Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

[LUH 3417]

What does that mean? What are the parameters in plain language by which a human could phenomenologically grow wings to adapt to falling in real time?

Techne and epistime are different, technology has a few definitional connotations.



molecular biology and biochemistry

I think this is partially why physics is so difficult to teach and understand. Our knowledge of physical reality has reached a level of abstraction where you need to understand all of epistemology in order to have some sort of axiom on which to hinge theory, but even so there is no definitive theory of everything. Scientists understand theories by performing experiments and perceiving the way things work in controlled environments.

 

[Kyle M]

I think this is partially why physics is so difficult to teach and understand. Our knowledge of physical reality has reached a level of abstraction where you need to understand all of epistemology in order to have some sort of axiom on which to hinge theory, but even so there is no definitive theory of everything. Scientists understand theories by performing experiments and perceiving the way things work in controlled environments.

One of the problems in modern science is that epistemology is not taught. The modern scientist is usually unaware that his field is a branch of philosophy, and that the concepts behind the techniques used are not self-evidently true or correct for use.

 

[LUH 3417]

One of the problems in modern science is that epistemology is not taught. The modern scientist is usually unaware that his field is a branch of philosophy, and that the concepts behind the techniques used are not self-evidently true or correct for use.

I absolutely agree. Philosophy of science courses should be a pre-requisite to any pursuit of serious scientific study.

 

[Repas du soir]

I wonder what Peat-inspired meals my second wife will make me once Islam has conquered Europe.

 

[freyasam]

"Why do you hate men so much?" - me if I was as retarded as a feminist

I really hope you can work out all that repressed rage and sadness you so obviously have.

 

[Kyle M]

I really hope you can work out all that repressed rage and sadness you so obviously have.

Do you? I doubt a positive hope would motivate a sarcastic comment about something from many months ago like this. There's something sad about that.

 

[freyasam]

Mate just look into it a little...

I have taken the following from Wikipedia for ease of reply. There are many well documented occurrences of cultures and societies dominated by women throughout history...

"The Hopi (in what is now the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona), according to Alice Schlegel, had as its "gender ideology ... one of female superiority, and it operated within a social actuality of sexual equality."According to LeBow (based on Schlegel's work), in the Hopi, "gender roles ... are egalitarian .... [and] [n]either sex is inferior." LeBow concluded that Hopi women "participate fully in ... political decision-making."According to Schlegel, "the Hopi no longer live as they are described here" and "the attitude of female superiority is fading".Schlegel said the Hopi "were and still are matrilinial" and "the household ... was matrilocal". Schlegel explains why there was female superiority as that the Hopi believed in "life as the highest good ... [with] the female principle ... activated in women and in Mother Earth ... as its source" and that the Hopi "were not in a state of continual war with equally matched neighbors" and "had no standing army" so that "the Hopi lacked the spur to masculine superiority" and, within that, as that women were central to institutions of clan and household and predominated "within the economic and social systems (in contrast to male predominance within the political and ceremonial systems)", the Clan Mother, for example, being empowered to overturn land distribution by men if she felt it was unfair, since there was no "countervailing ... strongly centralized, male-centered political structure".

The Iroquois Confederacy or League, combining 5–6 Native American Haudenosaunee nations or tribes before the U.S. became a nation, operated by The Great Binding Law of Peace, a constitution by which women participated in the League's political decision-making, including deciding whether to proceed to war, through what may have been a matriarchy. According to Doug George-Kanentiio, in this society, mothers exercise central moral and political roles. The dates of this constitution's operation are unknown; the League was formed in approximately 1000–1450, but the constitution was oral until written in about 1880. The League still exists.

George-Kanentiio explains:

"In our society, women are the center of all things. Nature, we believe, has given women the ability to create; therefore it is only natural that women be in positions of power to protect this function....We traced our clans through women; a child born into the world assumed the clan membership of its mother. Our young women were expected to be physically strong....The young women received formal instruction in traditional planting....Since the Iroquois were absolutely dependent upon the crops they grew, whoever controlled this vital activity wielded great power within our communities. It was our belief that since women were the givers of life they naturally regulated the feeding of our people....In all countries, real wealth stems from the control of land and its resources. Our Iroquois philosophers knew this as well as we knew natural law. To us it made sense for women to control the land since they were far more sensitive to the rhythms of the Mother Earth. We did not own the land but were custodians of it. Our women decided any and all issues involving territory, including where a community was to be built and how land was to be used....In our political system, we mandated full equality. Our leaders were selected by a caucus of women before the appointments were subject to popular review....Our traditional governments are composed of an equal number of men and women. The men are chiefs and the women clan-mothers....As leaders, the women closely monitor the actions of the men and retain the right to veto any law they deem inappropriate....Our women not only hold the reigns of political and economic power, they also have the right to determine all issues involving the taking of human life. Declarations of war had to be approved by the women, while treaties of peace were subject to their deliberations."

In Africa, the royal lineage of Ethiopia, including for the Kandake, was passed through the woman only.

In Europe, Tacitus noted in his book Germania, that in "the nations of the Sitones a woman is the ruling sex."

Legends of Amazon women originated not from South America, but rather Scythia (present day Russia). Sarmatians (present day Ukraine) are also considered descendants of the Amazonian women tribe.

Matriarchies in Burma are, according to Jorgen Bisch, the Padaungs and, according to Andrew Marshall, the Kayaw.

In China, the Mosuo culture, which is in China near Tibet, is frequently described as matriarchal. Women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions.

In India, of communities recognized in the national constitution as Scheduled Tribes, "some ... [are] matriarchal and matrilineal" "and thus have been known to be more egalitarian". According to interviewer Anuj Kumar, Manipur, India, "has a matriarchal society". In the Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka, many societies are matriarchal. In Kerala, the Nair communities are matrilineal.

Anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday said the Minangkabau society of Indonesia may be a matriarchy."

The list goes on, further there are many anthropologists whom have studied the matriarchal structure of societies during the Palaeolithic and Neolithic ages, the Bronze Age and the Iron to Middle Ages. This is all well documented throughout anthropological literature and if you are interested is not difficult to look up. Further to this, let's not forget our earthling friends in the animal kingdom of which there are many examples of females holding higher hierarchical positions and dominating the social structure: Elephants, lions, killer whales (orca), bonobos, honeybees, meerkats, the list goes on...

Best comment here. And no one replied to it as far as I can see. Obviously there are no universal "gender roles" and people who insist there are have watched too much sitcom TV.

 

[x-ray peat]

Best comment here. And no one replied to it as far as I can see. Obviously there are no universal "gender roles" and people who insist there are have watched too much sitcom TV.

There is much evidence that the recent "discoveries" of several non-Patriarchal pre-historic societies have a political motive behind it. I am not saying that matriarchal societies never existed but I think we should look at the sudden discovery of many of them with some skepticism. There is also a recent movement among some feminists that claim that the majority of pre-Historical societies were all matriarchal. This book goes into debunking that myth.

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Matriar...&qid=1521851446&sr=1-1&keywords=9780807067932

Review
Fascinating. . . . Eller carefully clips every thread from which this matriarchal myth is woven. -Natalie Angier, The New York Times Book Revie"Passionately argued, engagingly written, this vital book is certain to inspire wide-and much-needed-debate." -Publishers Weekly (starred review)

"[An] engaging critique of a popular but perhaps self-defeating belief." -Mark Odegard, Utne Reader

"In unraveling the pretensions of matriarchalists, Eller seeks to show that wider matters are at stake. . . . Matriarchal myth, [she] argues, is actively harmful at worst and at best unnecessary." -Lawrence Osborne, Salon.com

 

[lvysaur]

I wonder what Peat-inspired meals my second wife will make me once Islam has conquered Europe.

If Islam actually did conquer Europe, it's much more likely that you'd end up with no wives, and your first one becomes someone else's .

Best comment here. And no one replied to it as far as I can see. Obviously there are no universal "gender roles" and people who insist there are have watched too much sitcom TV.

There are universal gender roles. Women invest reproductive energy, men don't; that's universal. And around that reality, various cultural or biological attitudes pop up, and some of those attitudes are more efficient.

Let's say you have two children, one male and one female, and can only afford college for one of them. The obvious choice is the male, since his chances of reproduction go up with education and money. The girl has a comparatively lower advantage, even if she's a genius and the boy is average.

It's obvious that over the last 50,000 years or so, it was much more advantageous to control and monopolize women than to treat them as equal human beings. Arabs, Indoeuropeans, the Chinese, and all the biggest cultures of today were highly patriarchal. Patriarchy was successful. Why? Because monopolizing more wombs = more children.

Maybe this may change in the coming centuries, but it would have to mean that confident, arrogant, capable men stop getting rewarded for their behavior. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[goodandevil]

One of the problems in modern science is that epistemology is not taught. The modern scientist is usually unaware that his field is a branch of philosophy, and that the concepts behind the techniques used are not self-evidently true or correct for use.

No that's total bull****

 

[freyasam]

I believe somewhere in this thread someone who is very misinformed spouted off that there are no feminists in "third world" countries. That's completely ridiculous. Check out the Zapatistas, for starters. There are so many grassroots feminist movements all over developing countries.

 

[Dhair]

If Islam actually did conquer Europe, it's much more likely that you'd end up with no wives, and your first one becomes someone else's .

There are universal gender roles. Women invest reproductive energy, men don't; that's universal. And around that reality, various cultural or biological attitudes pop up, and some of those attitudes are more efficient.

Let's say you have two children, one male and one female, and can only afford college for one of them. The obvious choice is the male, since his chances of reproduction go up with education and money. The girl has a comparatively lower advantage, even if she's a genius and the boy is average.

It's obvious that over the last 50,000 years or so, it was much more advantageous to control and monopolize women than to treat them as equal human beings. Arabs, Indoeuropeans, the Chinese, and all the biggest cultures of today were highly patriarchal. Patriarchy was successful. Why? Because monopolizing more wombs = more children.

Maybe this may change in the coming centuries, but it would have to mean that confident, arrogant, capable men stop getting rewarded for their behavior. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Women will always be the selectors in the sexual marketplace. They will reinforce the very behavior that they complain about it men for as long as it takes a man and a woman to create a child.

 

[DaveFoster]

Women will always be the selectors in the sexual marketplace. They will reinforce the very behavior that they complain about it men for as long as it takes a man and a woman to create a child.

What if the apparent disdain for a certain behavior serves as an additional layer of resistance with which to "test the mettle" of the other person, where only the persevering remain?

 

[Dhair]

What if the apparent disdain for a certain behavior serves as an additional layer of resistance with which to "test the mettle" of the other person, where only the persevering remain?

Well, that's exactly the point. Modern feminists are intellectually dishonest because subconsciously they believe the world would be a better place if they could somehow make the undesirable men unable to procreate. So once western men begin capitulating and grandstanding on behalf of women everywhere in the media, these women move the goalposts. It's never enough. The only men who come out unscathed are the ones who belligerently reject their worldview. This isn't a coincidence.

 

[DaveFoster]

Well, that's exactly the point. Modern feminists are intellectually dishonest because subconsciously they believe the world would be a better place if they could somehow make the undesirable men unable to procreate. So once western men begin capitulating and grandstanding on behalf of women everywhere in the media, these women move the goalposts. It's never enough. The only men who come out unscathed are the ones who belligerently reject their worldview. This isn't a coincidence.

Stress elevates estrogen levels, and if estrogen promotes aggressive behavior, then the current pathologized, collective elimination of any potential for family or sustainable relationships would achieve a destruction of the "unfit" modern Western society.

The "dysgenic" effect would promote the sexuality from anti-social men, as with convicts (those with no future-orientation) and also the extremely wealthy (who effectively engage in either "legal" prostitution or sex-trafficking.) Either way, participants in the current socioeconomic structure will not produce, so we a radical alteration in Western culture.

Developments would include a permanent underclass composed of the following:

• Criminals and those with little long-term investment in their futures, so effectively with zero economic potential.

• Those who either kill their fetuses directly or use abortifacients ("the pill,") and cannot reproduce or carry on their dynastic wealth (described currently as misanthropic "leftists" concerned with their "environment,") and who continuously will arise, influenced by various agendas in the media and academia (even moreso after a universal college education for every youth.) These agendas will target the intellectually gifted and discourage reproduction for society's "best-and-brightest."

• Those who do procreate but demonstrate no long-term orientation toward saving and generating wealth, thereby remaining as "the working-poor."

• Those "high-earners" (often male) who do procreate and marry, but who suffer from fraudulent family courts who confiscate the husband's wealth to his wife, as well as a portion of his future earning potential, thereby abolishing any opportunity for compounding his savings and breaking from the middle-class, leading to male suicide and hopelessness regarding their socioeconomic retardation, as well as setting the husband's child back into poverty and perpetuating a cycle whereby the child attends academia and either refrains from procreation or follows in the footsteps of his father and also becomes a "high-earner" destined for poverty.

Western society will develop an upper-class composed of "high-earners" who refrain from procreation or marriage, but they may engage in surrogacy; they lack fundamental motivators to achieve their goals, as they have no potential role as a father or husband.

The new "super-rich" will include the following:

• World governments, technology entrepreneurs (as "new money") and private investors.

• Jewish media magnates, bankers (as with the Rothschild's,) and real-estate developers, as with the

  "Holocaust builders, the class of survivors who emigrated to America just after World War II and literally built the Northeast suburbs. In the 1950s, families with names like Wilf, Zuckerman, Pantirer, Halpern (no relation to the plaintiffs in the New Jersey case), Burstyn, Salsitz, Pomerantz and Kushner" [as with Jared Kushner,]" — Observer Publishes Hit Piece on Wilf Family from the Jewish Insider

• Chinese and some Latin American, South-Asian and Russian private investors, real-estate developers and royalty (such as the Sultan of Brunei, King of Thailand and so on.)
• "Captains of industry" in mining, steel, telecommunications, petroleum and so on.
• European royalty and Western religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church and Jesuit Order, the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Church of England and so on.
• Arab royalty and ultra-wealthy including the House of Saud, President and Sheikh of the United Arab Emirates, Emir of Qatar, King of Morocco, Sultan of Oman and so on.)

 

[DaveFoster]

Stress elevates estrogen levels, and if estrogen promotes aggressive behavior, then the current pathologized, collective elimination of any potential for family or sustainable relationships would achieve a destruction of the "unfit" modern Western society.

The "dysgenic" effect would promote the sexuality from anti-social men, as with convicts (those with no future-orientation) and also the extremely wealthy (who effectively engage in either "legal" prostitution or sex-trafficking.) Either way, participants in the current socioeconomic structure will not produce, so we a radical alteration in Western culture.

Developments would include a permanent underclass composed of the following:

• Criminals and those with little long-term investment in their futures, so effectively with zero economic potential.

• Those who either kill their fetuses directly or use abortifacients ("the pill,") and cannot reproduce or carry on their dynastic wealth (described currently as misanthropic "leftists" concerned with their "environment,") and who continuously will arise, influenced by various agendas in the media and academia (even moreso after a universal college education for every youth.) These agendas will target the intellectually gifted and discourage reproduction for society's "best-and-brightest."

• Those who do procreate but demonstrate no long-term orientation toward saving and generating wealth, thereby remaining as "the working-poor."

• Those "high-earners" (often male) who do procreate and marry, but who suffer from fraudulent family courts who confiscate the husband's wealth to his wife, as well as a portion of his future earning potential, thereby abolishing any opportunity for compounding his savings and breaking from the middle-class, leading to male suicide and hopelessness regarding their socioeconomic retardation, as well as setting the husband's child back into poverty and perpetuating a cycle whereby the child attends academia and either refrains from procreation or follows in the footsteps of his father and also becomes a "high-earner" destined for poverty.

Western society will develop an upper-class composed of "high-earners" who refrain from procreation or marriage, but they may engage in surrogacy; they lack fundamental motivators to achieve their goals, as they have no potential role as a father or husband.

The new "super-rich" will include the following:

• World governments, technology entrepreneurs (as "new money") and private investors.

• Jewish media magnates, bankers (as with the Rothschild's,) and real-estate developers, as with the
• Chinese and some Latin American, South-Asian and Russian private investors, real-estate developers and royalty (such as the Sultan of Brunei, King of Thailand and so on.)
• "Captains of industry" in mining, steel, telecommunications, petroleum and so on.
• European royalty and Western religious institutions (such as the Catholic Church and Jesuit Order, the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Church of England and so on.
• Arab royalty and ultra-wealthy including the House of Saud, President and Sheikh of the United Arab Emirates, Emir of Qatar, King of Morocco, Sultan of Oman and so on.)

• "Bankers" not being strictly Jewish in any sense, of course, but only over-represented in financial services.

 

[snacks]

• "Bankers" not being strictly Jewish in any sense, of course, but only over-represented in financial services.

When it comes to Jews people have a need to double or even triple clarify that they arent trying to be offensive or anti semitic that you don't even see exhibited with discussion of blacks, muslims Mexicans etc. let alone whites. It's strictly accurate to say "jewish finance" or maybe Anglo-Jewish finance would be even more accurate but there's no need to treat the issue with kids gloves or pretend Jews are merely "over represented" when they're less than a % of the global population but half of the Forbes list

 

[DaveFoster]

When it comes to Jews people have a need to double or even triple clarify that they arent trying to be offensive or anti semitic that you don't even see exhibited with discussion of blacks, muslims Mexicans etc. let alone whites. It's strictly accurate to say "jewish finance" or maybe Anglo-Jewish finance would be even more accurate but there's no need to treat the issue with kids gloves or pretend Jews are merely "over represented" when they're less than a % of the global population but half of the Forbes list