>TL;DR: religion held women back, now that we are more secular, women have nothing holding themselves back from trying to emulate men, which is why modern society glorifies independent, sexually active and strong women
Is the reason women are trying to emulate male behaviour in the modern world due to penis envy, or is it just an outdated theory with no real basis in science?
Religion, in a way, held back violent male nature/perversions and females were kept in place. But ever since religion has lost its place, we've seen a massive increase in feminism. But not just feminism as in women's rights, but feminism that endorses women who act like men. Why is this?
It's because of the legacy of Freudian blank-slate theorists who take the blank slate position in opposition to a naturalist strawman position.
In other words, it's the Jews.
Pope Joan
>>882249
He also said this unironically.
>>882237
>Religion, in a way, held back violent male nature/perversions
This statement is simply false. Not all religions had strict views on sexuality so the part about religion holding back sexual things is incorrect. The part about religion holding back violence is a joke when we consider things like the 30 year war, one of the bloodiest wars in history, fought entirly over religious bickering.
>>882260
Yeah, I almost mentioned castration anxiety in relation to Jewish culture but that seemed too /pol/ for anyone to take my serious post seriously.
It's a genuine issue, though. Jewish culture involves, by definition, the cutting off of a part of the penis. Basically, this quote is Freud admitting that his theories are biased against people who take issue with Jewish cultural practice or Jews in general, on a very Freudian level, i.e. barely concealing the Jewishness of the argument ("You're afraid of X because of your fear of having dangerous objects near your dick; by the way, I know that you're afraid of Jews because they're proof that one can succeed despite castration/the deep fear you have of losing genital functionality").
I'm not accusing genuine and accredited psychologists or genuine practitioners of psychoanalysis of this. Freud was the father of a discipline, but he is hardly hailed as being 100% correct, and it's because, by his own logic, we can't take his accounts of either castration anxiety or of Judaism seriously.
He's still worth taking seriously, as is any thinker, no matter their race, sex, class, gender, or religion.
>>882271
It held back unorganised violence. It supported violence on religious grounds but held back violence on non-religious grounds. That is why religious cassus belli was so important
>>882249
>In other words, it's the Jews.
this guy gets it.
>>882249
>Freudian blank-slate theorists
Not a thing.
Freud thought you were driven by innate biological drives.
Environmental factors would just put barriers on top of these, but would leave the core of your personality unchanged.
It's a tragic view of Man. To Freud, a sadists was bound to be a sadist the moment he was conceived - he could either act directly on these impulses or in more indirect ways, but he would always be driven by his sadistic urges even if he put his heart into becoming a surgeon and saving lives.
>>882237
Modern society is more against independent women than ever. It supports women who take trifles as huge insults and demands an omnipotent state to take care of them on all fronts as if they were still children. Feminism stopped being about empowering women some time ago.
I would also argue that we are at a stage where feminizing men is more so the egalitarian goal than masculinizing females. A grey blob of androgynous, modifiable producers and consumers who serve as material for the democratic spectacle is the end goal.
>>882393
Not saying he was, I'm saying some interpreters of his theories are idiots who oversimplified the relationship between nature and nurture and couched it in Freudian terms. It's literally a Jewish phenomenon: Marxists make the same mistake when you call them on their bullshit dismissal of anyone who implies that humans have qualities in common with each other and their simplistic understanding of what human nature is. There are both Jews and Marxists who don't do this, and those people aren't idiots.
>>882526
>would also argue that we are at a stage where feminizing men is more so the egalitarian goal than masculinizing females
Do you think computers are partially to blame for the existence of nu males? Is this part of information age society?
>>882237
>which is why modern society glorifies independent, sexually active and strong women
>Being Pumped and Dumped by Chad the Jock and Brad McDudebro makes you strong
;^)
>>882237
>OP thinks any of this shit started with Christianity
>>882666
>OP doesn't even mention Christianity
>anon immediately tries to turn his post into an attack on Christianity
I find so much of feminism very silly.
Woman want now to be able to do all the things that men typically do: be leaders, be independent, be promiscuous, be strong, etc. They consider these things to be superior activities that only men are allowed to do, but all of these activities are male in origin. Men enjoy doing these things; it's their nature. But the feminists still consider these male activities to be superior to the ones "designated" to females, but in fact the typical female role was never "designated" to them, they did it naturally. Women enjoy being dominated by men and being submissive. Now it can be said by anyone of any persuasion on this subject that men have been considered superior to women for, essentially, the previous whole of human existence. This is what the feminists fought against and yet they are still complicit in it in so far as they regard the male lifestyle as the superior one. They have not embraced the fact that they are women but rejected it. It's really no secret why prominent feminists are manish. In fact, we can put feminists into two types:
-Masculine women who want to do male activities (vocal minority, started the movement)
-Feminine women who are essentially of a left-wing psychological makeup (great empathy, tend to perceive unfairness, victim complex, neurotic). These women follow the masculine women (a kind of microcosm of the male-female macrocosm) and they like feminism because it appeals to their political instincts.
tldr: feminists are hypocrites because psychology
>>882723
Even worse is the way feminism explicitly glorifies power as something that good people want for its own sake. This isn't unique to feminism, but it is common to garbage schools of thought.
>>882723
Because being a traditional woman and doing traditional female things sucks bro
>>882237
>emulate male behavior
Which behaviors are male?
That's quite the loaded term.
>>882237
I think the stronk independent womyn comes from a devaluation of traditional female roles, or an overvaluation of professional and traditionally male roles. In other words, in modern women's eyes, taking care of children and household members is seen as inferior as what men do.
What happened for our society to value individual career so much? Did relationships between male and female worsened so much that female aren't as likely to take pride in taking care of their family nowadays? Is that true for male too, in a way? Do people still care about their families, or do they care more about themselves?
>>882723
>muh evopsych
>>883944
If you acknowledge evolution, then you acknowledge evolutionary psychology. End of story.
>>883934
>devaluation of traditional female roles
This happened before feminism was a thing. Every single thing that women had to balance the legit "separate but equal" roles and power has been stripped or diminished over time. There's many societies back then that once they were forced to "modernize" the status of women in the group actually turned to utter shit because the woman lost all their power and influence and were now unequal.
>In other words, in modern women's eyes, taking care of children and household members is seen as inferior as what men do.
That's because it is inferior. There's no power in that position and you are at the whims of you husbands benevolence or violence.
>>884113
Why is power inherently good?
>>883374
So fuck off and don't allow your genes to continue as you are useless to nature.
