MIG-TOW. Have you heard about it?

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Simon,

As with so many others, you use the word “traansactional” as if it is a bad thing.

What would be the opposite of “transactional”? One party giving all to the other party with nothing in return?

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen and Simon, “Designed”? “Bestowed”? Am I on the right Forum? 🤔

You don’t think you’re being a little overly literal, perhaps?

• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

That’s the feminist parody of the relation between the sexes.

It’s the basic social game plan of patriarchy.

Just because something is “natural” – i.e., it exists in nature – doesn’t mean it is good.

The alternative to hierarchies of any kind is egalitarianism.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Do you think there’s something unnatural or sinister about these gender divides? Does Vonnegut’s Handicapper General need to step in.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should cherish that women are women and men are men in ways that go fairly deep?

The sex differences aren’t so much “men enjoy things, women enjoy people”, than the deep social differences we see in society that encourage men to be kept in charge and women to be kept powerless.

Males and females reproduce differently.  Males produce millions of cheap sperm.  It’s in their interests to get as many different mates as possible.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Just because something is “natural” – i.e., it exists in nature – doesn’t mean it is good.The alternative to hierarchies of any kind is egalitarianism.

When anything rises to the top in nature, it’s because it’s the most workable (best) of the alternatives.

Why can’t egalitarians settle on a distribution of duties wherein men get leadership roles and the ability to wield the society’s power and women get more service and custodial roles, because those roles suit men and women better, on the whole?

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

The sex differences aren’t so much “men enjoy things, women enjoy people”, than the deep social differences we see in society that encourage men to be kept in charge and women to be kept powerless.

Women are not powerless. Certainly not in the courts. Where does this purported powerlessness manifest itself?

Males and females reproduce differently.  Males produce millions of cheap sperm.  It’s in their interests to get as many different mates as possible.

And yet, while men commit adultery more than women, the gap is not huge. About 20% for men and 15% for women. But your argument is absurd. I think until I read your post, I have never thought about the low value of my sperm. ROFLOL

• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon, you may have the gender power dynamic backwards:

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

I have never thought about the low value of my sperm.

The sperm are plentiful and cheap, yet reproduction is of the highest value.  Females produce a few costly eggs (because they take a lot of growing into a baby).  The reproductive dynamic is different for each sex.  This gives rise to the social differences we see.

Proto-human males and females used to be vastly different in size, the males much bigger than the females.  Then self-domestication happened, we became egalitarian, and the males shrank down to almost-female size.  This would account for men being slightly larger than women.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

The sperm are plentiful and cheap, yet reproduction is of the highest value.

No, the problem women have nowadays is that men are walking away from female reproductive abilities. We men are putting a negative value on having children. So are women, for that matter, until it’s too late for them to find a mate and bear a child.

Your conception is silly.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

No, the problem women have nowadays is that men are walking away from female reproductive abilities. We men are putting a negative value on having children. So are women, for that matter, until it’s too late for them to find a mate and bear a child.

I’m laying out the fundamental background game plan for the sex differences that we observe in the social sphere.  As for your theory, men have always walked away from their child-rearing and provisioning responsibilities.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon

Men have a responsibility to support their children ethically and legally. Children need a man in the house because women tend to want to be friends with and not alienate their children. Men, by contrast and ideally, are authoritarian and are more likely to set and enforce rules even if their kids hate them for it. Kids (and women, often) don’t believe in rules.

As far as walking away from responsibilities, the law makes that financially difficult for men, and even though children statistically do better when raised in a two-parent or single father household, women initiate the majority of dv0rces, the effect on the children notwithstanding.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

As with so many others, you use the word “traansactional” as if it is a bad thing.

What would be the opposite of “transactional”? One party giving all to the other party with nothing in return?

Surely a close relationship is the place for generosity rather than cynical bargaining.  Some things are sacred or priceless (e.g., goodwill, trust) and can’t be bought with profane, worldly currency.

[UnseenParticipant]

A little more common sense from Tom Leykis:

 

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon

Is it any wonder that men are preferring their male friends and “Rosey Palm” to getting involved with women.

[UnseenParticipant]

You know, when I was in college and probably up until recently, one safe way to get some money to help you meet your rent or car payment, was to donate blood or sperm. Sperm banks were supposedly anonymous. All the sperm buyer got were general ideas about your race and health but not your identity.

Well, women like the one in my previous post there, are finding ways to crack the veil of privacy. I won’t say it’s often, but it sure looks like the proverbial camel’s nose under the wall of the tent, doesn’t it?

[Author]

Posts