The Masculine and The Feminine

The masculine way of life is "life by laws". laws that could me made by a great leader. Or laws that come down from a religious tradition. Or collective laws decreed by the people themselves. The masculine way is very clear: laws are unchangeable and they must be followed rigidly. Therefore, the code of masculine is Truth, Duty and Honour. The feminine way of life is "life by probabilities". There are no absolutes. No black or white. People don't act as per some per ordained law, but based on probabilities of different outcomes perceived at that point of time. For example, they will follow a leader who they think has a higher probability of remaining in power. The moment the probabilities change, their loyalties do as well. A masculine civilisation is honourable, consistent and reliable. There is order and society moves coherently in a pre ordained direction. Whereas, the feminine way incorporates all differences, there is a celebration of diversity and freedom. But as it happens with too much freedom, the feminine civilisations overreach into decadence, corruption and debauchery. Our current generation is 2/3 of feminine and we're heading for absolute disaster. My question is why are we leaning more and more towards feminity? Why is to so hard to grasp that masculinity is the way of life?

There are entire communities that are male only, perhaps you could seek out one to live in. You'd have to move to a rural area and take up farming to join them though. Sexual activity isn't mandatory but expect plenty of offers.

Wow, when you arbitrarily divide the world into good things being masculine and bad things being feminine it really opens my third eye

okay /g/ inform me on roasties is 3DPD or can their be acceptions?

>>6409 The "masculine" society you describe is stagnant and suppresses real progress. Who wants to be stuck with laws and traditions created in a world vastly different from our current one? Nor do you want to constantly remake society with every generation. A balance between the two is needed to create space to question and experiment while avoiding choas. Evolution requires imperfect fidelity. We are leaning towards "femininity" because our world is changing quickly and we are struggling to adapt. It'll lean the other way once it stabilises and we discover what works for our society, or once it disintegrates and violence and strength are needed to remake it. Not that I agree with your simple and presumptive definitions. These forces are broader than some ill-defined masculine/feminine dichotomy.

Take your jordan peterson horsesoykaf out of here.

> we're heading for absolute disaster. I agree. The USA, Russia, China, N.Korea and a dozen muslim nations are probably going to get us all killed. What we really need is more self-styled alpha males in power and not the group of old women and pantybois currently leading these countries.

>>6409 This thread is full of sokyaf

The nature of universe is a life of propabilities. As we progress we realize things aren't static and constrained, everythings moving and wavey. We realize all of our societal laws and constraints are imaginary things made up and then imposed on ourselves, and if they aren't serving a purpose beyond other made up things they don't need to exist. We realized that if we asked people to describe "Truth" "Duty" and "Honor" they would all come up with different answers and each insist they are more right then others. Even dividing things into masculinity and feminity shows this way of thinking, again as if this meant anything. If we are going to do this arbitrary division there were two groups of early humans, those who sailed off on boats and those who stayed on land. And those who stayed on land insisted it was so obvious those going on the boat were sailing straight into disaster. And it was, so long as you stayed on land. And it will always be like this, there are people who when they cant see where things are going assume its bad and thats where you are. You can't even see it in a new context thats how far you are in that mindset, you have to attribute it to familiar societal constructs otherwise it won't make sense to you. Because you have to "make sense" in the first place.

Your dichotomy is nu-Greek horsesoykaf I could see coming from RooshV or IronMarch. You treat feminine chaos as innately negative and masculine stability as innately positive, and by doing so you're on your way to cancerous utilitarianism which will paradoxically lead to a leftist, coddling world. The desire for stability and order is born out of the same "femininity" you lament. Leftism and egalitarianism is the manifestation of being anxious about everything, not taking risks, demanding order instead of persevering in chaos, needing consistency because you're fuarrrked in an ever-changing world. This is why they want a society based around solidarity. Your idea of masculinity is entirely bourgeois and conformist. Look at the ideals of Italian Futurism, the beauty of speed and death is venerated, they celebrate chaos and want to destroy the libraries and museuns, yet they're masculine because they think they can survive in a world without order, stability and coddling. Your Greek soykaf of simplistic absolutes and universal Truth belongs in a trash bin along with Christianity, the two roots of leftism in the modern world.

>>6409 >The masculine way of life is "life by laws". "No!"

The masculine way is to think for yourself and question authority. Break rules if you must to do what you think is right. Only a pussy behaves against their own morals because someone else wants to impose their will on you

>>6441 >let’s destroy libraries and museums >Christianity is trash >not a leftist tho Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA! Born to die; world is a fuarrrk.

The sort of 'masculine' society that you describe is best described with 'order', while the feminine society by discord. For an order-based approach to work, you need enough intelligence to know your place, your duty, to have sound judgment, follow the right path, blah blah blah this last sentence of mine is what masculine sounds like. This has "worked" for some time while the world was relatively simple, and so humans could oversee it and put each other in their right places. With the advance of the sciences, society has grown so complex that even the most intelligent humans' model of it is full of huge black boxes, rounded sketches that are far away from the actual thing that they represent. The world was always complex, but now we have way better tools to see into the depths of details about it, and human society itself has become leagues harder to understand. Meanwhile, human intelligence didn't really change. It's just that childhood now lasts a decade longer, and people beyond their 20s are often still in school, with an open (thus indecisive) view on the world. We may know more as a collective, but we are way more segmented than before; like some out of hand OOP project no part really knows what the whole is doing anymore. Thus while centuries before, being a decisive, masculine leader with one or two advisors meant you could rule a land effectively, today this same attitude will just make you an arrogant idiot. The world has become more 'feminime' as people have realized that they have way less control over it than they thought, and that it also became harder to oversee or control. The "laws" related to duty and honor and so were found to be just myths and not laws; and just like those old myths, they have become obsolete; someone who still tries to do things that way will simply lose out to the more evolved and advanced competition. I do agree that an overly feminime-discordian-opportunistic approach eventually collapses on its own, but the solution is not masculinity, it's the clearest fuarrrking neutral meritocratic middle.

>>6445 >being against Christianity must mean you're a leftist Read Nietzsche, he absolutely despised leftism and egalitarianism while also being anti-Christian. Christianity is inherently an egalitarian religion.

>A masculine civilisation is honourable, consistent and reliable. the majority of our world leaders are male (or "masculine"). the world is, broadly speaking, in a perennial state of conflict, bloodshed, and chaos, with injustices towards the weak and disenfranchised commited by the hour. couldn't one make the argument that the "masculine" way of operating as you described it is, you know, really fuarrrking not great? I'm not even of the opinion that a "feminine" ruled world would be better, I just think that your framing of a "masculine" way of life as one that's just super fantastic is way off the mark.

>>6443 Damn straight! A masculine man stick to their morals, no matter what the trial and tribulations. >>6452 >the majority of our world leaders are male That doesn't mean they are alpha, you can't compare today panty man with real masculine man, i.e, Bonaparte, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Alexander, etc.

to be honest on average while we mentioned propabilities, the more you go into the city and dense areas the more your "feminine" society takes hold. The shift is because society, if you include slums, is moving into cities. I like to look at these things not on a whos right whos wrong scale but rather what environment created what.

>>6447 >With the advance of the sciences, society has grown so complex I call this bullsoykaf! Society is not what it used to be a decade ago, but the core values of society still remains the same. It's not society that is getting complex, it's us. Today's people are slowly forgetting what makes humans special when compared to animals, the fact that we work together. We collaborate to achieve combined goals. We pass on knowledge to each other, so every generation begins its journey from the shoulders of the previous generation and not from scratch. It's not science fault, the majority of us are becoming degenerates. It's not technology fault that we think the Internet is more important than the actual interaction with fellow human beings. My point is we humans are nothing individually. Our power flows from all of us. From the way all of us live together.

>>6454 >what environment created what Can you elaborate, please?

>>6453 so genocide is a manly man activity?

>>6455 at least try to call bullsoykaf where it's relevant. android phones are part of society now. there are things you cannot understand about society without understanding android phones, but nobody really understands an, or any android phone bottom-up. there were no android phones to understand 2k years ago, making your task of understanding and managing society that much easier, and the masculine model that much more viable. replace android phone with anything that has a supply chain or long history of evolution, and you'll hopefully realize that the degeneracy you mention is not something affecting the majority, it's something affecting people who think they understand how the world works. read: the masculine kind of model.

>>6456 itd be funny if I just said no. i don't think peoples singular perspectives of how an entire system of which they are one cell in really mean anything. it has nothing to do with somebodies intelligence, a complete idiot can hold the same political beliefs as a supposed genius. And in spite of the smarter person arguing that he is different because he has looked into it more, or thought about it more, or argued more; at the end of the day that has very little to do with it. your intelligence in my opinion is just going to change the complexity you will go to to explain your beliefs. At the end of the day it's just your perception that was created through your environment. Your values and mental associations with certain things, that by saying "society should be like this" is assuming your perception is how reality is. That what you think of when you hear "masculinity" is actually the same as what I think of when it isn't. We can look in a dictionary and define the word but that isn't going to accurately describe all of the connections our brains make linked to the word and whether it has a negative or positive association. so any time somebody espouses what society or the world is like or should be like it isn't right or wrong. It's just showcasing how they interact with the world and a glimpse into their reality. At the end of this thread no consensus will be reached. And you can choose to believe that's because some people are just idiots or ignorant or you can choose to believe it's because we are ants that seem to assume we have the perspective of a human looking at the anthill. Im choosing to believe the latter is whats happening. Im sure ants all have very hot opinions they think other ants are just to stupid to understand as to why they keep circling into death spirals. When as humans we understand its because one of them lost the pheromone trail. Imagine if some sort of greater brain could look at all of us, do you think they would see any difference in intelligence between one of us and the other?

>>6458 >there are things you cannot understand about society without understanding android phones What is their to understand about Android phones. Android phones are machines which performs certain tasks when a human wants them to perform. It doesn't have it's own will and wish. Again, one man doesn't control or manage society, it's an unified effort. >degeneracy you mention is not something affecting the majority Are you living in different world, Anon? Most people in the West used to harden as they grow on their own, like anywhere else. Now without effort you can remain indefinitely infantile due to our decadence. There were always outliers that became like this throughout history, but now the general masses have succumbed to this condition. There is no longer a rite of passage into adulthood, you can be sheltered and live comfortably. This is de-evolution. Everyone has a dandy-ol time being a degenerate well into their 50s. Constant entertainment, pre-cooked meals and pornography has robbed us of our man-hood.

>>6457 Yup, genocide is a man activity. I don't think a pussy can ever think of killing a real man. It takes great courage, inner strength to kill a mass number of people.

>>6459 >At the end of the day it's just your perception that was created through your environment. Nonetheless you believe what you see. The way you elaborate your sentences is like reading some Veda. You're definitely right, we've the perceptive of a human looking at the anthill. Still, our consciousness doesn't allow majority of us to remain silent. Human race doesn't evolve in the right direction by being idle. To move forward we've to observe, compare and see the differences from older to new generation. Hence, take note and apply it in systematic way...this is the sole reason why we are superior and in charge of our consciousness. >difference in intelligence between one of us and the other? Do you actually believe everyone has same intelligence.

>>6457 Genocide is a result of industrial society which corrupts the mind of everyone.

>>6460 >literally cannot read an entire line, stops midway and replies to that I guess you have shown a level of stupidity that is simply not worth the keystrokes anymore.

>>6463 No I dont think we are humans looking at the anthill we are ants looking at ants but we think we can look at the whole anthill from a higher consciouses perspective. Yeah i'm not saying everyone should remain idle either, if everyone believed what I said im not sure if that would be good or terrible. But I know it wont happen, so I don't feel bad about it, like im saying whatever circumstances I was put into made me think like this. Regardless though taking what im saying into consideration saying "how can these idiots not realize what they are doing" when describing a societal shift is assuming you have some kind of upper hand over the collective interaction of millions. The ignorant masses only seem dumb from a human individual perspective of intelligence. I guess im saying that I don't think it shows a lot of self reflection to speak for whats good for the world rather then yourself and those close to you. Thats all im saying. If you don't think that matters because we can't just remain idle thats fine. i dont know who veda is. I guess I also should say thay I believe you actually can't convince people to change their fundamental beliefs unless they already have respect for you which is impossible online. so i dont see a point in really arguing here in an attempt to convince people and i personally would rather talk about what im talking about. kinda selfish maybe and i could be wrong.

Postmodernism is the Divine Masculine Logos committing suicide(Using logic and reasoning to debunk the process of logic and reasoning, and violently raping the Divine Feminine Sophia(Biology is a social construct and people can be whatever I define by logic and reasoning them to be.). What remains when the Logos rapes Sophia, and then kills itself, is traumatised Femininity without any direction, and a hate hard-on for the Logos.

>>6545 You just defined modernism, not postmodernism. Postmodernism is Logos deconstructing itself into nothingness and then assembling itself out of pure will of emotions and Sophia. Postmodernism is like what Logos seen that modernism is like what you said so he decided to take a chance at life and have s loving family and a child with Sophia, trying to spawn something new out of the old, not caring what it truly is and letting the free flow of time decide what it truly is.

>>6547 >Postmodernism >Deconstructing itself into nothingness >Nothingness somehow assembles itself What you just described is metaphysical suicide. Not productive to attempt, and not even metaphysically possible. The Logos is eternal and can't deconstruct itself into nothingness - The Logos can deconstruct *products* of the Logos. It's important not to mistake the corporeal products and representatives of the Logos for the Logos as such - That's making an idol of the fallen state that the Logos must necessarily incarnate into. If you take Sophia to be present in feminine form within any given text(in a postmodernist sense, including books, chairs, fruits, animals, etc), acknowledging who she says herself to be and respecting that, and joining with her to create a new child, is the Traditional and appropriate relationship between Logos and Sophia. Postmodernism is a total rejection of the notion that Sophia join with the Logos in a way other than rape, and that any joining with Sophia therefore is toxic masculinity. With this complete abstinence of metaphysical sexual coupling, Postmodernism ends up being an anti-sexual cure far more deadly than the anti-spiritual poison of Modernism. >not caring what it truly is and letting the free flow of time decide what it truly is That's the problem - We've already had a free flow of time since the beginning of time. Postmodernism's solution is to raze everything to the ground and start over, evidenced by its deconstruction of the Logos-defined Masculine/Feminine duality as such. That's a fundamentally Satanic approach, as predicted by Milton in Paradise Lost. "Then with expanded wings he steers his flight Aloft, incumbent on the dusky air That felt unusual weight, till on dry Land He lights, if it were land that ever burned With solid, as the lake with liquid fire; And such appeared in hue, as when the force Of subterranean wind transports a hill Torn from Pelorus, or the shattered side Of thundering Aetna, whose combustible And fueled entrails thence conceiving fire, Sublimed with mineral fury, aid the winds, And leave a singed bottom all involved With stench and smoke: Such resting found the sole Of unblest feet. "

>>6409 The "masculine way of life" is fuarrrk as many females as possible. The "feminine way of life" is to get fuarrrked and raise a son who will fuarrrk as many females as possible. Your "life by laws" vs "life by probabilities" dichotomy sounds more like stale tradition vs scientific progress.

>>6409 read sadie plant you retard