Why would a man ever get married?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by yossarian

In the social sciences you are always dealing with fuzzy logic and there are never any 100% rules.

An absolute statement that can be reduced to an actual determination. If it makes you feel better to make these claims about me, then okay.

[bluemoon]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I don't see anything unfeminine about education. I do see something unfeminine about the wife being a breadwinner for the family. This is the difference.

I think anyone who gets educated, male or female, gets a dose of indoctrination. Intelligent people in general who rule themself by the intellect are affected the most by this form of indoctrination because they have the ability to change themself to fit in with the indoctrination.

For instance, who is going to be have more feminist views? A couple where the male is a construction worker and the female is a real estate agent, or a couple where the male is a professor and the female is a lawyer?

The 2nd couple will undoubtedly be more intelligent, more educated, and more "feminist" for lack of a better word.

The 1st couple, though they are subject to the same media pressures, the intellectual arguments behind feminism are not nearly as strong on them because they base their live on intuition more than intellect. Construction workers (speaking from experience) are not deeply introspective or intellectual. They act from gut instinct and don't generally examine their opinions. If you ask, "Why do you hold opinion X?" they basically say "Because!" If you ask, "How long have you felt this way?" they answer, "Forever, and I've always been right and always will be!"

Whereas if you ask this to a lawyer, she'll give you a dissertation.

Intellectual indoctrination (and the majority of "feminist" indoctrination is intellectual) is more effective against people who are intelligent, educated, and intellectually oriented. The arguments make good logical sense. A intelligent person says, "What is this yin/yang crap? Sounds like pseudoscience to me!" while a non-intelligent person just accepts the yin/yang crap as true because of a gut reaction.

This is also why intelligent/educated men are statistically more likely to be feminist, because they think things through and then base their decisions and actions and opinions on the intellect.

Whereas a construction worker just acts the way his testosterone orders him to and doesn't worry about it. He is immune to feminist brainwashing because he is immune to logic. Logic is not involved in his life. He's vulnerable to other forms of brainwashing though - he can be led around like a bull by a matador.

You see these statistical trends in elections. The Republican side has voters who are more religious, less intellectual, less educated - which means they are less feminist. At the same time, they are more warlike, because violence is a natural response in the human being. So they follow their gut when it comes to feminism by rejecting it, and follow their gut when it comes to war by embracing it.

That's human beings for ya. You don't see a lot of uneducated feminists because feminism is unnatural. You also don't see uneducated pacifists because pacifism is unnatural. Pacifism and feminism are intellectual in origin.
.

Yossarian, for someone who operates off of broad generalizations of people, I feel like you're missing an important part of the puzzle (well, you mention it briefly, but you don't give enough weight to it): religion. When people are uneducated, they're not simply operating from a state of nature, they *often* have their own form of indoctrination. (I disagree with you that public education is indoctrination, but I'm leaving that be for the time).

More educated people tend not to be fundamentalists. Fundamentalist religions teach that women must submit (and that gays are evil). So your average construction worker up there is more likely than your woman lawyer (nice random selection of career!) to adhere to, say, fundamentalist Christianity. I'm not putting down Christianity in general, of course, just pointing out some truths about certain sects. These people would probably say that yin/yang stuff is from the devil.

I worked as a diner waitress for years in my hometown in high school and college summers, and my hometown is pretty heavily populated with fundamentalist Christians (if I told you the name and you were from PA you'd agree). The people I worked with and customers were definitely NOT feminist. But nary a Sunday brunch went by without an apron pocket full of tracts (my favorite are these! and yes I got one like every Sunday TEMP OUT! $20 Bill Money Tract)

[yossarian]

the difference is that religious indoctrination is not aimed at the intellect but at the intuition.

Intellectual indoctrination works on intellectuals

Intuitive indoctrination works on intuitives

i absolutely agree that construction workers are brainwashed, my point was that their brainwashing is different from female lawyer brainwashing

Intellectuals pay close attention to the world of ideas and tend to neglect their intuition. Intuitives pay close attention to the world of their feelings and tend to neglect their intellect. Neither is better or worse, just different.

Religious people will often say the intuition is better, while scientific people will say the intellect is better. Both groups are wrong.

Michael - my statements were not meant as insults, just statements for your benefit. If you dont want them, that's fine. Most people don't

[Michael Chui]

And Sinfest brings relevance to the world, yet again:

[Sam kovacs]

I asked my parents why they got married and there answer was they wanted to have kids. I just said Okay without really thinking about the logical link to that. So if anyone can develop this idea pf "let's get married cos we want kids"

[pyrogen]

I fail to see what exactly is intuitive about institutionalized religion. I don't see how it is, in fact, any more or less intuitive than standard science-based education. Both are telling you what to think and what not to think.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by pyrogen

I fail to see what exactly is intuitive about institutionalized religion. I don't see how it is, in fact, any more or less intuitive than standard science-based education. Both are telling you what to think and what not to think.

From my perspective, people reject the reality of the spirit because they overvalue reason.

Likewise, people reject the reality of reason because they overvalue spirit.

The spirit is known by intuition.

[pyrogen]

But being intuitively connected with spirit is NOT the aim of institutionalized religion. Social leadership/control and cultural transmission is. Maybe *some* individuals are granted dispensation to be intuitively connected with spirit, but even so it's in a very specifically prescribed fashion so how can it be called intuitive?

A priest or preacher is NOT a shaman, artist, or mystic.

Nearly all second and third wave cultures have been *very* hard on people who are "intuitively connected with spirit". They end up being outcasts, and threaten the institution. Any institution. Actually, today is a better time for those intuitive people than it has been since hunter-gatherer days.

[yossarian]

I'll amend my statements a bit.. it's not that feminism is strictly intellectual, it's that the feminist indoctrination happens in universities. Scientists tend to be feminists, and scientists are intellectuals, while liberal arts people are even more feminist and they are more based on intuition like you pointed out.

There are some fields that are MORE intuitive than religion, but you're also not accounting for the diversity that can be found in religion.

In Christianity in the West, for instance, you have some Christian sects like the Pentecostals who speak in tongues, go to Church 4 times per week, believe in spiritual gifts, modern prophets, stuff like that. They constantly have visions, hear words of God, and it's all very encouraged. They call themselves "Spirit-filled Christians." So this is an example of a religion that is very intuitive.

Some religions are not intuitive at all, and extremely intellectual and are based on strict intellectual adherence to tradition and a shunning of intuition.

So when I made my generalizations about education vs. religion those were crude, and the subtler picture is that you have both types in each. The separation when it comes to feminism is pretty much educated people vs. non-educated people, so it's kind of obvious where feminist brainwashing originates.

[polyfulcrum]

"The separation when it comes to feminism is pretty much educated people vs. non-educated people, so it's kind of obvious where feminist brainwashing originates."-Yossarian

Critical thought? Not accepting dogma as truth? Coming to the realization that there may, in fact, be more than one truth?

I'm a bit confused by the direct relationship you draw between education and brainwashing. The point of being educated, at least in theory, is to develop critical thinking skills. With those skills you can take information, process it in your own brain, and come up with a personal opinion, rather than taking a social construct and accepting it without examination. Does this happen with great frequency? Probably not, but you still stand a better chance at forming independent thoughts, ones that are outside of societal norms by being exposed to a greater variety of ideas, opinions and a wider range of information, a process commonly referred to as "being educated".

Not being much for formal education myself, I read voraciously, spend time around other people that are above average in intelligence, write and discuss topics that are of interest to me. Willful ignorance, in my opinion, is the greatest evil there is. Educating oneself, formally or otherwise, is of paramount importance if one wishes to avoid becoming a member of the herd (being brainwashed).

There are many people that are most comfortable being part of the masses, accepting what they've been told as truth without critical examination. This forum, however, is for those who wish to explore what's outside the box we've been told to occupy.

[bluemoon]

I really like what you said there, polyfulcrum.

Jumping off of that, I would argue that equating education and religion is not a valid comparison (this is to Yossarian). For example, I was raised Episcopalian. As a child, I didn't question the tenets of the church (Holy Trinity, communion, all that jazz). However, as I became more educated and read more thoroughly (and I've always been a voracious reader), I began to question what I'd been taught. At this point, although there's still lots for me to think about, I am a comfortable and spiritual agnostic. Education didn't "brainwash" me into believing or not believing the Nicene creed- it just helped me to think critically about it.

Additionally, there are many educational institutions devoted to the research of men and masculinity, such as this one (Men and Masculinity Research Center - College of Education | University of Missouri or Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity) They promote the study of man and masculinity without resorting to blame or conspiracies to achieve their purpose. I think these organizations have a lot of interesting things to say.

[timothydrake]

I agree getting married is a huge mistake. If you want to commit to someone, bind it with honor between the 2 of you. No one else should have a say in it. If you need a piece of paper to help you commit to the relationship that is really sad.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by timothydrake

I agree getting married is a huge mistake. If you want to commit to someone, bind it with honor between the 2 of you. No one else should have a say in it. If you need a piece of paper to help you commit to the relationship that is really sad.

Mmmm, I think the piece of paper is generally an outward symbol of the commitment already made, not something people think is going to actually help keep the relationship committed.

That said, the 'piece of paper' does bind you into certain legal commitments, so it's not entirely meaningless. Ask a stay-at-home mom whose husband runs off with his secretary whether having that piece of paper is going to prove helpful or not.

[Alexjstrandberg]

Originally Posted by jsot

You might as well flip a coin at the alter. Heads: you have to have sex with the same woman for the rest of your life, tails: she gets half your money and all of your stuff.

Good point, marriage is such an outdated system. "together forever" but that doesn't take into account that people DO change. The person you "love" might not be the same person tomorrow. If they change into something that's unwanted then you should move on but few do because of together forever.

Making a commitment instead of taking it one day at a time puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on the relationship as well. You will have a greater chance of the relationship working if you take it day to day.

The worst part of the situation is the belief that marriage will make everything different. The only difference is that you are trading your label in for a new one-boyfriend becomes husband. A crappy relationship will still be crappy after the high of the reception recedes.