Are women the true spiritual leaders?

reply to post by Logarock

But it wasn't religion that the feminists were after.

Whut?
No, they weren't "after" religion - they were after recognition and wanting to be allowed to participate in civil society. Some women don't WANT to be home-makers, nurturers, and mothers. They'd rather be high-power contestants in the rat race.

My point is that feminists wanted a CHOICE - for heaven sake, women couldn't even vote until 100 years ago! Misogyny.
It went sour when women, having gained the right to work and to vote, were then expected to 'keep up' and do both the family thing AND the work thing.
Women need to choose one direction, and stay with it. Like I said, and said again, one can try to do both, and stay afloat, but one can't do both well. Something has to give. A priority must be chosen. I chose family. Other women choose career.

I don't believe in having children if one simply intends to turn them over to some hired nanny - they then become 'status symbols' or 'objects'. If you want to have a child, decide to be a mother. Full-time. Mother.
Time for self-realization after the kids are grown.

sigh
perhaps only a woman who's been a mother can get what I mean.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Logarock

 

But it wasn't religion that the feminists were after.

Whut?
No, they weren't "after" religion - they were after recognition and wanting to be allowed to participate in civil society. Some women don't WANT to be home-makers, nurturers, and mothers. They'd rather be high-power contestants in the rat race.

My point is that feminists wanted a CHOICE - for heaven sake, women couldn't even vote until 100 years ago! Misogyny.
It went sour when women, having gained the right to work and to vote, were then expected to 'keep up' and do both the family thing AND the work thing.
Women need to choose one direction, and stay with it. Like I said, and said again, one can try to do both, and stay afloat, but one can't do both well. Something has to give. A priority must be chosen. I chose family. Other women choose career.

I don't believe in having children if one simply intends to turn them over to some hired nanny - they then become 'status symbols' or 'objects'. If you want to have a child, decide to be a mother. Full-time. Mother.
Time for self-realization after the kids are grown.

sigh
perhaps only a woman who's been a mother can get what I mean.

edit on 3/28/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

Only those (mothers and fathers) who have walked both paths simultaneously will understand your train of thought, BuzzyWigs, as I do. It reminds me of the scene in Kramer vs. Kramer when the now single father is no longer available for work 100% of the time because he now has the responsibility of his son's life to consider, they fire him. There is something inherently wrong in our society that strips us of a healthy balance in both our personal and working lives.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Logarock

 

Well you may want to bone up. That was the whole idea of the pagan female divine. And your are right they did provide balance....a balance between the male and female attributes

I refer you to the ancient British pre-Roman times mythology.

Druids were men with spiritual knowledge; the Ladies of Avalon were held as equally important. They worked together.

Bone up on what?

The reason some women are obsessed with all this is because they are really no better than their male counterparts who are obsessed with control, power ect. You need to ask yourself if its really balance between the male and female that you truly want. Now my point has been be it balanced, male of female dominated, the pagans are nothing to exemplify gender attributes. They have used it all as control mechanisms. Who cares it the Druids and the Lady's of Avalon were on some sort of equal footing....you get the same from both...don't step out of line. You kiss Odin's ass or you kiss the ass of Sofia....but you will kiss some ass. You get the control freaks at both directions.

reply to post by InTheLight



Sorry to disappoint your stereotypes, but I am Mr Kramer. To the max.

Logarock
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Sorry to disappoint your stereotypes, but I am Mr Kramer. To the max.

I don't get what you mean? What stereotypes are you referring to? I was commenting on how the male-dominated business world expects 100% from a person and your personal life is irrelevant.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


I am Mr. Mom. And yet still this remains my surmise after 20 years of it. I don't have the luxury of blaming many things that women have blamed. Nor do I get the respect the women once had for the same burden.

InTheLight

Logarock
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Sorry to disappoint your stereotypes, but I am Mr Kramer. To the max.

I don't get what you mean? What stereotypes are you referring to? I was commenting on how the male-dominated business world expects 100% from a person and your personal life is irrelevant.

Well there has been some progress however business is business. It isn't going to matter if its male or female dominated or a shared domination. The requirements are never going to change.

Logarock
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

I am Mr. Mom. And yet still this remains my surmise after 20 years of it. I don't have the luxury of blaming many things that women have blamed. Nor do I get the respect the women once had for the same burden.

I wouldn't call it blaming, I would call it pointing out inequalities and insufficiencies within our society.

InTheLight

Logarock
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Sorry to disappoint your stereotypes, but I am Mr Kramer. To the max.

I don't get what you mean? What stereotypes are you referring to? I was commenting on how the male-dominated business world expects 100% from a person and your personal life is irrelevant.

This is true in New York City. In the rest of the world, outside the financial sector, this is hardly true. at least, in management.

Hourly employees tend to get abused a bit in that regard. But that is more about risk mitigation, as you also know you will have poor attendance to work with. So you accept no excuses, or run the risk of getting nothing but excuses. Among managers, however, strong companies require a balance of home and work. At least, in my experience.

InTheLight

Logarock
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

I am Mr. Mom. And yet still this remains my surmise after 20 years of it. I don't have the luxury of blaming many things that women have blamed. Nor do I get the respect the women once had for the same burden.

I wouldn't call it blaming, I would call it pointing out inequalities and insufficiencies within our society.

Ok.

I have wondered the same thing. From what I have studied if you trace our origins back far enough we seem to worship female's rather than a "god" at first. The word "deity" is feminine in origin and has been in use far longer than god, father, divine spirit, etc. Our ancestors saw that life essentially starts inside a woman so how could that association not be made? Then mainstream religion took center stage and muddied the waters.

If you follow these current religions to a T they would have you believe women are inferior and that they should worship their man like a god. Why else would they try and wipe Mary Magdalene from the bible? Part of me believes this was by design to keep women and men from truly being in harmony with one another. There is this deep seeded mentality that we are somehow different from one another. But this only cropped up around the same time as "religion".

I'm not saying one gender makes a better spiritual leader than the other. It depends on the person. But I do believe at one time females were looked at a spiritual leaders of a sort.

If I was told I was the spiritual leader of humanity... I would ask for a recount...

reply to post by Logarock

I am Mr. Mom. And yet still this remains my surmise after 20 years of it. I don't have the luxury of blaming many things that women have blamed. Nor do I get the respect the women once had for the same burden.

Who do you feel is disrespecting you? Other men? Screw them! Women? I hardly think a woman who knows what it's like to raise kids and keep the house would disrespect you....
it's a full-time job plus - and should NEVER be minimized or thought trivial.
Without it, just think how the world would be! Thank GOD that men like you are able to step up and pull the load. Kudos.
(Or "props" or whatever the new word is.)

My children's father (who was my husband when they were born) and I divorced when they were littles...
he had them half the week, and I had them the other half. I took in other kids and provided daycare (only 2 or 3 at the max) so that I could raise my two without resorting to daycare. I helped raise other people's kids, and those kids loved me, too!!

The families I worked with became dear friends...

it worked very well - my kids have the background of a single father experience AND the married two-parent experience ...
I'm sure they will both do fine, whether they decide to have kids or not. (For now, I rather hope they don't....I weep for the future generations if things don't improve, as much as I'd love to have grandchildren to love and spoil and watch grow)

reply to post by Logarock

I am Mr. Mom. And yet still this remains my surmise after 20 years of it.

I know I just responded, but I have one more thing to clutter up the bandwidth with...

Only a person who has not raised kids would disrespect or look down on a full-time parent.
It's their ignorance. Lots of women look down on women who choose to stay at home; because they simply don't get it.

Be proud of yourself. Parenting is the hardest and most important job in the entire world.
Even when they're grown, you're still a parent, forever. This is what childless people don't understand.

Like I alluded to above:

“Making the decision to have a child - it is momentous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body. ”
― Elizabeth Stone

here's to ya, dad

reply to post by InTheLight

There is something inherently wrong in our society that strips us of a healthy balance in both our personal and working lives.

Precisely.
Thanks for making that statement again.
I agree 100%. For all their talk about "our culture", and "work and family balance", corporations are still focused not on the well-being of their employees, but on their 'profit margin.' It's so dehumanizing. I hate - using the word HATE here - Wall Street and the gambling and indifference that goes on.

reply to post by Logarock

The reason some women are obsessed with all this is because they are really no better than their male counterparts who are obsessed with control, power ect.

I'm getting the feeling - or message - that you are very bitter and angry at the world and your circumstances.

I agree, many, many people are obsessed with control and power and money.
I was obsessed with raising my kids as best I could. What they needed trumped what I needed, every time. Not some business profit margin. MY KIDS.

I think a civilized work environment should be more concerned with the well-being and prosperity of their workers than with that of their 'shareholders'. It sucks.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by Logarock

 

The reason some women are obsessed with all this is because they are really no better than their male counterparts who are obsessed with control, power ect.

I'm getting the feeling - or message - that you are very bitter and angry at the world and your circumstances.

I agree, many, many people are obsessed with control and power and money.
I was obsessed with raising my kids as best I could. What they needed trumped what I needed, every time. Not some business profit margin. MY KIDS.

I think a civilized work environment should be more concerned with the well-being and prosperity of their workers than with that of their 'shareholders'. It sucks.

If you believe this, then put your business with small business.

"Shareholders" are an artifact of a corporate environment. Of course, you can have owners groups in small business. We run a few restaurants that are owned by a group of silent investors behind a single "executive" that makes the day to day decisions and handles quarterly distributions back out to the owners. But those are somewhat few and far between outside of hotels, resorts, and restaurants.

I think a company should have a single role: to generate profit. If we want to humanize the aspects within the company...that is a culture built up by people. In my office, the culture is one of mutual benefit, support, compassion, and trust. In other offices, it can vary from one degree to another. If the culture of a place is poisoned, it is the leadership within it that is poisoned. The company remains, at the end of the day, just a tool.

reply to post by zuimon


In response to what would be the first thing I would do if I suddenly found myself humanity's spiritual leader? I would ask humanity to vote or select those individuals that best represent their particular group (because we know people gravitate to those with similar needs and desires) and form a 'Circle of Wisdom' where all the chosen delegates would be free to contribute in a brainstorming, move-forward and best-for-all way to achieve humanity's progress and evolution to a healthful, peaceful and poverty-less future (spiritually speaking, perhaps form new missonary groups).

It's the long hair that puts us in touch with the spiritual side of life.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

In my office, the culture is one of mutual benefit, support, compassion, and trust. In other offices, it can vary from one degree to another. If the culture of a place is poisoned, it is the leadership within it that is poisoned. The company remains, at the end of the day, just a tool.

I absolutely believe you and understand what you're saying. (I lurked some before I joined; I've gathered that you're a fair and sensitive employer.)

Good for you! If I was in Texas, I might even approach you for a job.
Yes, profit can poison leadership. I lived it. I had to escape it.

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Willtell

 

Well said, good post.

There is already a decline in the male population, as well as a weakening of their genetics.

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole gay increase and feminising of men is mother natures way of redressing the balance from all the hideous misogyny.

This subject is something that I have lived with since I was born, a mother that favoured the male. The violent, egotistical selfishness of a male sibling was implanted, nurtured, and rewarded. My childhood was like some sort of hell at 'home' because of this. No wonder I threw myself wholeheartedly into education, work and left that 'home' as soon as I could. I was literally told that females were ''lesser, not the decision makers, unimportant etc'' and forced to do housework from an early age while my male sibling didn't do any and was ran after hand and foot and declared ''head of the house'' before even hitting puberty.

Sounds like the dark ages, Victorian era, some traditional Indian households or the 1800's, but no, average white people of European ethnicity growing up in the UK in the 70's and 80's.

So it isn't just the male attitudes than need challenging it is the attitudes of women that have bought into the male hierarchy and subservience of females.

edit on 23-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

Sounds like your problem with men is you had bad parents and an annoying brother.
So, now all men need to learn some manners...
I think your attitude needs challenged. Get a grip. Really.

The playing field is equal. There are plenty of female turds out there ruining the world alongside the males..