a large extent the media encourages detrimental traits and behaviours which already exist. I shall therefore list a number of elements which have been isolated, with the actual origins in each case being a mixture of one or more of these components.

Posted Image

The following discussion derives from a new system of human behaviour analysis proposed by this author called Procedural Analysis (see Table 2). It is not claimed that all females prefer immigrant males, but that it is the female policy. Here we deal not with individuals but with male and female policies, according to whether the policy or procedure serves the furtherance of male or female genes.1 For example, the optimal male policy for the furtherance of his genes is to impregnate as many reproductive females as possible. The optimal female policy is to secure a single, long-term mate of exceptional fitness who will stay with her and provide for her while she rears children.

Posted Image

The male/female game is the game of opposites: the male instinct is to compete (maximizing fitness) while the female instinct is to conspire (raising the cost of sex, enforcing monogamy). Applying this simple yet powerful and most important of all, accurate model, the male instinct is to be racist (because it is males who fight to protect territory and to retain the racial integrity of the tribe), so therefore the female instinct is to be "anti-racist." Similarly the female instinct on seeing a mixed race couple is to smile approvingly while the true, deep male instinct is homicidal.

In an environment where male influence is strong, females will conform to male expectations; but in a society where masculine influence is diminishing, race-mixing by females will become increasingly prevalent. This is plainly evident in areas where there is a high proportion of coloured immigrants. Those females who would not enter into this behaviour (and the majority would, given the opportunity and an environment that is amenable to it) are actually exhibiting a masculine characteristic.


Ten Reasons Why Females Prefer Alien Males
It is noteworthy that none of the following components are transient; they are not mere whims of fashion. The following list of origins was arrived upon:

  • Malleability. Immigrant males are generally more responsive to signals and easier for females to manipulate. (Darwin: "It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation." Descent of Man, 2nd ed., p. 858.) Further, some immigrant males have been observed to deliberately play on their docility (e.g. Negroes making "baby eyes"), which the female finds appealing and to which she responds.
  • Affection Beneath. The underlying mechanism by which caretaking instincts are inspired is Affection Beneath; it is obviously inappropriate to seek to protect something or someone that is more powerful than you. Females seek to monopolize Affection Beneath. The immigrant's reduced status (accounting in part for his malleability), which many whites deny but which is plainly apparent to him, is allied to Affection Beneath. All the obstacles which females place in the path of their own males, and they are many, can appear to magically disappear in the case of an immigrant male because of AB.
  • First and Second Level Mental (also called Psychic) Assaults (see Table 3). The Second Level Mental Assault (SLMA) involves males of alien race, the First Level Mental Assault (FLMA) does not. The coloured male provides the female with the ability to Mental Assault at the most potent level, the SLMA. This is such a powerful weapon that the female cannot resist progressively exploiting it. Clearly there is a role for the FLMA in providing an impetus for sublimation, by which males redirect their sexual energy to the production of high art, science and the like, but the SLMA appears to have no redeeming features whatever. It might be suggested that by introducing foreign genes the female is furthering an evolutionary dynamic, and re-masculinizing the race, but this argument is invalidated by the Double Reinforcement of Female Characteristics (DRoFC): the notion that non-Occidental males naturally possess female characteristics. Even some Occidental males can express female characteristics (e.g. homosexual males, monogamous males). The SLMA is capable of arousing intense distaste in males, however subconsciously that sense has been submerged, and this is another method by which sex can be limited and its value raised. The female policy is to raise the costs of sex, the male instinct is to lower it. By the SLMA the male is confounded and rendered yet more susceptible to manipulation. It is one of many procedures which the female executes personally but with considerable benefit to females generally (the conspiracy policy). She derives satisfaction from following her instincts in this way and by further depriving her own males of sex she is collectively increasing female power and the control and influence they can exact.

    Females' explorations with immigrants, which may initially be for novelty, become a self-perpetuating cycle. After the period of novelty has passed, only immigrant males allow females the level of control and increased latitude to which they become accustomed. Put another way, the revulsion this and their other behaviour (deriving from their increased power, Item 1) arouses in their menfolk becomes such that only immigrants will put up with them.
  • Release from neurosis. The female finds the immigrant's less neurotic nature attractive because it satisfies her longing for a release from neurosis. (Neurosis is defined in this system as the condition which arises when one stimulus evokes two or more responses, and is obviously associated with the production of high art, science and the like.) It is comparable to one of the reasons for the female affinity for animals, the clarity and unambiguity of their signals.
  • Maintenance of heterogeneity; IoR. Another likely factor is that a female taking an immigrant male is a short cut to IoR (the Indulgence of Romance, a mechanism evolved by females to raise the costs of sex and promote long-term bonding; for IoR to be invoked some intangible 'specialness' must be achieved). In ancient times females would have had much less control over their choice of partner, many having been promised to a male since childhood under an arrangement (even a tacit one) with her family. In these circumstances it was incumbent on the female to introduce different genes to prevent excessive inbreeding, say within the confines of a village or small town. A male from a remote area would seem foreign and attractive to her and would also, having navigated a considerable distance on foot, or possessing a horse, be likely to be exceptional, an alpha-male. Such a union would be evolutionarily advantageous for her, and considerable effort might be required to extricate herself from her existing commitments. She may also be in competition with other females of her settlement having the same objective. The male in these circumstances, although perceived as foreign, might only have travelled a few dozen miles and would be of the same basic stock as she. Now, however, females apply these instincts to males who come not from scores of miles away but thousands, and are of completely alien stock. One report, which is unverified, is of Celtic women dancing naked on a hilltop while their menfolk battled a challenging tribe below. Whatever the outcome, the women could be confident of being ravished by the victors. For the female, two males fighting for her might be the ultimate in IoR.
  • Guilt. It has been stated that atonement is necessary for former colonial sins. This is a pretext, a decades-old guilt-trip and an application of Proposition 8 of PA, that the female will use any argument, however ridiculous, if it suits her purpose. If there is female guilt requiring absolution its origins are likely to be rather more obvious. At best this argument is an application of another female characteristic, the Inability to Egress (e.g. avoiding resolution, a hatred of ultimata; it facilitates the acquisition of the best possible mate). It is also an attempt to judge these supposed former sins, which took place amid a background of barbarity, by modern standards.
  • It is an expression of Vicarious Generosity. Giving away, often enthusiastically, something which is not one's to give. Everything the female is for, biologically, is given away. By corrupting her blood-line, hundreds of thousands of years of genetic lineage is destroyed.
  • It constitutes a Challenge. This is a blatant form of the Challenge Signal. Challenges demand a response, and can be a subconscious appeal for subjugation. Proposition 2 of PA states that the status of the female is proportional to the status of the male she can attract.
  • It weakens and distributes a marker. The marker is the involvement of belonging to the same folk. Females prefer signals and tokens, because they are ambiguous and therefore manipulative, while males favour markers and handles because they are unambiguous and often involve the wealth that he creates.
  • It weakens a prospective handle. The handle is the expectation of pairing with a member of the same folk.
Posted Image

There may be an unresolved issue as to why women appear more willing to be submissive to an immigrant than would be the case in a relationship with a white man. This may be accountable by reference to Item 6, combined with a psychologist's observation that females express guilt concerning their behaviour towards other females, children and animals but never in respect of their actions towards males (also bearing in mind DRoFC).


Male Instincts Regarding Mixed Race Couples
Examining (as always) the situation in evolutionary terms, for the male on the individual level, a female he supported who bore a visibly different child would likely be ejected from the cave or dwelling, if not from the entire tribe, and thereafter she would be left to fend for herself. (Protecting herself from such an eventuality is a likely origin of Vicarious Generosity.) The male might even have been supporting older members of her family and he would feel entirely justified in giving short shrift to a wife who gave her favours to another.

On the collective level, millions of males have suffered brutal deaths in battles fought to preserve differences; all those who had been left to perish at the scene of some bloody battle, after receiving a sword in the stomach or a grievous wound with a blunter weapon. After such costs have been incurred by his forebears the sight of one of the females of his tribe making herself available to a male of a strange and different one is an affront.

For a white male and an alien female there is a slightly different situation. Firstly, there is Affection Beneath to consider, and this is the reason why this circumstance is less abhorrent to the instincts than the opposite case. Nonetheless such a union is a feminine expression of DSoD ("Dee-sod"; see Table 4) and its prevalence, which is much less common than white females with alien males, evidence of feminization in any event.



Posted Image

It is important to appreciate that females are not naïve in sexual matters and particularly in the matter of sexual selection. Sexual selection is absolutely essential to her being. Many behaviours which are learnt (i.e. acquired) in the male are inherent in the female; this explains the many and varied sexual aberrations in males, such as fetishes. The female is regularly reminded, by menstruation, of her reproductive function.

While the male excels at manipulating things, the female imitates him. To the female, relationships are sex and it is her natural domain, so males will often imitate the female. (This and a male need to express Affection Beneath largely accounts for white male/immigrant female couples such as men with mail-order wives.) Although the immigrant is a successful invader, he is evidently not so by his masculine prowess and females who choose a mate of alien race know precisely the extent of their betrayal. This accounts for the often extreme reaction they give when criticism is implied. A female taking such a partner is the sexual-political equivalent of the nuclear bomb (cf. the etymology of bikini).2


Females and the Laws of Nature
When male animals fight, they usually fight for territory. They may fight virtually, and only posture and threaten, but it is still a struggle for dominance. The loser retreats, surrendering his claim on the territory. The point is that in nature, females come with the territory. A male that dominates a territory also dominates, controls and mates with the females within it. In human society, the fact that females have language and intelligence only enables them to employ specious arguments to justify their actions, as in the case of the alien takeover of our territory.

Being humans, we are capable of acting against our instincts, but following our natural drives is our "default mode." To defy them requires effort, which we will prefer to avoid. Happiness generally results from following our instincts, almost by definition, and the pursuit of happiness must certainly be the leading human activity.

It gives me no satisfaction to say this, but there is not much wrong with females that controlled, restrained physical force would not correct. The female has evolved numerous mechanisms to compensate for her physical weakness relative to the male. If the male is denied the ability to respond with force (or at least, the tangible threat of force) he is at a disadvantage and simply cannot counter females' natural manipulative skill or, more apposite to this discussion, retaliate for the supreme insult he is delivered. Thus we have the situation where a white female can flaunt her relationship with a Negro or other immigrant male in a public or semi-public place (such as a pub or bar) with the male prohibited by law from responding. The institutionalised favouring of immigrants, and legal protection of females from a natural masculine response to their excesses, is indicative of the Super Feminine State or, as it may otherwise be known, 'Big Sister.'

If their behaviour is unlimited, females are capable of firstly, making their own males into an underclass, for example by their wholesale preference for alien males, as can readily be observed in areas with high immigrant populations. Secondly, they are capable of taking their race to the brink of, if not beyond, extinction. These are critical flaws for which accommodation cannot be countenanced.

Woman is the human reproductive animal, and all her instincts are concerned with raising the costs of sex, securing a mate and child-rearing. Giving her power to apply these instincts to wider society is not appropriate. The sexual behaviours of women, and Vicarious Generosity, point to a feminine source of the original problem of mass coloured immigration.




1. Note on definitions: In this system a policy is defined as a set of procedures; a procedure will be capable of being expressed mathematically. Use of the term strategy is problematic because in mathematical game theory a strategy is defined as a complete specification of what an individual will do in any situation, which for humans is generally unattainable. The Protagonist in game theory is the player who starts the game.

2. The bikini was so named because its effect on males was compared to the effect of the nuclear bombs being tested at the time at Bikini Atoll.


First published in the November 2002 edition of Spearhead magazine under the title 'Why many white women prefer non-white males.' This title is slightly incorrect however, since the phenomenon has been reported to occur elsewhere, for example in Japan.

*link to original source

Edited by CuringTheSane, 31 August 2010 - 09:49 PM.

  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#2 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 31 August 2010 - 09:53 PM

Applying this simple yet powerful and most important of all, accurate model, the male instinct is to be racist (because it is males who fight to protect territory and to retain the racial integrity of the tribe), so therefore the female instinct is to be "anti-racist." Similarly the female instinct on seeing a mixed race couple is to smile approvingly while the true, deep male instinct is homicidal. [/size][/font]


Wow, probably the most stone age science I've seen this year.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#3 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 01 September 2010 - 04:51 AM

Before commenting on this, read through it with an open, reasoning mind. Try to avoid a knee-jerk/emotional response to it.

As the child of a very foreign, immigrant father, and a very white, Irish mother, I found the article extremely interesting. With almost every point made I can draw parallels that match the close observations I have made of the curious behaviour of both my parents. Actually, it's kind of a relief that someone out there has come to similar conclusions as I have.

In my 26 years, being of a quiet, intensely observant nature, and of making a part time hobby of closely studying human sexual relationships, and after having been in a few mixed ones of myself, most recently with a Desi girl who was practically black and very, very foreign, everything above really rings true. The points need to be better fleshed out but this is a very brave step towards fighting the backwards society that exists post 1960's and began in the 1800's* (*source: Theodore Dalrymple's analysis of various literary works at the time in Spoilt Rotten.)
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 02 September 2010 - 08:08 PM

I don't think a magazine founded by a deceased leader of British National Party is the place to search for serious insight into matters of interracial relationships from evolutionary perspective, a knee jerk reaction is pretty apropriate IMO, like it would be to discussing geology with The Flat Earth Society. The language is just laden with ideology like this :

If their behaviour is unlimited, females are capable of firstly, making their own males into an underclass, for example by their wholesale preference for alien males, as can readily be observed in areas with high immigrant populations. Secondly, they are capable of taking their race to the brink of, if not beyond, extinction. These are critical flaws for which accommodation cannot be countenanced.

Woman is the human reproductive animal, and all her instincts are concerned with raising the costs of sex, securing a mate and child-rearing. Giving her power to apply these instincts to wider society is not appropriate.


I don't look to evolution for moral guidance and it's the last place one should. I don't give a shit about strong, unchosen identities, like "white male", no one belongs to his or her race and no one owns anything to it.

PS. a personal touch to counter such dashing method of gathering sociological data as "sitting at the side of a Dutch shopping mall with a clipboard" - As a Polish who had worked a couple of times in UK - no, being an alien from a poorer country does not help you get laid. Being an indulging asshole does a bit :cool: .

Edited by chris w, 02 September 2010 - 08:22 PM.


#5 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 02 September 2010 - 11:36 PM

I don't think a magazine founded by a deceased leader of British National Party is the place to search for serious insight into matters of interracial relationships from evolutionary perspective, a knee jerk reaction is pretty apropriate IMO, like it would be to discussing geology with The Flat Earth Society.


Ad hominem and, well, screw it, you're obviously someone who doesn't know how to reason so I wont point out the rest of the argumentative flaws in this non-post.

Edited by Ben - Aus, 02 September 2010 - 11:37 PM.


#6 Reno

  • Guest
  • 584 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Somewhere

Posted 03 September 2010 - 02:55 AM

so I wont point out the rest of the argumentative flaws in this non-post.


Then don't post....

#7 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 03 September 2010 - 04:30 AM

so I wont point out the rest of the argumentative flaws in this non-post.


Then don't post....

I think Ben-Aus is just being a gadfly and playing devil's advocate since no person on these forums will give such sexist and racist theories a second look nor any serious consideration.
I wanna go out on a limb and say that most here are probably more bleeding heart than I am, which is why I keep coming back. :)

But, when I think about it, some shy from the term 'bleeding heart', so maybe 'progressive libertarian with a strong humanist and compassionate bent' will better suffice.

Cheers and enjoy the upcoming holiday weekend.

#8 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 03 September 2010 - 11:06 AM

This isn't racist or sexist.

#9 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 03 September 2010 - 12:29 PM

It gives me no satisfaction to say this, but there is not much wrong with females that controlled, restrained physical force would not correct. The female has evolved numerous mechanisms to compensate for her physical weakness relative to the male. If the male is denied the ability to respond with force (or at least, the tangible threat of force) he is at a disadvantage and simply cannot counter females' natural manipulative skill or, more apposite to this discussion, retaliate for the supreme insult he is delivered. Thus we have the situation where a white female can flaunt her relationship with a Negro or other immigrant male in a public or semi-public place (such as a pub or bar) with the male prohibited by law from responding. The institutionalised favouring of immigrants, and legal protection of females from a natural masculine response to their excesses, is indicative of the Super Feminine State or, as it may otherwise be known, 'Big Sister.'

This is the section I have the biggest problem with.
If females use all their advantages in the most exploitative of ways, then it can only serve to make life more interesting.
Female manipulation is never utilized on a society-wide conspiratorial level anyway, but, even if it is, then so be it. I deal.

It is obvious that the person who wrote this post does not have a low IQ, so attacks on his/her intelligence may be met with disappointment when he/she beats one on a measure of intelligence, but I deeply disagree with most of the premises and conclusions. My better half of 5.5 years is biracial.
And, it is nothing I do systematically to avoid my own ethnic group. Up until 6 years ago, I only ever had any form of relationship with caucasians. Not by choice, not by anything, just circumstances and proximity, so when the current love of my life and I crossed paths, it was just a Bob Ross happy accident. A cherished moment. OK, this is pretty mawkish, but just to make a point.

I am not sure if anyone knows anything about my persona just from my forum replies, but I have a real big problem with anyone attempting to hinder another person's free speech or actions, and, thus, the "restrained physical force" is beyond unacceptable.

#10 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 03 September 2010 - 03:14 PM

so I wont point out the rest of the argumentative flaws in this non-post.


Then don't post....

I think Ben-Aus is just being a gadfly and playing devil's advocate since no person on these forums will give such sexist and racist theories a second look nor any serious consideration.


I'd sure expect so, so then I have to wonder how come this thread had a highest rating for a moment.

A political magazine that is called "Spearhead" ? C'mon, that's all I need to know really even before reading.

Ben Aus says it's ad hominem, and I don't think he has a clear understanding of what this means, I wouldn't call it ad hominem if someone refused to seriously consider a document like " The Kuk Klux Klan outlook on president Obama's policies", I'd just call that common sense.

Writings like this one cater to insecure angry half literate men whining in their pillows and whispering to themselves in the dark "nigger stole me my woman" by making it look like they don't have to be ashamed of what they feel because it's only natural ( the "homicidal tendecies" ) and they're in fact "protecting their tribe" or whatever, I don't want anybody telling me that if I'm a male then it's in some kind of evolutionary destiny for me to hate males from other ethnicities, that's just cosmically wicked.

I can cope with religious nuts, conspiracy nuts, eco nuts, all sorts of nuts, but racists - no fucking pasaran, and if this study isn't racist and sexist then I have a bit different definition than Ben Aus.

I only wish some mod would grace this with at least something like "Oh man, that's weak", no wonder later some bozos show up claiming Imminst is infiltrated by white suprematism.

Edited by chris w, 03 September 2010 - 04:09 PM.


#11 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 03 September 2010 - 09:39 PM

It's hard to glean any substantial conclusions from the article and, given the speculative and hard to prove nature of the subject matter 
i concur that - hidden beneath a load of acronyms, academic lingo and questionable grammar here and there, it might betray more about
the author than the topic.

However you should read this, as ben-aus said, with an open mind.

It gives me no satisfaction to say this, but there is not much wrong with females that controlled, restrained physical force would not correct. The female has evolved numerous mechanisms to compensate for her physical weakness relative to the male. If the male is denied the ability to respond with force (or at least, the tangible threat of force) he is at a disadvantage and simply cannot counter females' natural manipulative skill or, more apposite to this discussion, retaliate for the supreme insult he is delivered. Thus we have the situation where a white female can flaunt her relationship with a Negro or other immigrant male in a public or semi-public place (such as a pub or bar) with the male prohibited by law from responding. The institutionalised favouring of immigrants, and legal protection of females from a natural masculine response to their excesses, is indicative of the Super Feminine State or, as it may otherwise be known, 'Big Sister.' 
 


I'm not comfortable with the racial angle, also "physical force" is problematic, but it's a valid point, the scope being extended to general male - female relationships, as i've repeatedly seen things go seriously out of whack in the absence of a male corrective - or balancing, if you wish, influence. Bear in mind that i'm aware that this does not apply to every single individual, it should be acknowledged as a tendency.

Interesting point ad "free speech and actions": Simon Sheppard was sentenced to 4 years in prison for expressing his views - and not in china but GB. (Granted, he has some extremist views.)  

#12 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 04 September 2010 - 03:41 AM

Ben Aus says it's ad hominem, and I don't think he has a clear understanding of what this means, I wouldn't call it ad hominem if someone refused to seriously consider a document like " The Kuk Klux Klan outlook on president Obama's policies", I'd just call that common sense.


I should take you to a dinner game. You are superb! World class! Magnifique!
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#13 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 04 September 2010 - 12:14 PM

It's hard to glean any substantial conclusions from the article and, given the speculative and hard to prove nature of the subject matter
i concur that - hidden beneath a load of acronyms, academic lingo and questionable grammar here and there, it might betray more about
the author than the topic.

However you should read this, as ben-aus said, with an open mind.

It gives me no satisfaction to say this, but there is not much wrong with females that controlled, restrained physical force would not correct. The female has evolved numerous mechanisms to compensate for her physical weakness relative to the male. If the male is denied the ability to respond with force (or at least, the tangible threat of force) he is at a disadvantage and simply cannot counter females' natural manipulative skill or, more apposite to this discussion, retaliate for the supreme insult he is delivered. Thus we have the situation where a white female can flaunt her relationship with a Negro or other immigrant male in a public or semi-public place (such as a pub or bar) with the male prohibited by law from responding. The institutionalised favouring of immigrants, and legal protection of females from a natural masculine response to their excesses, is indicative of the Super Feminine State or, as it may otherwise be known, 'Big Sister.'


I'm not comfortable with the racial angle, also "physical force" is problematic, but it's a valid point, the scope being extended to general male - female relationships, as i've repeatedly seen things go seriously out of whack in the absence of a male corrective - or balancing, if you wish, influence. Bear in mind that i'm aware that this does not apply to every single individual, it should be acknowledged as a tendency.

Interesting point ad "free speech and actions": Simon Sheppard was sentenced to 4 years in prison for expressing his views - and not in china but GB. (Granted, he has some extremist views.)

OK, last literary excerpt that seems appropriate:

Contraire, I think nothing should be done but that
"I have heard that hysterical women say
They are sick of the palette and fiddle-bow.
Of poets that are always gay,
For everybody knows or else should know
That if nothing drastic is done
Aeroplane and Zeppelin will come out.
Pitch like King Billy bomb-balls in
Until the town lie beaten flat."

Yeats sounds admittedly sexist here, but he is about to contrast with those who would stop the play from just being played out.
Let it play out. The balance tips in women's favor by the latter half of the 20th century? Big deal. Let it tip, as is so eloquently phrased:

"All perform their tragic play,
There struts Hamlet, there is Lear,
That's Ophelia, that Cordelia;
Yet they, should the last scene be there,
The great stage curtain about to drop,
If worthy their prominent part in the play,
Do not break up their lines to weep.
They know that Hamlet and Lear are gay;
Gaiety transfiguring all that dread.
All men have aimed at, found and lost;
Black out; Heaven blazing into the head:
Tragedy wrought to its uttermost.
Though Hamlet rambles and Lear rages,
And all the drop-scenes drop at once
Upon a hundred thousand stages,
It cannot grow by an inch or an ounce"

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles, and that post modern society has socially engineered away many of those gender roles, disrupted them, uprooted them, and that said roles are deep in us and certain theories and works of art can make us see them glaringly. Yes, I totally see that, but still would never endorse a reversion, even if it meant that human relations and families might recover some of the lost balance and controlling factors that were once present. No way. The new balance and new factors are far superior.

Enjoy the weekend allz.


  • like x 1

#14 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 04 September 2010 - 12:30 PM


Ben Aus says it's ad hominem, and I don't think he has a clear understanding of what this means, I wouldn't call it ad hominem if someone refused to seriously consider a document like " The Kuk Klux Klan outlook on president Obama's policies", I'd just call that common sense.


I should take you to a dinner game. You are superb! World class! Magnifique!


Geez man, roll yourself a fat joint or something :~
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#15 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 05 September 2010 - 01:17 AM

It's hard to glean any substantial conclusions from the article and, given the speculative and hard to prove nature of the subject matter
i concur that - hidden beneath a load of acronyms, academic lingo and questionable grammar here and there, it might betray more about
the author than the topic.

However you should read this, as ben-aus said, with an open mind.

It gives me no satisfaction to say this, but there is not much wrong with females that controlled, restrained physical force would not correct. The female has evolved numerous mechanisms to compensate for her physical weakness relative to the male. If the male is denied the ability to respond with force (or at least, the tangible threat of force) he is at a disadvantage and simply cannot counter females' natural manipulative skill or, more apposite to this discussion, retaliate for the supreme insult he is delivered. Thus we have the situation where a white female can flaunt her relationship with a Negro or other immigrant male in a public or semi-public place (such as a pub or bar) with the male prohibited by law from responding. The institutionalised favouring of immigrants, and legal protection of females from a natural masculine response to their excesses, is indicative of the Super Feminine State or, as it may otherwise be known, 'Big Sister.'


I'm not comfortable with the racial angle, also "physical force" is problematic, but it's a valid point, the scope being extended to general male - female relationships, as i've repeatedly seen things go seriously out of whack in the absence of a male corrective - or balancing, if you wish, influence. Bear in mind that i'm aware that this does not apply to every single individual, it should be acknowledged as a tendency.

Interesting point ad "free speech and actions": Simon Sheppard was sentenced to 4 years in prison for expressing his views - and not in china but GB. (Granted, he has some extremist views.)

OK, last literary excerpt that seems appropriate:

Contraire, I think nothing should be done but that
"I have heard that hysterical women say
They are sick of the palette and fiddle-bow.
Of poets that are always gay,
For everybody knows or else should know
That if nothing drastic is done
Aeroplane and Zeppelin will come out.
Pitch like King Billy bomb-balls in
Until the town lie beaten flat."

Yeats sounds admittedly sexist here, but he is about to contrast with those who would stop the play from just being played out.
Let it play out. The balance tips in women's favor by the latter half of the 20th century? Big deal. Let it tip, as is so eloquently phrased:

"All perform their tragic play,
There struts Hamlet, there is Lear,
That's Ophelia, that Cordelia;
Yet they, should the last scene be there,
The great stage curtain about to drop,
If worthy their prominent part in the play,
Do not break up their lines to weep.
They know that Hamlet and Lear are gay;
Gaiety transfiguring all that dread.
All men have aimed at, found and lost;
Black out; Heaven blazing into the head:
Tragedy wrought to its uttermost.
Though Hamlet rambles and Lear rages,
And all the drop-scenes drop at once
Upon a hundred thousand stages,
It cannot grow by an inch or an ounce"

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles, and that post modern society has socially engineered away many of those gender roles, disrupted them, uprooted them, and that said roles are deep in us and certain theories and works of art can make us see them glaringly. Yes, I totally see that, but still would never endorse a reversion, even if it meant that human relations and families might recover some of the lost balance and controlling factors that were once present. No way. The new balance and new factors are far superior.

Enjoy the weekend allz.


Stepping back and letting it play out? Ok, this has to do with game theory, but is it a game? Are you gayme? ;-)

#16 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:33 AM

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles...

Interesting. In my experience it wasn't all that long ago that intelligent people were expected to deny precisely that.
  • like x 1

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 05 September 2010 - 04:03 AM

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles...

Interesting. In my experience it wasn't all that long ago that intelligent people were expected to deny precisely that.

Yeah well... This is ImmInst, and we're tryin' to be Paleo. This is the kookiest thread I've seen in a while. I guess if you comb through a xenophobe extremist tract, you can find a few kernels of truth amongst the crazy bits. I get the impression that deep down, the guy who wrote this has a hard time getting laid, and is probably worried that his wiener just doesn't measure up to those hyper-sexed darkies. The pseudo-academic veneer is a weird touch.
  • like x 2

#18 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 05 September 2010 - 05:37 AM

Damn niner, now you defused a perfectly serious threa(t/d)... :mad:

#19 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 05 September 2010 - 05:52 AM

It's a shame political prejudice and conformity is getting in the way of what could have been a good discussion.

#20 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 05 September 2010 - 06:45 AM

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles...

Interesting. In my experience it wasn't all that long ago that intelligent people were expected to deny precisely that.

Yeah well... This is ImmInst, and we're tryin' to be Paleo. This is the kookiest thread I've seen in a while. I guess if you comb through a xenophobe extremist tract, you can find a few kernels of truth amongst the crazy bits. I get the impression that deep down, the guy who wrote this has a hard time getting laid, and is probably worried that his wiener just doesn't measure up to those hyper-sexed darkies. The pseudo-academic veneer is a weird touch.


lol yeah, remember caston's threads though? He doesn't have anything on caston.

#21 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 05 September 2010 - 06:51 AM

It's a shame political prejudice and conformity is getting in the way of what could have been a good discussion.


are you kidding? This article essentially says men need to use physical force against women in order to maintain racial purity. You don't get any more bigoted and biased than that. If you want to explore whatever kernels of truth that you believe may or may not be there, find another source to base the discussion on.

He apparently "confirms" his premise by sitting around some shopping mall.

Science? What's that?

Further, if females do prefer foreign males, who cares? Go be a foreign male somewhere.

If some men feel inadequate because they can't assault and kill others to get mates all that means is their genes have a higher probability of being selected out and articles like this will be less likely to be produced in the future.
  • like x 1

#22 Connor MacLeod

  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 05 September 2010 - 07:19 AM

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles...

Interesting. In my experience it wasn't all that long ago that intelligent people were expected to deny precisely that.

Yeah well... This is ImmInst, and we're tryin' to be Paleo. This is the kookiest thread I've seen in a while.


There's a whole lot of kookiness on imminst. It's what keep me coming back. ;-)

#23 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 05 September 2010 - 12:48 PM

I get the impression that deep down, the guy who wrote this has a hard time getting laid, and is probably worried that his wiener just doesn't measure up to those hyper-sexed darkies.


And he has a couple of sweet years ahead to have the measuring done up close. I won't really say I feel sorry for the man, but you have to admit OTOH, half a decade for disseminating racist propaganda is simply atrocius ( I read an article about him right now, it doesn't say anything about his previous record, so I take it he didn't have anything heavier prior to this case ) and makes the guy a mini-martyr to his ilk. I'd just put in a little bit of fun to the punitive system and make him reenact Bruce Willis' part from the begining of Die Hard 3 - walking wraped in racial slurs through Harlem. Saves you money.

Edited by chris w, 05 September 2010 - 01:04 PM.


#24 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:19 PM

No intelligent person can deny the deep behaviorial patterns that developed in human and pre-human evolution which resulted in gender roles...

Interesting. In my experience it wasn't all that long ago that intelligent people were expected to deny precisely that.

Yeah well... This is ImmInst, and we're tryin' to be Paleo. This is the kookiest thread I've seen in a while. I guess if you comb through a xenophobe extremist tract, you can find a few kernels of truth amongst the crazy bits. I get the impression that deep down, the guy who wrote this has a hard time getting laid, and is probably worried that his wiener just doesn't measure up to those hyper-sexed darkies. The pseudo-academic veneer is a weird touch.


lol yeah, remember caston's threads though? He doesn't have anything on caston.

I have been taken completely out of context, as if I agree with this thread's premises and conclusions!
But, as for that one statement, there is no denying innate differences between genders. That doesn't mean that anyone's rights should be different or anything like that, just that in the entire mammal class, males and females are hardwired and softwared for different behavior, from platypus to primate, and humans are no different.
It's just an evolutionary and biological fact. Who could possibly make a case that male and female brains/minds are not subtlely different?

But, again, this doesn't translate to anything other than knowledge and appreciation:
I thoroughly approve of modern normative influences leading to absolute equality for all peeps and marginalization of all else.
If I thought that society was heading anywhere else, I would be taking to the streets in protest (that is, if I wasn't afraid of the sun).
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

#25 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 05 September 2010 - 11:31 PM

It's a shame political prejudice and conformity is getting in the way of what could have been a good discussion.


are you kidding? This article essentially says men need to use physical force against women in order to maintain racial purity. You don't get any more bigoted and biased than that. If you want to explore whatever kernels of truth that you believe may or may not be there, find another source to base the discussion on.

He apparently "confirms" his premise by sitting around some shopping mall.

Science? What's that?

Further, if females do prefer foreign males, who cares? Go be a foreign male somewhere.

If some men feel inadequate because they can't assault and kill others to get mates all that means is their genes have a higher probability of being selected out and articles like this will be less likely to be produced in the future.


Yeah perhaps the force does go too far, but it's only one part of the argument. Don't straw man it.

An actual response to this is going to take some mental effort vs. picking out an extremely unpopular aspect of the piece and using it the condemn the whole article.
  • like x 1

#26 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 06 September 2010 - 03:14 AM

[...] there is no denying innate differences between genders. That doesn't mean that anyone's rights should be different or anything like that, just that in the entire mammal class, males and females are hardwired and softwared for different behavior, from platypus to primate, and humans are no different.
It's just an evolutionary and biological fact. Who could possibly make a case that male and female brains/minds are not subtlely different?
But, again, this doesn't translate to anything other than knowledge and appreciation:
I thoroughly approve of modern normative influences leading to absolute equality for all peeps and marginalization of all else.

The balance tips in women's favor by the latter half of the 20th century? Big deal. Let it tip [...]

But, again, this doesn't translate to anything other than knowledge and appreciation.


Oh but it should.

#27 okok

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 239

Posted 06 September 2010 - 04:21 AM

(Di)lemma:

if men != women and men := women then men < women.

Proof: female intuition.

Edited by okok, 06 September 2010 - 04:29 AM.


#28 ChromodynamicGirl

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • -87
  • Location:Lake Oswego, Oregon

Posted 14 October 2010 - 12:34 AM

I like immigrant males...thai ladyboys :wub:

#29 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 14 October 2010 - 10:49 PM

There's one way to test this. Ask an Asian Male immigrant from Vietnam or Thailand with a thick accent to pick up a beautiful all American blonde woman in a bar. Then watch...
  • like x 1

#30 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 15 October 2010 - 09:12 PM

...because we are hot, virile, and have an irresistible accent.   :cool:

And because we have a genetic predisposition to adventure and the hardiness and resistance to adversity necessary to reinvent and reestablish ourselves in a different, often hostile, country, where nobody is doing us any favors.  These are presumably genetically attractive qualities to the many women who throw themselves at me.  :cool:

Ironic that I am gay...   :laugh:

 

Edited by viveutvivas, 15 October 2010 - 09:13 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users