Women of the world, take over

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:05 pm

blanc wrote: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.


Both great points, blanc.

Fooling is, I think, one of the crucial ways that assholes get good women to mate with them. Think of the wooing process, when loathesome men pretend to be compassionate, etc. Coercion is a rarer phenomenon I think, but it has to be considered, too -- that's why the world still has men predisposed to be rapists, I think.

The environment is also crucial, because in hard times it's more difficult for the average female to refuse the material benefits gained by shacking up with a monster. Then again, unless the hard times are created by an act of God, they're usually created by those same monsters, and so the monsters and hard times keep proliferating via females who are forced to prefer a short term answer than a long term one.
“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)

you noticed?!?

Postby marmot » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:09 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:
"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.


Alice, you noticed? :oops:

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


I gave the reference for this below what I wrote. Within the context of the novel this is what Ayesha was translated to mean "She Who Must Be Obeyed."

Thank you, sincerely, for your correction.
marmot
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:09 pm

populistindependent wrote:
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.


Precisely!

What was really being passed down?
Not just a nebulous sense of royalty...
But a set of power-sustaining characteristics.

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.


Thank you.
“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 John E. Nemo » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:13 pm

Luposapien,

Nice to see another Austinite who isn't seduced by pretty lies.

I love that no one has even tried to address the fact that Walmarts and SUVS are everywhere because women want them.

That's the kind of denial I expect from a nation of people who bitch about the oil companies that they empower everytime they drive their SUV to Walmart to support sweatshops.
Too lazy to sell the SUV and ride a bike, they would rather whine about how powerless they are, than do the socially responsible thing and NOT drive and NOT shop at Walmart.

Understand this: YOU ARE THE REASON THAT WE ARE DOOMED.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4251968.stm

Men and women 'not so different'

Men and women may be from the same planet after all. A US psychologist says there are not that many differences between the genders.
Janet Shibley-Hyde, women's studies specialist from the University of Wisconsin, says men and women are more similar than the popular perception.

She highlights studies showing similarities in personality, communication, and leadership.

But a UK psychologist said there were differences which should be recognised.

'Misrepresentation'

There is a popular perception that the psychological difference between men and women is substantial - as seen in books such as Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus by John Gray.

And there are stereotypes, such as women being more emotional than men, or men having better spatial awareness.

But Dr Hyde, writing in American Psychologist, says her review of 46 meta-analyses (which cover a number of studies) conducted over the last 20 years, shows men and women are alike in the majority of areas.


There are differences - ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous

Dr Nick Neave, University of Northumbria

The studies looked at cognitive abilities, verbal and nonverbal communication, social or psychological traits like aggression or leadership, psychological well-being like self-esteem and motor behaviours, such as throwing ability and moral reasoning.

Dr Hyde said gender differences accounted for either no or a very small effect for most of the psychological variables examined.

She said only throwing distance and physical aggression showed marked gender differences.

And she said the extent of "male" or "female" behaviours seemed to depend on context.

Dr Hyde highlighted one study where participants were told that they were not identified as male or female nor wore any identification, which led to neither sex conforming to a stereotyped image when given the opportunity to act aggressively.

They actually did the opposite to what was expected - they did not stick to the stereotype of aggressive males and passive females.

She said the misrepresentation of how different the sexes are could harm men and women of all ages in many different areas of life.

"The claims can hurt women's opportunities in the workplace, dissuade couples from trying to resolve conflict and communication problems and cause unnecessary obstacles that hurt children and adolescents' self-esteem."

But Dr Nick Neave, a spokesman for the British Psychological Society and an expert in sex differences at the University of Northumbria, said men and women did differ.

"Scientists have been guilty of over-emphasising sex differences.

"There are differences. Ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous.

"But that doesn't mean that society shouldn't treat the genders equally."
John E. Nemo
 

Postby theeKultleeder » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:15 pm

John E. Nemo wrote:"There are differences. Ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous.



"There are differences. Ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous.

:)
theeKultleeder
 

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:16 pm

So the analogy with chimp behaviour is interesting, but its relevance is limited.


It's not that limited, though.
At our core, we are the same beings we were 500,000 years ago.
We didn't just inherit most of our anatomy from the chimps.
We inherited most of our impulses, too.

Hell, impulse-wise we're not that different from birds or lizards.
It's a big old continuum of animal impulses.
“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)

Weaponizing women.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:19 pm

Gender psy-ops is the single most important tool of governance and military recruiting.

Gender stereotypes are sustained as National inSecurity assets.

Stats do confirm a gender gap on war and violence in general.
Psy-ops social engineering is 'remedying that' by infusing male warrior culture into female social norms to diminish female friction on warrior culture and bring females into it as active recruits.

Shortly after violent female role-models were put on TV in the 1990s - Zena the Warrior, Buffy the Vampire Slayer - school playgrounds across America had a new violence problem among girls, previously a boys-only problem.

Pink camoflage-colored clothes for little girls is conditioning minds, both the wearer and the viewer, to accept militarization as a non-threatening cultural norm.

The increase in sports for women due to Title 9 accompanied this new emphasis on physical aggression among females.

Ads in multicultural magazines placed by the FBI and CIA emphasize recruiting women.
Probably for women's affinity for both supporting networks and analysis of relationships ala Valerie Plame Wilson who, despite being a pawn of fascist internecine struggles, has served as a credibility prop for the same CIA running American media and torture gulags.

Women are being used as credibility props in an age of non-stop war propaganda.
Women are now the 'news' talking heads on network TV and the voices bringing bad news and lies from National Propaganda Radio.

Prominently published feminists like Susan Faludi have no idea what is going on or why.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:25 pm

Prominently published feminists like Susan Faludi have no idea what is going on or why.



Hugh, can you point to some less published feminists [unlike Faludi], who you feel do have an idea what is going on?

no snark in this, I am serious, i would be curious to see what feminists you think "get it".

I believe you like Naomi Klein, so I guess you don't need to mention her again
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby FourthBase » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:34 pm

I guess someone already touched on it here, but there is a spectrum of femininity and masculinity that bleeds across the gender gap. Meaning, there are some females who have more male hormone/less female hormone than normal, and vice versa. Might even be a deeper thing than hormone, as in cases of transexuals who knew as children that they were the opposite sex on the inside. And although I think sexuality is a separate topic, the spectrum might also relate to sexuality too, at least as far as butch lesbians and femme gay men go. But that's another topic, I guess.

As far as I know, the scientifically documented effects of estrogen and testosterone treatments on a person's emotions should put to rest any question of whether there are emotional gender differences, and since (IMO) emotions are directly related to morality, whether there are moral gender differences. There quite clearly are. On the whole.

I'm interested in how all that differs in the periods before and after the hormonal effects are strongest, i.e., pre-puberty and old age. Is it just a legend that old men soften and old women harden? I don't think so. And what kind of differences if any are there between boys and girls, before the big onset? Maybe that's also another topic for another day.
“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)

Names.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:34 pm

IanEye wrote:
Prominently published feminists like Susan Faludi have no idea what is going on or why.



Hugh, can you point to some less published feminists [unlike Faludi], who you feel do have an idea what is going on?

no snark in this, I am serious, i would be curious to see what feminists you think "get it".

I believe you like Naomi Klein, so I guess you don't need to mention her again


Good question, IanEye. And the answer is NO. This is why I focus on psy-ops relentlessly on this board to the point of incurring exasperation. Psy-ops is waged on children and parents have no clue. The right wing fundies have a sense that culture war matters to their families but they haven't got it figured out and so their raging muddlement helps obscure psy-ops even more.

I don't know of ANYONE else besides myself who groks the militarist social engineering theory/goals/history/current examples that are in play in media.

Nobody. I know I'm right but I'm no geen-yus. And frankly, I'm shocked to be standing alone on this topic. I wish there were others I could point to and say, "See?"

Well, Hugo Chavez is showing signs of understanding culture war. I think spooks from other countries are hipping him to the mind control in movies and holidays that shape culture so that he can better resist the attempt by the USG to get to the people directly.
Disney was used by the US as a credibility prop to soften up foreign audiences to 'Americanism' and still is.

Naomi Klein is getting close. She has some important elements. But she doesn't even admit that 'disaster capitalism' is waged intentionally by CIA for decades or that psychological warfare is the norm since WWII.

Klein's got a long way to go but she might get there.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Names.

Postby Jeff » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:43 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I don't know of ANYONE else besides myself who -


That's where you lose me. There's no one I could take seriously who would say I'm the only one who gets it.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby John E. Nemo » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:48 pm

theeKultleeder wrote:
John E. Nemo wrote:"There are differences. Ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous.


"There are differences. Ignoring them is foolish, and exaggerating them is dangerous. :)


She said only throwing distance and physical aggression showed marked gender differences.

How silly of me not to care about throwing distances.
That's very important when we're talking about A NATION OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO ELECT PSYCHOPATHS TO PROTECT THEIR OIL INTERESTS, RAHTER THAN DO ANYTHING NOBLE LIKE BREAKING FROM OIL.

Oh, wait.
It doesn't matter one fugging bit.

Tell ya what I'll do.
The second that a mass movement of women gives up their SUVS in the name of World Peace, I'll believe that their gender makes them emotionally superior, or whatever sexist, fascist, deluded lie you want me to believe.

Since that will NEVER happen, women will continue to send their sons to die for their SUVs and Walmarts......and no one but this guy will dare to talk about it.
John E. Nemo
 

Postby IanEye » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:50 pm

Well, Hugo Chavez is showing signs of understanding culture war. I think spooks from other countries are hipping him to the mind control in movies and holidays that shape culture so that he can better resist the attempt by the USG to get to the people directly.


sigh. It is one thing to disagree with Mr. Chavez on any number of ideological levels Hugh, but to question his mental intelligence is another. Why does he need other people to "hip" him to these things? Do you honestly think he can't figure it out himself?

but, that is probably a whole other thread altogether.....
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby populistindependent » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:51 pm

Joe Hillshoist wrote:Who knows, it definitely tastes better tho.


I work with small family fruit growers, and personally taste test several hundred varieties of apples - most modern people can't name more than ten - for example, every year and also run blind taste testing parties. There is no simplistic standard answer on this - far, far from it.

Some general guidlines -

Fruit grown further north, with longer photo periods and wider 24 hour temperature swings, tastes better. Fruit allowed to ripen tastes better. Varieties grown in the appropriate soil and location taste better. Some fruit tastes better immediately after picking, some varieties improve in storage. Varieties selected for color and shape and skin texture - uniformly red, symmetrical in shape, with shiny smooth skin - often is lacking in ither areas - flavor and nutrition especially.

Then we have the variables of location, the skill of the grower, and the same variety from the same tree can vary in flavor woldly fropm year to year.

But I wouldn't blame the spirituality itself. Its the lazy application of the spirituality as an excuse for inaction rather than anything in and of itself. Those sorts of spirituality are supposed to teach rejection of desire, not action. They are supposed to teach action without lust of result for the purpose of generating more effective action. Not sitting on your arse gazing at your navel.


Of course. Agreed. Key point there - action. Religions arise with the intention of changing people's behavior, not their beliefs.

me - "The only way to change the world is to change yourself" we are told.

you - Perhaps that should actually be something those people take to heart. Change themselves and they might get something done.


Good point. Something of a paradox there. Perhaps we can make this distinction - is the self-improvement for the ultimate purpose of contributing to and living in a cooperative community for the benefit of many, or merely to enhance an atomized and isolated individual at the expense of others who then become "losers?"

Enlightenment is available to everyone and ultimately means sweet FA anyway. Only unenlightened people hold it up as something special.


Yes. Another paradox of sorts.

If something was on the line for those people then what you say is absent wouldn't be.


Excellent insight. .

How so? Every organic farmer I know is not ruling class, but something about the fact that they have lower overheads, less money spent on ferts and pesticides, contributes to them making money. What happens after they sell their produce doesn't take away from the fact that they spend less in monetary terms than "traditional" (as in traditional oil age) farmers, and as a result get more cash back. (Mind you they also work harder, well not actually harder, but use smaller plots and are more labour intensive on them. Every farmer I know works bloody hard.)


EVERYTHING in the US becomes corrupted and commercialized and bastardized and eventually serves the ruling class agenda.

Corporate agri business sucks, and destroys lives. No question at all. Agri business run by people (organic or not) are nowhere near as bad.


Yes.
populistindependent
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby blanc » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:55 pm

gosh I'd like to be an American woman and drive a SUV to Walmart to fill it up with the weeks shopping :lol:
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests