Zone1 Force Doctrine?

[Mr. Friscus]

I've heard an interesting ideology as far as male-female and society dynamics, and it's called force doctrine. To paraphrase, it points out..

1. Men have a monopoly on force. In general, Men are stronger physically, but also in their wiring are better problem-solvers, builders, cunning predators, and protectors. In a theoretical, If all men united, they could round up all women and put them into cages, and women couldn't stop it. Women could not do the same to men.

2. Men generally make up the outliers in society. They are not only most of the leaders in power, CEO's, etc... but also the homeless, drug addicts, violent criminals, etc. The top-end male outliers make up much of the top portion of society, thus by one definition you could say it's a patriarchal one.

3. Throughout history, women have had to rely on and appease men, and patriarchal structures, for their rights, protections, and privileges. In the first world paradise that is the much of the USA, women can say chesty, self-righteous slogans, but again they rely on men to build and maintain their society, protect them, advance technology and quality of life, etc. Feminist movements occurred not because women overpowered men, but because patriarchal male structures allowed it, and men supported it.

In our modern society which so heavily pushes the idea that women can stand toe-to-toe with any man... it's simply not true. Men and women are different in body, mind, and spirit. Men can dominate women in many areas, and women can manipulate men quite easily to get their desires. Modern feminism wants women to try to chest up to men, and it's just a losing proposition.

 

[sparky]

Men and women are different in body, mind, and spirit.

symbiont comes to mind Mr F

~S~

 

[Mr. Friscus]

symbiont comes to mind Mr F

~S~

There is definitely a symbiotic realtionship between men and women.. but, is that all you have to say?

 

[sparky]

There is definitely a symbiotic realtionship between men and women.. but, is that all you have to say?

well it hasn't come easily Mr F.......~S~

 

[Mr. Friscus]

well it hasn't come easily Mr F.......~S~

What hasn't come easily?

 

[BULLDOG]

I've heard an interesting ideology as far as male-female and society dynamics, and it's called force doctrine. To paraphrase, it points out..

1. Men have a monopoly on force. In general, Men are stronger physically, but also in their wiring are better problem-solvers, builders, cunning predators, and protectors. In a theoretical, If all men united, they could round up all women and put them into cages, and women couldn't stop it. Women could not do the same to men.

2. Men generally make up the outliers in society. They are not only most of the leaders in power, CEO's, etc... but also the homeless, drug addicts, violent criminals, etc. The top-end male outliers make up much of the top portion of society, thus by one definition you could say it's a patriarchal one.

3. Throughout history, women have had to rely on and appease men, and patriarchal structures, for their rights, protections, and privileges. In the first world paradise that is the much of the USA, women can say chesty, self-righteous slogans, but again they rely on men to build and maintain their society, protect them, advance technology and quality of life, etc. Feminist movements occurred not because women overpowered men, but because patriarchal male structures allowed it, and men supported it.

In our modern society which so heavily pushes the idea that women can stand toe-to-toe with any man... it's simply not true. Men and women are different in body, mind, and spirit. Men can dominate women in many areas, and women can manipulate men quite easily to get their desires. Modern feminism wants women to try to chest up to men, and it's just a losing proposition.

If any of that is true, then explain why she chews on my ass every time I don't put the lid down or leave my underwear on the floor.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If any of that is true, then explain why she chews on my ass every time I don't put the lid down or leave my underwear on the floor.

1. Well, you're confusing societal influence with mere day-to-day differences.

2. Walk her into the classic trap for that... Get her to classically say "I don't get why you can't just take the extra second/effort to put the seat down, it's so easy"... and reply with "Exactly! It's so easy to move the seat, so if you need to do so, then you can do it!"

 

[sparky]

What hasn't come easily?

nature Mr F

because there are those who accept it, and those that do not

~S~

 

[Mr. Friscus]

cnm what is so "sad"?

 

[BULLDOG]

1. Well, you're confusing societal influence with mere day-to-day differences.

2. Walk her into the classic trap for that... Get her to classically say "I don't get why you can't just take the extra second/effort to put the seat down, it's so easy"... and reply with "Exactly! It's so easy to move the seat, so if you need to do so, then you can do it!"

I can tell you've never had that discussion with a woman who is already pissed off. That plan sounds great on paper, but it never works out that way in real life.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That sounds great on paper, but it doesn't work out that way in real life.

It can if you ask why when she tells you to put the seat down. There's no other direction it can go

 

[cnm]

cnm what is so "sad"?

Baseless assertions pretending to be arguments.

 

[BULLDOG]

It can if you ask why when she tells you to put the seat down. There's no other direction it can go

At some point every man thinks he has found the answer to that dilemma, but it never works. I thought pissing on the ring would show her how much better it would be to just leave it all up. She didn't seem to agree..

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Baseless assertions pretending to be arguments.

Well, care to address anything you disagree with? Seems odd you'd just hit and run... seems like a tantrum. What am I wrong about?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

At some point every man thinks he has found the answer to that dilemma, but it never works. I thought pissing on the ring would show her how much better it would be to just leave it all up. She didn't seem to agree..

Well, it doesn't sound like you put up much of a fight.

 

[citygator]

I've heard an interesting ideology as far as male-female and society dynamics, and it's called force doctrine. To paraphrase, it points out..

1. Men have a monopoly on force. In general, Men are stronger physically, but also in their wiring are better problem-solvers, builders, cunning predators, and protectors. In a theoretical, If all men united, they could round up all women and put them into cages, and women couldn't stop it. Women could not do the same to men.

2. Men generally make up the outliers in society. They are not only most of the leaders in power, CEO's, etc... but also the homeless, drug addicts, violent criminals, etc. The top-end male outliers make up much of the top portion of society, thus by one definition you could say it's a patriarchal one.

3. Throughout history, women have had to rely on and appease men, and patriarchal structures, for their rights, protections, and privileges. In the first world paradise that is the much of the USA, women can say chesty, self-righteous slogans, but again they rely on men to build and maintain their society, protect them, advance technology and quality of life, etc. Feminist movements occurred not because women overpowered men, but because patriarchal male structures allowed it, and men supported it.

In our modern society which so heavily pushes the idea that women can stand toe-to-toe with any man... it's simply not true. Men and women are different in body, mind, and spirit. Men can dominate women in many areas, and women can manipulate men quite easily to get their desires. Modern feminism wants women to try to chest up to men, and it's just a losing proposition.

This “force doctrine” isn’t analysis, it’s biological determinism and historical ignorance.

Yes, men are on average physically stronger. That has never equaled a “monopoly on force.” Power in real societies comes from institutions, law, coordination, technology, and legitimacy — not raw muscle. Violent “men could cage women if united” fantasies say nothing about how civilization actually works.

Male overrepresentation at extremes (CEOs and prisoners) reflects variance and historical exclusion, not superiority. If men were naturally dominant, women wouldn’t have needed to be legally barred from education, property, voting, or jobs. Women now make up the bulk of college grads.

Women didn’t get rights because men “allowed it.” Rights expanded due to organized political pressure, economic necessity, war mobilization, and democratic reform, often against male opposition at the time.

Civilization also wasn’t “built by men alone.” Women have always worked; much of their labor was unpaid or legally invisible. Modern economies run on human capital, not upper-body strength.

And “men dominate, women manipulate” isn’t science — it’s pop-psych misogyny. Feminism doesn’t claim men and women are identical; it argues for equal legal rights and opportunity. “Different” has never justified subordination.

This is just 19th-century insecure social Darwinism recycled for the internet posted by someone hoping to be in some club of betters. lol.

 

[cnm]

Well, care to address anything you disagree with? Seems odd you'd just hit and run... seems like a tantrum. What am I wrong about?

From what base do you make any of your assertions? They have no foundation but arse witterings. There's not even anything to refute in your 'theoretical round up', just more unsupported assertions.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

From what base do you make any of your assertions? They have no foundation but arse witterings. There's not even anything to refute in your 'theoretical round up', just more unsupported assertions.

Could men (if fully united) overpower all women in society? Yes or no.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

If any of that is true, then explain why she chews on my ass every time I don't put the lid down or leave my underwear on the floor.

Have you ever considered leaving your underwear in the toilet and closing the lid just to see her reaction?

 

[cnm]

This is just 19th-century insecure social Darwinism recycled for the internet posted by someone hoping to be in some club of betters. lol.

From where do you get the patience?