Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

[x-ray peat]

It's dated because he's old af and was making trips to USSR and starting renegade colleges in Mexico at the same time confirmed communists were doing that. He certainly couldn't have been described as an unlikely communist sympathizer. I'm trying to figure out what is unfair about this assessment, he wrote about Marxist dialectic as a positive literary force, traveled back and forth to USSR, what exactly would you want to know to suggest someone might have been a communist sympathizer? Their confession? That takes it past the point of "likely" doesn't it?

That doesn't make it likely at all. Today is not like the 50s. If he believed in Marxism or Socialism he would be free to write about it. However the fact that he doesn't, and continually rails against authoritarianism and ideologies of any form make me think he is more of a free thinker not limited by other peoples all encompassing political theories.

Personally it wouldn't matter to me if he was a Communist/Marxist except that it would make me question every other thing he has written on politics as Marxism is such an obviously bankrupt and fraudulent political philosophy. Anyone who thinks that the State will just fade away on its own knows absolutely nothing about human nature and power. Of course I could easily say the same about anarchism.

 

[Kyle M]

Men's role is to go into the world and return with resources that women turn into more humans. That is the biological truth of our species. Anything else is poetic nonsense. You can do whatever you want with the body you are given, but humans are not a tabula rasa. Women should know the truth from older, single feminist women, which is that they are miserable. Average female happiness has been going down since traditional gender roles started going out of style. Do whatever you want, but telling young girls that they will be happier with a career than as a wife and mother is disgusting dishonest propaganda for which the propagandist should be thoroughly ashamed.

 

[walker_in_aus]

I'm sorry but there is nothing non-traditional about a woman who stays at home, takes care of the house, and bosses around the man when he gets home from work. That was the stereotype of the bossy housewife during the early days of television.

A modern feminist would call the situation you describe rank patriarchy. If you don't think so, go ahead and post what you wrote on Jezebel or everydayfeminism.com and see what they say about it.

We have communication issues here. What you described is not what I'm meaning - housewife bossing around man...

The original reason I posted was because saying that feminism ruins traditional family is not something I would agree with from my experience. And my family life was dominated by strong feminism by my mum being the main breadwinner and head of the family, as well as looking after the kids and house. Happy childhood, good relationship between my parents. Both successful people with career and personal interests of their own.

I would also argue that if the cost of having "traditional families" is the ongoing pidgeonholing of women in home and childcare with no choice and the inequal sharing of sexual pleasure, then perhaps this traditional family is bull**** anyway? The otherside of this is not just about women, it's about men being able to be free of the pressure to "be a man" and provide for the family, even if they would prefer to be the stay at homer, because of the judgement of their manhood.

 

[Kyle M]

That doesn't make it likely at all. Today is not like the 50s. If he believed in Marxism or Socialism he would be free to write about it. However the fact that he doesn't, and continually rails against authoritarianism and ideologies of any form make me think he is more of a free thinker not limited by other peoples all encompassing political theories.

As I wrote before, Peat hardly ever comes out and says what he thinks. I've talked with Danny Roddy about this before, his theory is that it has to do with Peat's astrological sign, that people of that sign don't like to be pinned down on their opinions. So I would not be surprised if someone like him beat around the bush and kept their political beliefs in the vague zone.

Personally it wouldn't matter to me if he was a Communist/Marxist except that it would make me question every other thing he has written on politics as Marxism is such an obviously bankrupt and fraudulent political philosophy. Anyone who thinks that the State will just fade away on its own knows absolutely nothing about human nature and power. I guess I could easily say the same about anarchism.

Well there's anarchism and there's anarchism. Ancaps don't think the state will fade on it's own, since they are the only ones that see the state for what it is anyway, just a collection of individuals that have the unilateral legal right to use violence on everyone else. Why would you give that up voluntarily? Society has to take it away by displacing its institutions and eventually violent resistance when it's on the ropes and lashes out.

 

[walker_in_aus]

Men's role is to go into the world and return with resources that women turn into more humans. That is the biological truth of our species. Anything else is poetic nonsense. You can do whatever you want with the body you are given, but humans are not a tabula rasa. Women should know the truth from older, single feminist women, which is that they are miserable. Average female happiness has been going down since traditional gender roles started going out of style. Do whatever you want, but telling young girls that they will be happier with a career than as a wife and mother is disgusting dishonest propaganda for which the propagandist should be thoroughly ashamed.

Ok wow. I'd like to say this has made a little ill as well as pretty angry.

Biological truth's aside - THE POINT IS THAT CHOICE IS IMPORTANT because there are biological outliers all the time.

Also there is no way that for humans, the biological truth and point of existence is the nuclear ******* family. The nuclear family is probably the least beneficial for women and children of all family models. Making sweeping generalisations such as the one's you've made above, surely the better "biological truth" based family option is tribal, where the women all work together to raise the childen and support each other and have a united front????? That sounds pretty feminist to me :)

 

[Kyle M]

I would also argue that if the cost of having "traditional families" is the ongoing pidgeonholing of women in home and childcare with no choice and the inequal sharing of sexual pleasure, then perhaps this traditional family is bull**** anyway? The otherside of this is not just about women, it's about men being able to be free of the pressure to "be a man" and provide for the family, even if they would prefer to be the stay at homer, because of the judgement of their manhood.

What about sexual pleasure? If the traditional family is such bs, why does it have such better outcomes for children vis a vis suicide, career, health, etc?

Life is not fair. Life has pressure. It's pressure to get up in the morning. That's why the genders have been endowed with asymmetric drives and abilities. Plenty of women can earn a lot of money, but to turn that into the ideal is that women should focus on career is a misunderstanding of statistical probability as well as human nature.

Most people don't know what they want. I've found that women often lash out when their men aren't strong and assertive enough. They want to be disciplined, and the beta males of today that want to treat them as equals infuriate them and activate some protest behavior neural pathway that never gets soothed. I can't tell you how many times I've seen women get pissed off at their boyfriends for asking them their opinion on where to go to eat, and how much nicer they are when the guy just tells them where they are going. Feminism rests on the assertion that men and women are the same. They aren't.

 

[walker_in_aus]

Didn't she say her Mom was a director of a company? Was that before she raised kids?

It was before, during and after raising us.

 

[Kyle M]

Ok wow. I'd like to say this has made a little ill as well as pretty angry.

Biological truth's aside - THE POINT IS THAT CHOICE IS IMPORTANT because there are biological outliers all the time.

Also there is no way that for humans, the biological truth and point of existence is the nuclear ******* family. The nuclear family is probably the least beneficial for women and children of all family models. Making sweeping generalisations such as the one's you've made above, surely the better "biological truth" based family option is tribal, where the women all work together to raise the childen and support each other and have a united front????? That sounds pretty feminist to me :)

If your reaction to that post was to get ill and angry, I can't really take you seriously as a thinker. Then your thoughts on it also lead me to that same conclusion.

Sure tribal family life, that's great, show me a country that isn't in the third world that has that in any appreciable amount?

Edit: also I clearly said that people have the choice to do whatever they want, but to lie to young women about the statistics on happiness vis a vis life choices is despicable. Is that the part that made you ill and angry? It's funny how feminists always take the statements "most women do x" to mean "all women do x" and respond with "BUT MUH OUTLIERS."

 

[TubZy]

I know plenty of guys who like women with colored hair; they find it attractive.

Maybe conservative guys weed out women based on tattoos, hair, piercings, purple lipstick, punk hairstyles, smoker lifestyle, etc. as the two would probably not be very compatible anyway. Some girls don't like beards, long hair, piercings, smokers, painted nails, certain dress styles (baggy jeans, fedoras etc.), while others prefer guys with any combination of those. It's more likely for a conservative girl to display a more minimal degree of the aforementioned decorations, so it saves a lot of turmoil, not to mention time on both ends to reference prototypes for dating.

Another example would be a women with a safety pin clipped to her chest, and a man with a "MAGA" hat. These two most likely don't uphold the same values, and their relationship would be destructive, or at the very least, combative unless they're both very tolerant and have other criteria for appreciating one another.

I think it was haidut who posted a study that showed high androgen males clash more often with high estrogen females in terms of relationships.

 

[walker_in_aus]

If your reaction to that post was to get ill and angry, I can't really take you seriously as a thinker. Then your thoughts on it also lead me to that same conclusion.

Sure tribal family life, that's great, show me a country that isn't in the third world that has that in any appreciable amount?

Edit: also I clearly said that people have the choice to do whatever they want, but to lie to young women about the statistics on happiness vis a vis life choices is despicable. Is that the part that made you ill and angry? It's funny how feminists always take the statements "most women do x" to mean "all women do x" and respond with "BUT MUH OUTLIERS.

Well I guess seeing as you're an alpha male telling me my thinking is no good, I will now pretend to feel soothed and go make my boss a cup of coffee as that's probably a better role for me. Hahaha! I'm responding emotionally to your arguments because they directly affect me. You are literally saying that my best option in life is to be a home wife, even though I don't want it and have never wanted it. I tried it once and spiralled into intense depression. Granted, I only had my staffy to nurture so perhaps not an adequate experiment. I am, however, not alone now, and I hope I'm still in a relationship when I'm an old feminist, with no children, and a great career.

I'm not arguing that men and women are "the same", and I'd not say many feminists would. I'm arguing that they should have equal rights emotionally, physically, career wise, choice wise and everything-wise to men. I'm also arguing that female traits that are viewed as bad because they aren't what a man would do, should just be viewed as different with different benefits and outcomes.

It has been consistently shown that many "third world" countries like the ones you speak of have significantly higher levels of happiness despite their "poverty", so perhaps they have it right compared to our lives... and there is probably a list a mile long as to why but I'm guessing that "because there are no feminists" isn't high up there.

 

[walker_in_aus]

If you were directing a company from home at the time she must have been doing it for walker_in_aus to be a child (pre-internet boom) then it must have been a smallish kind of thing. Before recently you couldn't direct a large venture as a stay-at-home mother unless you were given a thriving company to start with.

EVEN SO, modern feminists would call that patriarchy. Maybe you gals haven't been around a college campus or feminist website lately. I find that last generation's feminists are the most naive about the current generation's feminism, I think because they don't want to realize they are responsible for laying the ground work to such a horrible social phenomenon. Not unlike how baby boomers want to pretend like they didn't create the crappy situation that they criticize millennials for being in now due to their consistent voting to borrow against our time for their consumption.

Yeah it was tiny, she sold it for $10 million.

 

[Integra]

I know plenty of guys who like women with colored hair; they find it attractive.

Maybe conservative guys weed out women based on tattoos, hair, piercings, purple lipstick, punk hairstyles, smoker lifestyle, etc. as the two would probably not be very compatible anyway. Some girls don't like beards, long hair, piercings, smokers, painted nails, certain dress styles (baggy jeans, fedoras etc.), while others prefer guys with any combination of those. It's more likely for a conservative girl to display a more minimal degree of the aforementioned decorations, so it saves a lot of turmoil, not to mention time on both ends to reference prototypes for dating.

Another example would be a women with a safety pin clipped to her chest, and a man with a "MAGA" hat. These two most likely don't uphold the same values, and their relationship would be destructive, or at the very least, combative unless they're both very tolerant and have other criteria for appreciating one another.

Haha. Really fun and insightful post to read. Though about the supposed incompatibility between the girl with the dragon tattoo and a shotgun-waving football enthusiast: I think they can either be at each other's throats or down each other's pants, depending on where they take that energy Why? If we ignore them as stereotypes/identities and think of them as tendencies in people, then in every MAGA-enthusiast I see an unemancipated liberal who needs to learn how to finger-paint and smell the roses. But also the rampant, pierced like Swiss cheese, rainbow-waving, meta-natural SJW is someone who, precisely in proportion to the loudness of their rebellion and Internet activism, desperately needs a little orderly love and disciplined affection, if I can use those vague phrases.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yeah it was tiny, she sold it for $10 million.

Ray Peat's family is rich?

 

[SQu]

@keith ; @Janelle525 ; @walker_in_aus
thank you for your posts
this thread had me wondering whether I could stay on this forum

 

[keith]

@keith ; @Janelle525 ; @walker_in_aus
thank you for your posts
this thread had me wondering whether I could stay on this forum

Same here; the BS gets pretty deep here sometimes, and the lack of self awareness, lack of ability to apply reason and logic, and inability to avoid bias can be overwhelming. Normally I don't get involved with these conversations for exactly that reason, and will probably do just that in the future. If I thought I might change any minds I might think differently, but absent any hope of that, taking part in this nonsense isn't worth the stress involved.

I try to remember that there are people in my personal life who also hold views I find abhorrent, but who are yet generally good people, so I'll try not to judge others only on one or two opinions, and hope that in the complexity of the person, there is more good than bad, and that they are capable of growth, and that someday they might be a little more open minded.

 

[Ritchie]

Men's role is to go into the world and return with resources that women turn into more humans. That is the biological truth of our species. Anything else is poetic nonsense. You can do whatever you want with the body you are given, but humans are not a tabula rasa. Women should know the truth from older, single feminist women, which is that they are miserable. Average female happiness has been going down since traditional gender roles started going out of style. Do whatever you want, but telling young girls that they will be happier with a career than as a wife and mother is disgusting dishonest propaganda for which the propagandist should be thoroughly ashamed.

Mate your perspective on this is a little surprising tbh. You generally come across as quite an intelligent person however your interpretation of the "biological truth of our species" here is extremely simplistic to the point of being comical. I'm sure you are aware that many cultures throughout history have been dominated and ruled by women. Women have also often worked and contributed significantly to the accumulation of "resources" in tribal, primitive societies. In fact, there was less dedication to individual raising of children in the past as all children would be in a group and people (men and women) would share the care taking responsibilities while the others were active with daily things... Many female animals dominate over their male counterparts within any given species. People have freedoms to do as they please, man and woman. I'm all for recognising and embracing the genetic differences, be it strengths or weaknesses, on both sides, however that certainly doesn't lead to a position such as the one you seem to be taking in this thread. I know many women that are miserable in the traditional "wife/mother/stay at home" role, just as much if not more so than their working/entrepreneurial/social/single or married parent counterparts. And equally many happy on both sides. And of course, it's no secret that men, whether working, single, married etc suffer just as much if not more from suicide and depression. Each to their own but every person should have choice and freedom to live their lives as they choose as long as it's not hurting others, whether man or woman. Human's are no doubt evolving, perhaps in ways that aren't so clear right now, and we should allow nature to take its course, as it will. Your early to mid 20th century perspectives are dated mate. All due respect.

 

[Herbie]

As I wrote before, Peat hardly ever comes out and says what he thinks. I've talked with Danny Roddy about this before, his theory is that it has to do with Peat's astrological sign, that people of that sign don't like to be pinned down on their opinions. So I would not be surprised if someone like him beat around the bush and kept their political beliefs in the vague zone./QUOTE]

An observation of Ray is that his view would be beyond the syntax of language, unable to fit into a category not because he avoids it or doesn't want but just doesn't fit in. Maybe he has a nostalgia for past times of political and philosophical history. Ever changing in perspective with current times and perhaps doesn't see the value in trying to explain knowing he has not or cannot come to a conclusion or knows he will be mis understood. Perhaps he has realised that life is complex beyond understanding and explanation, it sways back and forth, moving towards balance and perfection from order to chaos that the left is equally as valuable as the right in such a complex civilisation. Undoubtedly, He is in a vast zone.

 

[Herbie]

Human's are no doubt evolving, perhaps in ways that aren't so clear right now, and we should allow nature to take its course, as it will. You're early 20th century perspectives are dated mate. All due respect.

We have evolved to be as far from nature as possible.

 

[Prosper]

I'm sure you are aware that many cultures throughout history have been dominated and ruled by women.

Not a particularly honest way of using "many" and "dominate"

 

[Herbie]

Men's role is to go into the world and return with resources that women turn into more humans. That is the biological truth of our species. Anything else is poetic nonsense.

If this wasn't true then when divorce occurs women would not be awarded with a high percentage of the man's resources.