tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post6206920086638384479..comments2024-03-28T10:43:26.059+01:00Comments on Eivind Berge's Blog: The Men's Movement has lostEivind Bergehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-66687347753074375772017-03-23T18:32:37.143+01:002017-03-23T18:32:37.143+01:00Han var uheldig med juryen, men det er verre at ju...Han var uheldig med juryen, men det er verre at juryordningen blir avskaffet. Det er det feministreformerte voldtektsbegrepet som er problemet. De forholdene Kopseng var tiltalt for skulle aldri noensinne ha blitt kriminalisert.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-26163662832030767182017-03-23T18:21:57.558+01:002017-03-23T18:21:57.558+01:00http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kopseng-juryen-pla...http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/kopseng-juryen-planla-juliobord-etter-rettssaken/67421478Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-46936524457682289092017-02-12T18:12:49.370+01:002017-02-12T18:12:49.370+01:00It's easy to spot an Alpha male. His knuckles ...It's easy to spot an Alpha male. His knuckles drag. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-81615454977363251212016-10-25T05:50:46.441+02:002016-10-25T05:50:46.441+02:00Notice also how the female point of view is privil...Notice also how the female point of view is privileged in typical feminist fashion, while the male point of view is dismissed out of hand as caused by "abuse," even when the man is happy about himself. The psychologist only listens to the woman's perspective, and tries to impose it on the man. Male sexuality is by definition "damaged" unless it conforms to female values. No one gives a flying fuck about what the man wants. The woman in the anecdote wants her boyfriend to commit to her and abstain from sex for long periods and if he has different priorities, then he must have been abused. SHE is the one consulting a psychologist about supposed female-on-male sexual abuse, which he does not perceive as such at all. Healthy male sexuality is redefined as "commitment issues" because Edward only caters to women, being the thoroughly indoctrinated feminist that he is.<br /><br />Leave it to the feminists to turn reproductive fitness into abuse. Only in their perverted worldview can male prowess, pride and joy be twisted into rape and abuse.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-7486603747054255392016-10-25T03:57:07.210+02:002016-10-25T03:57:07.210+02:00Men who are exceptional natural pickup artists don...Men who are exceptional natural pickup artists don't have those skills magically kick in at the age of consent, you know, like dimwitted feminists believe. The qualities that make some men promiscuous in adulthood obviously also tend to make them more attractive to women and hence sexually active in adolescence. So you should logically expect a boy who is having sex with women at 12 to also get more women than his peers later in life. Only an utter moron or a feminist would conclude that the latter promiscuity was caused by early "abuse," which of course isn't abuse at all but rather an expression of superior fitness, the same alpha traits that make men incredibly successful with women later as well. Blaming promiscuity on early sexual experiences, and pretending it is bad, makes as much sense as saying Bill Gates became a billionaire because of childhood abuse. And that the rest of us should be so glad we weren't abused, because then we would go out and become billionaires, which only someone abused would do, and easily could do just because he was abused...<br /><br />The notion that superior fitness can be caused by "abuse," and statutory abuse at that, arbitrarily defined into existence by feminist legislators, is mind-bogglingly insane. Yet this is what feminists literally claim. Please try to do some independent thinking before accepting their harebrained theories.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-12877153307228207042016-10-25T01:40:24.903+02:002016-10-25T01:40:24.903+02:00That is a good example of feminist sex-hostility p...That is a good example of feminist sex-hostility propaganda. It is complete bullshit and utterly malicious. This contrived "victim" of the legal fiction of "statutory rape" is in fact an astonishingly lucky boy, and what I would call a super alpha. Any man who's had sex with 150 women by age 27 is so outstanding and enviable that I have trouble even believing it, but let's assume it's a true story for the sake of argument. Did this man become promiscuous because he was abused? LOL! What kind of moron would believe that, as if any man can simply choose to "become promiscuous" and sleep with 150 women. If only it were that easy, there would be no incels and no market for PUA training... No, of course it takes a rock star, a billionaire or a man with exceptional game to get that many women, or we would all be doing it. And what kind of scumbag would tell a man who is naturally proud of his exceptional luck with women that he is in fact abused and messed up instead?<br /><br />And lol, is being unable to abstain from sex for more than a month a measure of psychological damage in a man, rather than healthy sexuality?<br /><br />I hope you see how ridiculous it is and don't take any of that drivel seriously.<br /><br />Edward even spelled "effects" wrong, all of which are figments of his sick feminist imagination and wishful thinking so he can peddle psychotherapy.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-53487141285663536192016-10-25T00:05:26.172+02:002016-10-25T00:05:26.172+02:00I remember reading this from http://docdreyfus.com...I remember reading this from http://docdreyfus.com/psychologically-speaking/affects-of-statutory-rape/<br /><br />"Affects of Statutory Rape"<br /><br />A woman askes clinical psychologist Edward A. Dreyfus:<br /><br />"My boyfriend had his first sexual encounter at age 12 with a female troop leader; he considers it to have been consensual and positive. By age 15 he was having sex with his English teacher. Now he’s 27 and he’s had at least 150 sex partners, numerous orgies, and can’t abstain from sex for more than a month. He’s excessively proud of his sexual prowess and skill. I’m not judging him. But is this ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’? My instincts tell me something is wrong as evidenced by his sexual control, trust, and commitment issues. Could these early sexual experiences with women in positions of authority have caused these issues? What kind of psychological damage, if any, could he have?"<br /><br />And then here's Edward A. Dreyfus' answer:<br /><br />"Legally your boyfriend was raped by both the troop leader and his teacher. Adults who have sex with minors can be prosecuted for statutory rape, regardless of whether the act was considered consensual by the minor. It is an abuse of power. It is even more egregious when the adult his someone entrusted to care for the minor. Such behavior is a violation of that trust. You described a fairly common result."<br /><br />"The process often often goes something like this: an adolescent boy is seduced by an adult in authority. As most adolescents he considers it somewhat of a feather in his cap for having an older woman show sexual interest in him. While he is physically mature enough to engage in sexual behavior, he is far from emotionally mature enough to handle it. He cannot talk to anyone about his experience because he feels guilty, perhaps ashamed and protective of the adult. He thus may feel estranged from his peer group, his parents, and others. As he grows up he begins trying to work out some of the internal struggles. He may become sexually promiscuous, seeking women whom he can control in the manner in which he was controlled by the troop leader and teacher. He wants to do to them what was done to him. He has to repeatedly prove that it is he who is in control, not the other way around. Genuine, mature intimacy is difficult for these men. They have difficulty trusting women; in your boyfriend’s case, the two women who were supposed to take care of him failed him. They took care of themselves at his expense. They controlled him through the power of their position and took advantage of him; he was vulnerable."<br /><br /><br />"Psychotherapy can be very helpful to men who have been molested, even if they claim to have enjoyed it and found it to a positive experience. It gives them opportunity to explore their feelings and discover the long term, often unconscious, affects these early experiences had on them. The result of effective treatment is that they become capable of engaging in an intimate, loving relationship with a woman where loving sex becomes integral to the relationship."<br /><br />What do you make of this? Is there any truth to what Edward is saying?True2Godnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-71504125148539470382016-10-23T17:38:34.443+02:002016-10-23T17:38:34.443+02:00To understand why rape is harmful, it is crucially...To understand why rape is harmful, it is crucially important to understand the concept of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the cost of not putting your resources to the best possible use. Because of their much greater minimum parental investment, women are the choosy sex. They have much to lose by choosing mates unwisely, because their investment in a pregnancy is so great in all cases, and they certainly have better things to do with their reproductive resources than letting some random rapist do the choosing for them. So rape is quite rightly a horrifying experience, something to be avoided at great cost, worth fearing and being traumatized over.<br /><br />To understand why female sexual coercion is trivial, we can employ the same reasoning. According the literature on female sexual coercion, the few men who claim to be negatively affected complain about the "rapist" being insufficiently attractive to consent to. Okay. Then the damage of female sexual coercion is limited to the opportunity cost of copulating with a less attractive woman than they believed they could have. So how much is lost, exactly? It is measured in minutes or hours (of refractory time, but the Coolidge effect mostly takes care of that...) at worst, while a raped woman is faced with the opportunity costs of entire pregnancies and beyond, as well as the favors she could have obtained from freely chosen mates. So what kind of moron would equate the two? What kind of mangina would have the nerve to claim he is entitled to the sympathy of a rape victim because he copulated with a woman who was less attractive than he wanted? This isn't just an apples to oranges comparison, but a false equivalency of such magnitude that it boggles the mind.<br /><br />The female sex offender charade is the most absurd travesty of our times. It is a joke, except when the justice system takes it seriously, at which point it becomes a matter of grave injustice. Even though all the victims are women, I consider it one of our most important issues to combat as MRAs, up there with the other ways sex laws have been corrupted by feminism, because it is the right thing to do and because they all go together in the deranged feminist worldview which denies biology and places sex-hostility above all.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-8764252223980897622016-10-23T17:36:40.971+02:002016-10-23T17:36:40.971+02:00Now I want to elaborate a bit on the biological ba...Now I want to elaborate a bit on the biological basis for why women "raping" men belongs in the domain of comedy rather than criminal law.<br /><br />Why do we feel pain? Pain is an evolved response to harmful things, to help us stay out of harm's way. Individuals who don't feel pain are more likely to die before they can reproduce, so it is easy to understand that pain is adaptive. Psychological pain works the same way. It is painful to be ostracized from one's social group, because that sort of thing had low survival value, and it is painful for a man to be celibate, because that has low reproductive value. Rape is recognized as a much more serious crime than what the violence involved might otherwise suggest because the sexual violation is likely to produce severe psychological pain by itself. (Or at least, that is the only rational basis for treating rape as a particularly heinous crime, though other, far less convincing justifications have been put forth having to do with male "ownership" of women.)<br /><br />People do react differently, and there will always be a minority who is more upset by any given offense than others, but the law must be based on reasonable men and women. If someone slaps you in the face without causing any physical damage, there are limits to how seriously offended you can claim to be, if you want to be taken seriously. If you want to press charges for simple assault, then you might have a case, but if you want it prosecuted as something comparable to murder, you will be laughed out of the justice system. This remains true even if you are a hypersensitive sort who feels genuinely profoundly victimized. Freaks have no right to impose their values on the rest of us. Female sexual coercion, isolated from other violent aspects, is perceived by most men as so trivial that it doesn't even deserve to be a crime, and the justice system should take heed of that fact. Indeed, it is a laughing matter, as evinced again and again even in the most politically correct feminist societies. No matter how much feminist propaganda you throw at it, men continue to laugh at the idea that women can rape men.<br /><br />It is therefore surreal to observe the hysteria whipped up by feminists in favor or taking female-on-male "rape" seriously. This is something I feel stupid for even discussing, because it is so blatantly obvious to anybody with common sense. It is a case of <a href="http://eivindberge.blogspot.no/2014/01/oversocialization-explains-female-sex.html" rel="nofollow">oversocialization</a>, people who let their intelligence override their common sense because they have embraced the ideal of equality and seek to impose it on reality.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-57154206216123253752016-10-23T14:39:52.157+02:002016-10-23T14:39:52.157+02:00I think I said it best like this:
"The categ...I think I said it best like this:<br /><br />"The category of rape hinges on the ontological/phenomenological assumption that the penis (or male sexuality in general) is capable of inflicting some very serious violation that goes profoundly beyond the physical violence in an assault per se (indeed there can be no physical damage whatsoever and rape is still considered a heinous crime). For all of history until feminism, it never occurred to anyone that female sexual coercion belongs in this category. Now political correctness holds that the sexes are equal, and that therefore women can rape men. But it is a lie. The vagina has no power to violate a man sexually, because the ontological status of female sexuality fundamentally precludes such a thing. Women raping men can only be as bad as the physical violence itself. Or, IF women raping men is the same experience as men raping women, then that would mean rape is the most exaggerated and disproportionately punished crime in history. If feminists want to insist that the sexes are equal, so that we men can ourselves imagine what rape is like based on how we feel about female sexual coercion, then the jig is up on rape and it is exposed as the most grossly exaggerated and disproportionately punished crime in history. I don't actually believe real rape is as trivial as female sexual coercion, so I refuse to go along with the charade that women can rape men."<br /><br />And this ontology of course has a biological basis explained by evolutionary psychologists and denied by feminists, but even feminist research fails to find men who are very traumatized by female sexual coercion, with typical research findings like this: "Twenty-five percent said they felt good, 50% felt neutral and 25% felt bad."<br /><br />From page 2 here (free, but requires registration):<br /><br />http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/mens-reactions-female-sexual-coercion<br /><br />What kind of monster wants to sentence women to lengthy prison terms for something so trivial and not damaging at all? Feminists and manginas, that's who, and certainly no real MRAs.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-71288600181760407582016-10-23T14:11:44.380+02:002016-10-23T14:11:44.380+02:00As I have pointed out many times, I regard the not...As I have pointed out many times, I regard the notion that women can "rape" men as completely absurd, and I totally oppose prosecuting women for rape because female sexual coercion simply doesn't fit in that category. Gender-neutral rape law is just feminist corruption of justice. For example, see this post and especially my latest comments there:<br /><br />http://eivindberge.blogspot.no/2009/10/feminists-believe-women-can-rape-men.html<br /><br />Believing that women can "rape" men and should be punished equally is astonishingly misogynistic, because men don't perceive female sexual coercion as a serious offense worthy of anywhere near the punishment mandated for rape. Female sexual coercion should at most be prosecuted as simple assault or whatever violence was involved when you disregard the sexual aspect, because the sexual aspect does not aggravate the crime as far as reasonable men are concerned. If anything, the sexual aspect is an extenuating circumstance in female-on-male assault. Most men would be at least a little bit flattered if the woman had a sexual motive, and I think we can all agree that assaults with no sexual intent would be far worse (for example, to steal something from you) than sexual assaults when committed by a woman.<br /><br />Pretending women can rape men is an exercise in "equality" for the sake of equality and actually a false equivalency and misogyny. As an MRA, I support fairness in rape legislation, which means I categorically reject the notion that women can rape men. So I agree with the politician about this, and unlike him I am not joking; I am a principled activist for abolishing the feminist lie that women can rape men from rape law.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-33072149980182120912016-10-23T13:47:20.082+02:002016-10-23T13:47:20.082+02:00Dette vil nok falle i smak for en som deg mr. Berg...Dette vil nok falle i smak for en som deg mr. Berge:<br /><br />http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/frp/frp-topp-atle-simonsen-vitset-om-voldtekt-av-menn/a/23827847/<br /><br />A Norwegian politician jokes about men being raped by women. Must qualify as a local hero in this part of the MRA manosphere. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-67328812040222195382016-10-23T07:59:40.144+02:002016-10-23T07:59:40.144+02:00There have been these women accusing Donald Trump ...There have been these women accusing Donald Trump of sexual assult. If Donald Trump is guilty and it was such a horrible experience, I would find it very bizzare that there were no consequences for Trump. No getting arrested, no being forced to make things right with his victims, nothing. Even though most people take the side of a women claiming to be sexually assulted.<br /><br />Women lie about sexual assult a lot more than people think. Trump most likely did NOT sexually assult those women. He doesn't seem like the type. I'd be shocked if he did it and IF he did it, it wasn't as bad as people think. I won't say sexual assult is okay but it's not as bad as people think.<br /><br />About one of those women, Trump said, "She would not be my first choice." I'm not saying these women were ugly but at the same time are these women the sexiest, most desirable women in the world? What do these women have that the women Trump has been with don't have?<br /><br />Some people claim Trump admitted to sexual assult in 2005. No he didn't! He said "they let you do it". They let him do it! He didn't threaten them with a gun or in any other way. And again, look at the women Trump has been with. What he said in 2005 was rude but people are blowing it out of proportion.<br /><br />True2Godnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-85104948871923203232016-10-17T18:00:21.166+02:002016-10-17T18:00:21.166+02:00"It is perhaps a projection of America’s ongo..."It is perhaps a projection of America’s ongoing rape hysteria that we think we’re special victims of this universal activity."<br /><br />http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-odor-of-desperation/<br /><br />Kanskje ikke så rart Kunstler ikke blir invitert som foreleser på universitetene lenger?<br /><br />Forresten jøde han også.Øyvind Holmstadhttp://www.permaliv.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-37525959836188061922016-10-12T18:16:08.720+02:002016-10-12T18:16:08.720+02:00Jødene er utvilsomt et svært intelligent folkeslag...Jødene er utvilsomt et svært intelligent folkeslag, og står for veldig mye bra forskning. Men det henger litt sammen med høy intelligens at de også er mer tilbøyelige til å tro dumme ting på noen områder, så jeg er ikke overasket over at det var en jøde som fant på at kjønnene ikke finnes. Evolusjonsbiologen Satoshi Kanazawa forklarer hvorfor:<br /><br />https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/if-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are<br /><br />"Everyone has common sense. Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result get things wrong. In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it. They <i>think</i> in situations where they are supposed to <i>feel</i>. In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not."Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-78351094221482751242016-10-12T17:24:16.099+02:002016-10-12T17:24:16.099+02:00Jøje meg! Mens det var jøden Zahavi som lanserte h...Jøje meg! Mens det var jøden Zahavi som lanserte handikapprinsippet som grunnlag for seksuell seleksjon, hvorpå vi kan forstå forskjellene mellom kjønnene, er det jammen en jøde som har funnet på at vi er kjønnsløse også.<br /><br />"For å forstå tanken bak, må vi til den amerikansk-jødiske filosofen og sosiologen Judith Butler. I 1990 utga hun boken Gender Trouble, der hun argumenterte for at det ikke var biologisk betinget hvilket kjønn man følte seg som. Kjønn var først og fremst en kulturell og sosial konstruksjon.<br /><br />Butlers oppfatninger fikk enorm oppmerksomhet, og ble toneangivende for diskusjonen i de ledende feministmiljøene.<br /><br />Mens man tidligere hadde kjempet for kvinners likeverd og likestilling, satte de såkalte queerfeministene spørsmål ved selve kategorien mann og kvinne. Det ble det bråk av, ikke minst fordi det rokket ved selve strategien for kvinnekampen: Hvordan skal man bekjempe undertrykkelse av kvinner med treffsikre tiltak som kvotering, hvis kjønnene egentlig ikke eksisterer?<br /><br />Den samme uenigheten har queerteorien skapt i de skeive miljøene. En homofil mann forklarte det slik til meg: – Jeg opplever meg selv som en mann som er tiltrukket av menn, og tror ikke det vil være annerledes i morgen. Derfor identifiserer jeg meg ikke med queerteorien."<br /><br />- Slutt på gutt og jente?:<br /><br />http://www.vl.no/meninger/kommentar/slutt-pa-gutt-og-jente-1.790132<br /><br />Her blir det svært tydelig at forholder man seg ikke til atferdsøkologien blir alt bare rot og forvirring. Det er altså fra queerfeministene man holder fram eksemplet med gamle menn som selger sex til unge kvinner i mørke bakgater, som en plausibel mulighet hvis de kulturelle forutsetningene er til stede. For oss som ikke er forblindet av ideologi framstår dette naturligvis som irrasjonelt, mens disse queerfeministene tror fullt og fast på at dette er rasjonelt og mulig.<br /><br />Kanskje feminismens grunnide i dag er at det ikke er noen forskjell mellom kjønnene, at dette er en kulturell konstruksjon, og at de derfor mener menn bør bli som kvinner?<br /><br />Uansett er det merkelig hvordan disse jødene har en finger med i det meste, både på godt og vont. Mener det stod i boka til Bongard at askenasijødene er verdens mest intelligente folkegruppe, kanskje et resultat av det ekstreme presset de ble utsatt for av forfølgelse gjennom lang tid?Øyvind Holmstadhttp://www.permaliv.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-65723000938127155032016-10-11T04:53:00.798+02:002016-10-11T04:53:00.798+02:00Et utdrag fra Ottesens innlegg:
"Jobbtilbud,...Et utdrag fra Ottesens innlegg:<br /><br />"Jobbtilbud, stipender, gode karakterer og velvilje fra utdanningsinstitusjoner og veiledere har uteblitt. Selv hadde jeg en arbeidsgiver som nektet meg å fortsette forskningen jeg hadde jobbet med i tre år da det i 2010 ble kjent at jeg brukte det evolusjonspsykologiske perspektiv."<br /><br />Bongard har opplevd mye av det samme, evolusjonsbiologene angripes og undergraves av samfunnsviterne fordi de føler sin profesjon, og dermed sin status truet, noe de har grunn til.<br /><br />Personlig mener jeg atferdsøkologi bør inn som fag i barneskolen. Den dagen samfunnsviterne dør ut får vi et bedre samfunn!Øyvind Holmstadhttp://www.permaliv.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-52423831235395024232016-10-10T20:17:28.597+02:002016-10-10T20:17:28.597+02:00"Forøvrig er jeg enig i Holmestads betraktnin..."Forøvrig er jeg enig i Holmestads betraktninger om at det å stikke seg ut er viktig i dagens samfunn. En av de største problemene er å faktisk bli sett i dagens informasjonssamfunn."<br /><br />Det å stikke seg ut har alltid vært viktig for menn. Men som du påpeker er det ekstremt vanskelig å bli sett i dagens massesamfunn, derfor får vi ekstreme herostratiske handlinger som de til utøyamorderen.<br /><br />Ellers er Berges definisjon av kjernen i femininitet og maskulinitet meget presis. Dette gjelder forøvrig alle kjønnede dyr, og har sitt utgangspunkt i egg og sædcelle. I bunn og grunn er vi forvokste egg- og sædceller, alt utenpå disse er egentlig bare lag av det samme prinsippet. <br /><br />Samfunnsviterne vil selvsagt holde fast på sitt svada, som jo er påfuglhalene deres og gjør så de skinner.Derfor angriper de Bongard og atferdsøkologien, fordi denne tar fra dem statusen til profesjonene deres, og dermed attraktiviteten på kjønnsmarkedet.<br /><br />Det er imidlertid kun atferdsøkologien som kan gi oss en helhetlig forståelse av menneskeatferd. <br /><br />- Skal man forstå mennesket, må man forstå at mennesket er et produkt av evolusjon:<br /><br />http://darwinist.no/skal-man-forsta-mennesket-ma-man-forsta-at-mennesket-er-et-produkt-av-evolusjon/<br /><br />Svært mange mennesker nekter å innse dette. Derfor får man alskens merkelig ideologi, som den moderne feminismen, som hevder at gamle menn som selger sexuelle tjenester til unge kvinner i mørke bakgater, er helt plausibelt og mulig innen en gitt kultur.<br /><br />De samme ideologene vil også hevde at det at menn dominerer innen alle profesjoner skyldes undertrykking og kultur. Den rå sannheten er imidlertid at menn sliter vettet av seg for å imponere ei eller annen kvinne innen en eller annen nisje. Det at menn har så mye større spenn i personligheter og personlighetsavvik enn kvinner, skyldes samme strategi. Mannlig personlighet blir lett dratt ut i det ekstreme fordi dette evolusjonært gir større mulighet for å finne en nisje på kjønnsmarkedet, hvor man kan stikke seg fram og bli synlig for ei potensiell kvinne.<br /><br />Øyvind Holmstadhttp://www.permaliv.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-53791230661332855052016-10-10T13:41:51.443+02:002016-10-10T13:41:51.443+02:00Mitt utgangspunkt er at kvinner handler i sin egen...Mitt utgangspunkt er at kvinner handler i sin egen beste interesse, på samme måte som menn og andre dyr gjør det, siden våre følelser og handlinger er et sofistikert resultat av naturlig tilpasning. Så byrden er på deg for å vise at kvinners preferanser eventuelt er maladaptive. Og i noen ekstreme tilfeller, slik som med røyk og sukker, så er jeg med på at vi ikke kan stole instinktene våre til å fortelle oss hva som er gunstig i dagens samfunn. Men jeg har ikke hørt noen overbevisende argumenter for at seksuell tiltrekning bør overstyres av ideologi. Feministene har jo ikke kommet så langt som å forstå hvordan disse instinktene fungerer engang, så hvorfor skulle verdiene deres være gode normer?<br /><br />Jeg kan godt definere kjernen i femininitet og maskulinitet. Det essensielle er at kvinnekroppen har verdi i seg selv -- kvinnen får poeng kun for å møte opp på kjønnsmarkedet, mens menn må bevise at de er verd noe på en eller annen måte gjennom handlinger. Som Bongard nevnte i videoen, trenger ikke kvinner sminke seg engang. Alt de gjør har bare en ørliten effekt utover selve kroppen.<br /><br />Svulstige kjærlighetsdikt og mannlig gråt endrer ikke på saken; de er bare variasjoner over handikapprinsippet, som en påfuglhale med litt annen design.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-35201892938889328412016-10-10T13:09:37.283+02:002016-10-10T13:09:37.283+02:00Tja p-piller kan kanskje ha en viss innvirkning på...Tja p-piller kan kanskje ha en viss innvirkning på preferanser, men jeg tviler sterkt på at dette er alt-avgjørende, all den tid dette er et nytt fenomen. <br /><br />Berge hevder eksemplene mine bare henviser til overfladiske forskjeller mellom maskulinitets-idealer før og nå. Det problematiske knytter seg dog til at det er ikke etablert en definisjon for hva som er feminint eller maskulint i denne debatten. <br /><br />Det kan neppe være gråt:<br />http://forskning.no/medisin-sex-psykologi-stub/2008/02/dengang-ekte-mannfolk-grat<br /><br />Det kan heller ikke være svulstige og følsomme kjærlighetsdikt:<br /><br />"Den lyriske kjærlighetsdikt i hieroglyfer i Egypt viser at de ulike temaene om kjærlighet har vært uendret gjennom historien. Egyptologer funnet kjærlighetsdikt på vaser og papyrus ruller. Disse kjærlighetsdikt ble skrevet 1300 år før Kristus."<br /><br />http://hvisvokser.com/article/elsker-gjennom-historien<br /><br />Aspekter som burde få enhver macho-fiksert, "strong silent type" til å krympe seg. <br /><br />Ironisk nok hevder Berge at jeg er moralsk tvilsom: "siden du neppe vet bedre hva som er i deres interesse enn kvinnene selv." Da må man bare gi seg hen til Berges argumentasjon, siden han da selvsagt vet bedre hva som er i kvinners interesse, eller vent litt... var det ikke dette som skulle være så moralskt tvilsomt å hevde?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-36670402897495117642016-10-10T12:45:54.590+02:002016-10-10T12:45:54.590+02:00Kvinnenes selektive kjønn ser ut til å bli mer for...Kvinnenes selektive kjønn ser ut til å bli mer forvirret av p-pillehormoner enn hva man har trodd hittil.<br /><br />- P-pillen kan lure deg til å velge feil mann:<br /><br />https://www.nrk.no/viten/xl/p-pillen-kan-lure-deg-til-a-velge-feil-mann-1.13096724<br /><br />Dette vil sannsynligvis resultere i at kvinner i mindre grad tiltrekkes av maskuline menn, og kan kanskje delvis forklare kvinners større hang til homofile menn i populærkulturen.<br /><br />Et annet aspekt i velferdsstaten er at kvinner med staten som forsørger i mindre grad er avhengige av maskuline menn som beskyttere og forsørgere.<br /><br />På den annen side kan dette gjøre kvinner mer utro, da det ikke er like risikabelt å miste forsørgeren sin. Dette kan gjøre dem mer tilbøyelige til sidesprang med høystatusmenn når sjansen byr seg.Øyvind Holmstadhttp://www.permaliv.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-63097186755274167382016-10-10T12:44:17.916+02:002016-10-10T12:44:17.916+02:00Jeg tror ikke Trump bokstavelig talt mente å gripe...Jeg tror ikke Trump bokstavelig talt mente å gripe intetanende kvinner i fitta. Det var bare skryt og tull (helt vanlig snakk mellom menn, som det er rent mannshat å fordømme moralsk, siden det er noe vi alle gjør), med den kjernen av sannhet at han kommer unna med langt mer enn vanlige menn fordi kvinner faktisk liker ham bedre.<br /><br />Du bryter ikke ned klasseforskjeller med feministisk overgrepshysteri. Det er bare å lage kvalme uten å endre noen ting.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-85099304749882526252016-10-10T12:39:44.635+02:002016-10-10T12:39:44.635+02:00Forøvrig er jeg enig i Holmestads betraktninger om...Forøvrig er jeg enig i Holmestads betraktninger om at det å stikke seg ut er viktig i dagens samfunn. En av de største problemene er å faktisk bli sett i dagens informasjonssamfunn. Vi kan observere hvordan den ene døgenikten etter den andre kan score vagina-poeng ,rett og slett ved å eksponere sin egen idioti. Til forskjell fra før i tiden så er det ingen forutsetning å kunne noe for å oppnå anerkjennelse. Det holder å være med i et reality-show. Jeg tror rett og slett manglende evne til å kjenne skam er blitt et særdeles viktig "survival" prinsipp. Men det kalles noe annet, det kalles i beste eufemistiske tradisjon for "å være seg selv".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-46770470917052914912016-10-10T12:18:02.481+02:002016-10-10T12:18:02.481+02:00Du hevder at utsagnene mine er tvilsomme og ondska...Du hevder at utsagnene mine er tvilsomme og ondskapsfulle. Dette er jeg fullstendig uenig i, og kunne ha argumentert for det punkt for punkt, i den grad jeg gidder. Det får jeg se på, men du snakker jo direkte imot deg selv når du sier at en standard for overgrepsdefinisjon skal gjelde for rike og mektige menn, mens en annen skal gjelde for de som ikke er det. Samtidig snakker du om å bryte ned klasseforskjeller. <br /><br />Det er JEG som snakker om å bryte ned klasseforskjeller ved å hevde likhet for loven, uansett. Vi snakker tross alt om en Trump som skryter av å gripe intetanende kvinner i fitta og komme unna med det fordi han er rik. Ikke bare vet han at dette er straffbart og moralsk tvilsomt ved å snakke på den måten han gjør, han forherliger også det faktum at om han ikke var i den posisjonen han var i, ville han IKKE komme unna med det. <br /><br />(Evolusjonsbiologisk sett er sukker og det annen konserveringsdritt de propper i Cola overhodet ikke gunstig for menneskekroppen, men det stopper ikke mennesker fra å drikke det av den grunn. Det samme gjelder forøvrig sigaretter. Men man kan tydelig se at etter staten gikk inn og regulerte ble det en dramatisk nedgang i forbruk i Norge. Markedsføring etableres både på tross av, og på tvers av biologiske risikofaktorer)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26678806.post-75346619854600172742016-10-10T11:41:32.362+02:002016-10-10T11:41:32.362+02:00"Hva som til enhver tid er feminint og maskul..."Hva som til enhver tid er feminint og maskulint er jo i høy grad konstruert."<br /><br />Det er bare overfladiske ting som varierer, slik som for eksempel klær. Ingenting av det som virkelig teller, er realistisk å endre på. Det er kvinner som er det selektive kjønn i alle kulturer, og menn som konkurrerer om kvinnelig seksualitet.Eivind Bergehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04899250633318059069noreply@blogger.com