Women of the world, take over

[Telexx]

With all due respect to your friend, Telexx... Just saying so means nothing, less than nothing actually, as it contradicts the fact that men generally exhibit so much more competitive, agressive behaviour, are more prone to engage in or encourage violence, to sexualize violence, and to consider militarism to be the ultimate expression of manliness.

It blatantly contradicts nothing!

Competitive doesn't mean aggressive - there is no contradiction (and the other stuff about sexualised violence or militarism, frankly, has nothing to do with "competitive" either).

(In addition, to be balanced, I already stated agreement that men have a greater tendency to become unnecessarily aggressive.)

Competitive means competitive; in general terms women are very competitive - socially speaking, at least equal to men. Take the realm of high school - if you feel there is no competition and hierarchy with female students there then you are v.mistaken.

If you feel that image isn't gender issue, consider the massive disparity of $$$ spent on advertising image-related products to both sexes. It's not all down to conditioning. You feel that this is somehow irrelevant?!

If you feel that focus & drive aren't healthy "masculine" traits, and so logically the world would have less of them, then again, you are mistaken. (please note masculine and not male or even un-female, both sexes can display drive, or focus, or compassion for that matter).

The nonsensical first couple of paragraphs to one side, I broadly agree with much of your post. I understand your context is history, mine is psychology. Neither focus can claim an absolute solution. (PS: no comment about a woman's capacity for vengeful rage? Do you think it's a myth?!)

All I'm saying, is that maybe there's still time to try something different, because the way we're going now, we all lose, big time.

I agree 100% with this. But then you're saying (in essence):

Men created the wars because they're aggressive.
Women are better at stopping wars, because they've not sought them.
Women are the nurturers.
Men are the destroyers.

I'd like you to consider that men created the wars because they took all the decisions without the input of women (imbalance).

I'd like you to consider that it is only through balance, not further imbalance, will such problems be brought to a halt.

Is it such a stretch to consider that perspectives, strengths, and approaches to problem-solving associated with women therefore represent a genuine, life-affirming, untapped treasure?

Absolutely not - in fact it is my firmly held belief that each of these words is absolutely correct.

But in both women and men there is potential for both the good & bad of humanity to be brought to the fore. Your posts focus on the bad in men, and the good in women. Fine, but it's only through the good in both will the kind of world you (probably both of us) envisage ever be realised:

All in all she found the whole premise pretty stupid, instead pointing out that real strength comes from "male" & "female" traits woven together in balance. Imbalance of any kind leads to dis-ease.

This point is worth repeating.

Thanks,

Telexx

[FourthBase]

When women are evil it's conditioning. When women reach power and are evil it's because they're elitists, not really women. Because by doing evil they stop being women because they can no longer be kept on the pedestal. When men do evil it's because men are evil. When men reach power and do evil it's because men are evil. When female elitists do evil it's because they're in a male paradigm, ie because men are evil. When women kill their children or vote republican it's because of patriarchal social conditioning, ie, because men are evil. I see. There's a pattern here, but perhaps my paranoid conspiracy theorist's brain is seeing patterns that aren't there.

I like a bit of equality. Can't be treating women like children. Unless it's convenient for them, of course.

The truth is that both sexes have evil and pleasant representatives. Humans are individuals.

Take a class in reading comprehension.

[theeKultleeder]

People should include the names of who they quote.

[FourthBase]

People should include the names of who they quote.

Figure it out yourself.

[AlicetheKurious]

Stephen Morgan wrote:

The Frontman Fallacy.

Alice, who the is Alice? Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew, Cuthbert Dibble and Grub.

I read the link you posted, to "The Frontman Fallacy". Thank you. I thought I was talking to my intellectual peers. I was wrong. Good-bye.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Y'all, go look up the work of Carol Gilligan.

In the early 1960s she started pioneering (and male-resented) work on gender differences in child developmental psychology, specifically moral development, a rather important human characteristic. And it took a woman to notice and act on the fact that not all humans are male.

(Since I am being sneered at for positing keyword hijacking in another thread, I will point out that I only discovered the groundbreaking work of Carol Gilligan...by reverse-engineering the keyword hijacking in 'Gilligan's Island' to see if there were any liabilities to American militarism to be found in that name like others I'd found. There was. )

The sociological study of moral development used to be only the study of boys as archetypal humans. But Carol Gilligan rejected the early 1960s conventional wisdom that male behavior was the ultimate protector of the species and helped validate and advance the rich and complex field of gender studies.

So stop argueing anecdotally and go look at the gender studies work already done.
There are REAL physical differences in brain function, hormones, biochemistry as proven scientifically. What that all "means," is more complicated but not to be brushed under the rug in favor of exclusively focusing on aculturation.

[populistindependent]

Is there any other subject about which discussion is so thoroughly suppressed? Gender is the most difficult subject to have an intelligent discussion about. That is odd, and a very recent development - the last 30 years or so. It is the ultimate divide and conquer situation. We wouldn't even need to know people's genders online. But no, people insist on taking up an identity about it.

No one here need know one's gender, race or age, and ideas could be weighed on their own merits and people could be free from any prejudice.

"I am a man, and blah blah blah.."

"I am one of these white males you are attacking, and blah blah blah..."

"Speaking as a women, blah, blah, blah..."

Our experiences, gender, race, education all inform our viewpoint, but they aren't all there is to our viewpoint.

The shift from looking primarily at what people supposedly are, rather than what they say and do, is a key foundation to the breakdown in communication which serves to divide and conquer us in the face of an all out assault on all of us from the ruling class. Since everyone is supposed to identify with one of two genders, it is ideal for dividing us.

[theeKultleeder]

Gender is the most difficult subject to have an intelligent discussion about. That is odd, and a very recent development - the last 30 years or so. It is the ultimate divide and conquer situation.

Before that (pre-about 30 years ago) it was men talking about women.

[mentalgongfu2]

populist independent said:

No one here need know one's gender, race or age, and ideas could be weighed on their own merits and people could be free from any prejudice.

"I am a man, and blah blah blah.."

"I am one of these white males you are attacking, and blah blah blah..."

"Speaking as a women, blah, blah, blah..."

I wholeheartedly agree.

As an aside, I have learned to be wary whenever someone makes a statement along the lines of "as a _______ (insert: man, woman, economist, physics major, homophobe, etc), I feel . . . ."

Such disclaimers really serve no purpose. They are intended to imply some sort of authority on a subject which usually does not exist in reality.
Granted, their are exceptions, but when someone tries to justify a claim based on the fact that they belong to a particular group, the claim is often irrelevant to the authority being given. Even in the best case, the "as a ___" is simply unnecessary.

As members of the RI board, I hope you will understand what I'm trying to say.

[populistindependent]

Before that (pre-about 30 years ago) it was men talking about women.

Not sure what that means. Can you explain?

[theeKultleeder]

Before that (pre-about 30 years ago) it was men talking about women.

Not sure what that means. Can you explain?

Well, shall we start with psychology, then? Starting with Freud, it was always men making theories about women, and women were, according to these mens' theories, "meek," prone to "hysteria," "emotional/illogical," in short, inferior to men.

some feminists have argued that at worst his views of women's sexual development set the progress of women in Western culture back decades, and that at best they lent themselves to the ideology of female inferiority. Believing as he did that women are a kind of mutilated male, who must learn to accept their "deformity" (the "lack" of a penis) and submit to some imagined biological imperative, he contributed to the vocabulary of misogyny.

Now, notice the difference when women are able to participate in the dialogue as equals, instead of being made to suffer what men think they are:

Another feminist who finds potential use of Freud's theories in the feminist movement is Shulamith Firestone. In "Freudianism: The Misguided Feminism", she discusses how Freudianism is essentially completely accurate, with the exception of one crucial detail: everywhere that Freud wrote "penis", the word should be replaced with "power".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud#Conceptual_critiques

Cool, huh?

[theeKultleeder]

Before that (pre-about 30 years ago) it was men talking about women.

Not sure what that means. Can you explain?

Sorry, here's the short answer:


Men talking about women instead of with them.

[orz]

by reverse-engineering the keyword hijacking

AKA confirmation bias.

[Stephen Morgan]

Take a class in reading comprehension.

Become more logical and egalitarian.

I read the link you posted, to "The Frontman Fallacy". Thank you. I thought I was talking to my intellectual peers. I was wrong. Good-bye.

Sorry if I misled you. The frontman fallacy, though, if pretty obvious. As is the lack of communists in the Democratic party leadership, that doesn't mean everyone will see it.

Gender is the most difficult subject to have an intelligent discussion about. That is odd, and a very recent development - the last 30 years or so. It is the ultimate divide and conquer situation.

Before that (pre-about 30 years ago) it was men talking about women.

Hence Mary Wollstonecraft's time machine.

As I say, people either think of women as equals or stray waifs. Poor old helpless women couldn't speak or have thoughts of their own because of the oppressive fifties social order. It's all rubbish. Women just tended to see themselves as humans or socialists or whatever else first and women incidentally. Feminism changed that. Now the least important thing is the most important to them. But I mean the way things were for women. The average woman on the street wasn't influenced by Freud's rantings. These trendy movements don't tend to filter down to normal upright people. That's why feminism had such a struggle, and still does.

And populistindependant is right.

[John E. Nemo]

I need to apologize for a factual error I made in this thread.

It was a Weatherwoman, and not a Red Stocking, who told activist Robin Morgan that her male baby was a "pig" and told her to "put it in the garbage."

I deeply regret the error, and was, in fact, loathe to even share the info in the first place, as I have been a huge fan of everything else that the Red Stockings did, particularly exposing Gloria Steinem as a CIA shill.

It was this incident that made Robin leave the group, and made her, in her own words "divorce herself from the idea of the Left as automatically good."

Her feelings were echoed by woman's and civil rights activist (and writer) Rita Mae Brown, who also left the group (along with many others). She describes her experiences thusly:
"They wanted our side to be good and the other side to be all bad. I went on to groups whose senses were better formed.

Rita went on to become a "Lavendar Menace" and wrote, while a member of the The Furies Collective, that "Sexism is the root of all other oppressions."...
... a point that seems lost on fanatical man-haters like Fourth Basehead and Alice the KKKurious.

In closing, once again to the Red Stockings:

Mea culpa, sisters.

I make mistakes, because according to the sexist banter in this thread, I do not posess ovaries.