Women of the world, take over

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:12 pm

brekin wrote:I had an interesting experience working for a large non-profit that was 99.9% female. The YWCA (Young Womens Christian Association). I and one other male (the tech guy) were the only males in our branch, and throughout the overall organization for the city.
I have to say the daily power struggles and turf wars that I witnessed were equivalent, if not at times more so, then what I've encountered in other more male dominated jobs (construction project management.) Really the difference that stands out for me probably was the difference in jokes.
A few co-workers in fact I thought represented the victim-perpertrator cycle very well. Having a huge reservoir of unresolved rage did not make them the most empathetic of people to be around.
I remember one co-worker coming in to read to everyone through giggles the remarks of an unrepentant women on the witness stand who killed her husband.


As some have already mentioned here, including me, using the current state of women in bureaucratic hierarchies (whether it's a single figurehead like Thatcher or even a non-profit office full of females, and especially in Western societies) as an example of the collective inherent character of women is bogus. The concept of female power has been co-opted, and women in the workplace all-too-often equate power with acting male. Feminism is meaningless and actually subverts female power if its effect is to turn women into quasi-men.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Himiko

Postby marmot » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:22 pm

One of my Women characters in a (speculative fiction) novel I've been working on is named Himiko---which is a historical reference (of mythic proportions) to a Japanese Queen said to have ruled her people through paranormal means. Himiko translates to "Child of the Sun" or "Sun Priestess."

Does anyone know of Himiko? She dates back about 2200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himiko
marmot
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:22 pm

violently ruthless to eachother


Wow. How much female-on-female violence do you think there is in the world? Statistics please.

As Alice said above, most women who have made it into positions of power have already deformed their feminine impulses to get where they are. No one is disputing that. But the anecdote about your women friends in the workplace amounts to an urban legend. I AM a woman. My former job lasted ten years under the direct supervision of a woman. She was sensitive to the point of getting run over a lot. HER supervisor was an egomaniac who delighted in humiliating the (mostly) women at our shop, including my boss. He was sarcastic and dismissive. He never apologized, ever, for his frequent hatefulness. When my female boss offended someone, she apologized profusely. There are NO men at my current place of employment (salaries are crap) and I would equate it with paradise.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby theeKultleeder » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:26 pm

While Mr. Morgan always seems to come up with some very very strange facts, I think Nemo's feelings here should be given some consideration.

Women aren't good and pure compared to "violent" males. I won't post pics of all the ugly mother (or is that anti-mother?) goddesses and so forth, but the point is that women have a dark side too.

Men and women have a shadow self:

In Jungian psychology, the shadow or "shadow aspect" is a part of the unconscious mind which is mysterious and often disagreeable to the conscious mind, but which is also relatively close to the conscious mind. It may be (in part) one's link to animal life, which is superseded during early childhood by the conscious mind; afterwards it comes to contain thoughts that are repressed by the conscious mind. According to Jung, the shadow is instinctive and irrational, but is not necessarily evil even when it might appear to be so. It can be both ruthless in conflict and empathetic in friendship. It is important as a source of hunches, for understanding of one's own more inexplicable actions and attitudes (and of others' reactions), and for learning how to accept and integrate the more problematic or troubling aspects of one's personality.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29



Though characteristically "fuzzy" (which I am aware Nemo objects to) the anima/animus is connected somehow to the shadow self. For women:


Though less written about, Jung also believed that every woman has an analogous animus within her psyche, this being a set of [b]unconscious masculine attributes and potentials. He viewed the animus as being more complex than the anima, as women have a host of animus images while the male anima consists only of one dominant image.[/b]

Jung states there are four parallel levels of Animus development in a female. The four roles are not identical with genders reversed; the process of Animus development deals with cultivating an independent and non-socially subjugated idea of self by embodying a deeper Word (as per a specific existential outlook) and manifesting this word. To clarify, This does not mean that a female subject becomes more set in her ways (as this Word is steeped in emotionality, subjectivity, and a dynamicism just as a well developed Anima is) but that she is more internally aware of what she believes and feels, and is more capable of expressing these beliefs and feelings.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_%28Jung%29



It is maybe because Jung was a man that he was much clearer in his teaching on the "shadow female" within the male:


Jung believed anima development has four distinct levels.

The first is Eve, named for the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. It deals with the emergence of a male's object of desire, yet simultaneously generalizes all females as evil and powerless.

The second is Helen, in allusion to Helen of Troy in Greek mythology. In this phase, women are viewed as capable of worldly success and of being self-reliant, intelligent and insightful, even if not altogether virtuous. This second phase is meant to show a strong schism in external talents (cultivated business and conventional skills) with lacking internal qualities (inability for virtue, lacking faith or imagination).

The third phase is Mary, named for the Christian theological understanding of the Virgin Mary (Jesus's mother). At this level, females can now seem to possess virtue by the perceiving male (even if in an esoteric and dogmatic way), in so much as certain activities deemed consciously unvirtuous cannot be applied to her. As per Ken Wilber's terminology, this third phase seems to represent Up spirituality while the second phase represents Down spirituality.

The fourth and final phase of anima development is Sophia, as previously mentioned for the Greek word for wisdom. Proper union and harmony now has taken place which allows females to posses combinations of virtuous and earthly qualities. The most important aspect of this final level is that, as the personification "Wisdom" suggests, the anima is now developed enough that no single object can fully and permanently contain the images related to the anima. As this point as well, this now esoterically understood feminine principle has the potential to be possessed by any person, male or female, although it is not necessarily possessed by any.

In broader terms, the entire process of anima development in a male is about the male subject opening up to emotionality, and in that way a broader spirituality by creating a new conscious paradigm that includes intuitive processes, creativity and imagination, and psychic sensitivity towards himself and others where it might not have existed previously.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_%28Jung%29


I believe one should take these concepts very seriously.
theeKultleeder
 

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:31 pm

"She Who Must Be Obeyed," a translation of the Arabic honorific--Ayesha--given to the White Queen, a beautiful, powerful sorceress who became immortal by bathing in a pillar of fire.


Well. I hate to burst your turgid little dominatrix fantasy, there, marmot.

"Ayesha", usually spelled "Aisha" means "is living" or "she who lives".

Ana aisha fi Misr, means I (female) am living in Egypt.

As for women hating to work with other women, that is definitely not my experience.

With a few exceptions, I personally feel very comfortable working with other women. I'm a pretty efficient person, and contrary to what some posters have said, women usually get the job done without a lot of energy being wasted in jockeying for status.

Assuming of course, they're not suffering from any serious mental illnesses or undergoing a nervous breakdown.
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby John E. Nemo » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:36 pm

Alice,
I was talking about American women, as I posted.
Not surprsing that a fanatic of the "All Jews To The Sea! To the Sea!" school also believes that everyone with a penis is evil.

Maybe get some therapy to deal with the fact that you're so angry with (Jews, men, whoever) actually represents your Daddy.

FourthBase,
Every thread I've started on this site has gotten attacked.
Every post I make has its supporters and detractors.
Just gotta deal with it.

Trying to quell free speech is NOT the answer and is tantamount to fascism.

Sorry, but the premise you're trying to put forth is not sound.

Yes, men go around the world killing.
Why?
They do it because they believe that they are protecting their women and children.

Powerful men kill for other reason, sometimes simply for their own pleasure.
Guess what?
Women like Lucretia Borgia and Elizabeth Bathory also killed people for power and pleasure.
Sadism and murder are equal opportunity crimes.

I find it highly amusing that when subjected to reality, this sexist crap completely crumbles.
Racist, sexist doctrines, no matter how well-intentioned, are inherently wrong.

No one gender or sex is right and the other wrong.
If you believe that then you're just a goose step away from being Goebbels (or his wife who was just as racist and insane as him).
John E. Nemo
 

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:39 pm

Is it only those actually engaged in combat in war time who are responsible for violence, or do those behind the lines encouraging it, supporting it and often demanding it also bear some responsibility?


Another good point from you. I remember a documentary about chimps in which the male chimps viciously (and I mean viciously) hunted down a monkey, and they were essentially cheered on by the female chimps on the ground. There are definitely material benefits for those females who support/encourage/demand male aggression/bullying/violence. It's a brute fact that stealing and murdering can be an evolutionarily successful strategy, and the continuation/proliferation of that evil behavior through generations is really just a numbers game of offspring. Nurturing peaceful behavior has its own material benefits and its own evolutionary advantage, too. But there's always a percentage competition between strategies, and those strategies -- in the form of the impulse for one behavior over the other, and the concomitant attraction to that behavior -- become embedded in our genetic makeup. What separates us from the chimps is a moral conscience, meaning that human females have more of a choice whether to 1) support and breed with the assholes whose evilness brings material gain/excess or 2) disown the evil assholes and rely on less aggressive more loyal non-assholes to help defend and provide, which is a little riskier economically (because evil assholes are a surer thing materially and physically) but a lot safer personally (e.g., evil assholes are the same ones who kill offspring that isn't theirs). Another problem could be that females hedge their bets, mating with more than one type.

Am I catching anyone's attention with the long-view evolution talk?

Certainly Maggie Thatcher is not the only example of a female war leader.

Catherine the Great, Isabella I of Castile, Elizabeth I of England, Mbande Nzinga of Angola, Nigerian Queen Amina, Queen Victoria of England, Sammuramat, Joan of Arc, Golda Meir, and Cleopatra, immediately come to mind.


At some point in this thread we should really dispense with the figurehead examples, because they mean absolutely nothing in the big picture.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Telexx » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:41 pm

If people are saying that the world needs more compassion, love, truth, justice, decency and honour, than I can understand and agree with it.

If people are saying that, because these traits don't exist in the (mostly male) leaders in our world, this means that men are somehow innately less likely to exhibit the above traits, then they need lessons in a) basic logic; b) basic psychology.

It is power that corrupts, not chromosome Y :roll:

KTHXBYE

TLXX
User avatar
Telexx
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby populistindependent » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:47 pm

Back to the discussion that you suggested in your OP.
FourthBase wrote:Women are the key to a peaceful overthrow of the PTB.
Both in the short term but especially the long term (if there is a long term).


I agree. It needs much more discussion.

FourthBase wrote:Pardon me for being a male female-chauvinist...
But I think women on the whole are inherently more moral.


I think that is true.

FourthBase wrote:Because I'm tired of every thread being an argument. I just want to discuss this with people who understand what I'm talking about, without having someone come in and say "your entire premise is bullshit". I'm fucking TIRED OF IT.


That is a big problem on Internet boards, and I am glad to see you describing it and objecting to it. The way the software works it much easier to start fights and derail threads and bury topics then it is to intelligently discuss things in detail and nuance.
populistindependent
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:49 pm

FourthBase,
Every thread I've started on this site has gotten attacked.
Every post I make has its supporters and detractors.
Just gotta deal with it.

Trying to quell free speech is NOT the answer and is tantamount to fascism.


I'm not suggesting Jeff close down the general discussion board, jesus. I'm suggesting that separate (publicly-viewable) subforums be created where focused conversations can take place between people who generally agree. The participants can vary widely. Not every internet discussion has to be a free-for-all. Imagine a CD subforum where Hugh and other CD proponents can talk about CD without being corrected and judged and opposed all the time by non-CD people. And now imagine the inverse existing, too. An environment like that allows for a conversation to expand beyond fighting over and over again about the basic premises. There would still be the usual free-for-all premise-arguments here on the general board, but I'm saying there should also be an alternative to that.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Luposapien » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:50 pm

AlicetheKurious said:
Assuming of course, they're not suffering from any serious mental illnesses or undergoing a nervous breakdown.


Sounds like just about every person I've ever met, male or female. :wink:

I've worked for/with both men and women, and liked/disliked both. I won't argue with the statement that, statistically speaking, men tend to be more physically aggressive than women, but, as with any other behavior, it exists on a spectrum, and is present in both sexes (and in hermaphrodites of all varieties as well, I'm sure).

I think that all points on the spectrum are negatively impacted by being forced to conform to a societal framework that is constructed around the holding the most stereotypically 'male' end of the spectrum as being the ideal, and I suspect that switching to the other end of the spectrum would be unpleasant as well.
If you can't laugh at yourself, then everyone else will.
User avatar
Luposapien
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:24 pm
Location: Approximately Austin
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby blanc » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:53 pm

think I see where you are headed with your long view evolution stuff 4thB, but think its unrealistic for several reasons. first, choice breeding is not as simple as all that,( many are fooled, many are coerced), second these opposing survival strategies of co-operation and ruthless selfishness tend to surface at least in part in response to environment.
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlicetheKurious » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:01 pm

Alice,
I was talking about American women, as I posted.
Not surprsing that a fanatic of the "All Jews To The Sea! To the Sea!" school also believes that everyone with a penis is evil.


John E. Nemo: that belongs in a dictionary next to the word "straw man".

(Maybe you could make it a "straw woman", and you know, really drive your points home. Knock yourself out.)

Fourthbase, it makes sense that the more dangerous the environment, the more likely it becomes that vulnerable females will seek males who thrive in that environment. IE, those who are aggressive, physically strong, skilled at killing. The jungle is a metaphor for such an environment, so it's not surprising that female chimps would exhibit this behaviour.

Human beings are different in that they both create their environment AND adapt to it, far more than any animal.

We have a rational mind, imagination, a moral conscience and creativity that distinguish us from the animals. We can evaluate the world that we are creating, and use our reason and intelligence, the accumulated knowledge of history, of technology, of our own psychology, to understand and decide to avoid the horrible fate we are making for ourselves.

So the analogy with chimp behaviour is interesting, but its relevance is limited.
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

people are people so why should it be...

Postby marmot » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:02 pm

sunny wrote:
violently ruthless to eachother


Wow. How much female-on-female violence do you think there is in the world? Statistics please.

As Alice said above, most women who have made it into positions of power have already deformed their feminine impulses to get where they are. No one is disputing that. But the anecdote about your women friends in the workplace amounts to an urban legend. I AM a woman. My former job lasted ten years under the direct supervision of a woman. She was sensitive to the point of getting run over a lot. HER supervisor was an egomaniac who delighted in humiliating the (mostly) women at our shop, including my boss. He was sarcastic and dismissive. He never apologized, ever, for his frequent hatefulness. When my female boss offended someone, she apologized profusely. There are NO men at my current place of employment (salaries are crap) and I would equate it with paradise.


Regardless of gender, I think it's a violent, broken, hateful world we live in. Period. We are at war with eachother---man against man, man against woman, woman against man, woman against woman.

The experiences and feelings of my women friends are not at all urban legends. I am relating to you what they as women have experienced and related to me. YOU as a woman can speak for your self, your own perspective and experiences, however, you don't speak for ALL WOMANKIND! Sorry, please don't minimize the feelings and perspective of my friends. You may be strong and assertive and unaffected by the ways that my friends are inevitably crushed by. It seems you had a good boss. That's great.

Now all this talk of violence. Some of the most ruthless forms of violence are psychic, emotional, mental, and can crush the spirits of individuals (regardless of gender) who have delicate personalities. It's not just a violent act to punch, kick, maim and kill someone. No, violence is played out in so many delicate, subtle and unassuming forms. All violence is not necessarily physical in form.

As I've observed, it appears to me that female-to-female relationships are dynamically different than male-to-male relationships. And the power wars and the tools of combat are often very different. Or given the same tools, they are often used differently. For example, often times a man will stab his opponent in the front, a woman will often stab her opponent in the back. O yes, come after me! Hate me for my perspective on this!

I think the best microcosm to understand these interpersonal relationships is at the High School level. Look at the difference between the stabbings. At least in the world I grew up in, the boys stab with their fists, and they do this one on one in a physical confrontation. The girls, on the otherhand, they stab with their words, with ruthless rumors, and they crush their opponents by ganging up on them, not in direct physical confrontations, but with a type of violence which does more psychic damage than a fist.

I can see a difference. And we can all, I imagine, discern between good leadership and bad leadership, and this good/bad distinction doesn't necessarily cut down gender lines. "People are people so why should it be..."
Last edited by marmot on Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
marmot
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby populistindependent » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:02 pm

FourthBase wrote:At some point in this thread we should really dispense with the figurehead examples, because they mean absolutely nothing in the big picture.


The only value I can see in the figurehead examples is that we should not ignore the fact that hereditary monarchies and aristocracies were often gender neutral - blood lines (class) trumped gender.

I know that we live in this crossfire talking points world of verbal battles to the death. I am not offering observations for the purpose of being oppositional, but rather so that they can be included and considered - for the purpose of better understanding not for the purpose of someone "winning" - before we all start taking sides and (and violently, it must be said) blasting away at each other. I admire you for tackling this volatile subject and I think you are headed in a valuable and constructive direction with it. Don't get discouraged.
populistindependent
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests