Zone1 Force Doctrine?

[cnm]

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

Haven't a clue. The Lysistrata example says women united could overpower the men in a heartbeat.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

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.

At the top of all societal institutions, it's run by men. This is done because of biological hard wiring, and it creates a patriarchy as well as hypergamy as far as women who seek dominant men. Men are the only sex that can dominate the two sexes.

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.

Again, if men united in one cause to imprison and cage women, it would happen. the opposite would not be true. You know this.

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.

Where do "rights" come from besides who can enforce them? That's where "force doctrine" kicks in. I used to subscribe to the American founders words about being self-evident... but while I completely support Catholic theology as far as morals (and what it's provided as far as everything you enjoy today), Women are incapable of attaining their own independence from men, and need patriachal structures to attain their independence and rights. Name a civilization that was run by women and prospered.

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.

Nobody said "alone", you made that up.

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.

Men and women are equal under the law, but very different in their behavior, how they react to things, what they value, etc.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Haven't a clue. The Lysistrata example says women united could overpower the men in a heartbeat.

WTF is "Lysistrata".. and why are you using it as a reputable source? I won't even google it, I want your take first.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

I've pulled some dumb shit, especially when I was young, but I'm not stupid.

 

[cnm]

WTF is "Lysistrata".. and why are you using it as a reputable source? I won't even google it, I want your take first.

SMH

 

[cnm]

Nobody said "alone", you made that up.

they rely on men to build and maintain their society

 

[PeterPilot]

Mr. Friscus

A well trained woman with a firearm has just as much potential force as a man with a firearm. It's the great equalizer.

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

I've pulled some dumb shit, especially when I was young, but I'm not stupid.

A wise man

 

[candycorn]

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.

He reminds me of this old radio commercial our company used to put out (Administaff). It was a temp firm I worked at as a contractor. Alex Trebek “hosted” a Jeopardy type of game show and he asked basic questions about spreadsheets and how to determine profit. The male “contestant” gave dumb answers and the femal “contestant” gave the correct answers. Exasperated, the male “contestant” asks, “Alex...when are we going to get to the strength events?” Alex broke the bad news to him that there weren’t any. Someone should break the news to the OP.

 

[candycorn]

At the top of all societal institutions, it's run by men. This is done because of biological hard wiring, and it creates a patriarchy as well as hypergamy as far as women who seek dominant men. Men are the only sex that can dominate the two sexes.

Again, if men united in one cause to imprison and cage women, it would happen. the opposite would not be true. You know this.

Where do "rights" come from besides who can enforce them? That's where "force doctrine" kicks in. I used to subscribe to the American founders words about being self-evident... but while I completely support Catholic theology as far as morals (and what it's provided as far as everything you enjoy today), Women are incapable of attaining their own independence from men, and need patriachal structures to attain their independence and rights. Name a civilization that was run by women and prospered.

Nobody said "alone", you made that up.

Men and women are equal under the law, but very different in their behavior, how they react to things, what they value, etc.

Just out of morbid curiosity...what is your point in making this thread?

 

[sartre play]

IS there anything we are not going to fight over. America the land of hate your fellow man?

 

[playtime]

try it.

 

[d0gbreath]

Lorena Bobbitt would like a word with you OP. I guess only women in cages can stand this kind of night. Trigger fingers can be, how you say, less macho?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Just out of morbid curiosity...what is your point in making this thread?

To discuss an ideology that completely shatters the modern feminist society we have.

Is there something I said that's incorrect?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Lorena Bobbitt would like a word with you OP. I guess only women in cages can stand this kind of night. Trigger fingers can be, how you say, less macho?

Huh?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Mr. Friscus

A well trained woman with a firearm has just as much potential force as a man with a firearm. It's the great equalizer.

Not necessarily.

And if you got 100 trained women vs. 100 trained men and had them face off, the 100 trained men would slaughter the 100 trained women.

There's a reason why men dominate women in force and competition, even when it has nothing to do with strength. Men in pro bowling, billiards, chess, etc. all are better than women. It's because the male brain is generally more competitive and focused in these areas.

Add a gun to the mix, and men have primal instincts of violence and protection that women generally don't have. Men have hard-wiring to sacrifice themselves while women have always been the ones that are protected (which there's nothing wrong with).

Our very feminist society just needs to grant that men aren't to be villified, but to be appreciated for the rock and foundation they are for our society that we enjoy. Men built the world, men should be proud, and women should be glad men have done this.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not necessarily.

And if you got 100 trained women vs. 100 trained men and had them face off, the 100 trained men would slaughter the 100 trained women.

There's a reason why men dominate women in force and competition, even when it has nothing to do with strength. Men in pro bowling, billiards, chess, etc. all are better than women. It's because the male brain is generally more competitive and focused in these areas.

Add a gun to the mix, and men have primal instincts of violence and protection that women generally don't have. Men have hard-wiring to sacrifice themselves while women have always been the ones that are protected (which there's nothing wrong with).

Our very feminist society just needs to grant that men aren't to be villified, but to be appreciated for the rock and foundation they are for our society that we enjoy. Men built the world, men should be proud, and women should be glad men have done this.

That would depend on the method of confrontation, wouldn't it. If a man kicks your ass, he will generally quit. A woman will keep kicking and kicking and kicking.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

That would depend on the method of confrontation, wouldn't it. If a man kicks your ass, he will generally quit. A woman will keep kicking and kicking and kicking.

1. Where are you getting this from?
2. Her kicks will likely not significantly harm another person, so yes, if she wants to "win" a fight she'll have to keep hitting over and over doing minimal damage.

 

[BULLDOG]

1. Where are you getting this from?
2. Her kicks will likely not significantly harm another person, so yes, if she wants to "win" a fight she'll have to keep hitting over and over doing minimal damage.

You never met my first wife, did you?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You never met my first wife, did you?

1. No
2. Did she beat you up?
3. Anecdotals get you nowhere.