It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Women Find It Difficult Communicating Intellectually?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud


What is the problem, Ladies?

The problem has been a patriarchal system that has oppressed women for thousands of years. Women have had to fight this political and religious system every step of the way to even be taken seriously as a human, instead of someones property or pet. In America, women couldn't vote until around 1920. The first female to hold public office was around the same time I think. The list is endless. Women weren't even considered serious academics.

It isn't that women have been so silent. It's that they have been silenced. They are still being discriminated against today. Especially by the patriarchal religions.




From page 1,

Here we go again. I long ago got over this kind of thinking with the help of a woman. I dated older women and this older women introduced me to the awareness of used book stores....mostly paperbacks.

To my astonishment ..most of these bookstores were filled with Romance Novels. After visiting with her..numerous of these types of used book stores about town...a question was fomented...

What kind of downtroddened, victimized, Burka wearing modern woman victim of a patriarchal social structure has the time or monies to read and spend on such literature???

From there..this line of thought branched out to television programming. What kind of victimized brow beaten, dominated female of a patriarchal society has so much time for talk shows which illustrate/feed a steady pablum of victimization and rabid runaway sexualty??? This including the victimized products advertised since women do not earn as much monies as do men. Who's monies are being spent on these products...who is the victim here???

What kind of downtrodden victimized burka wearing woman has the time to spend on a cell phone or land line/computer..since by default she is the victim of a patriarchal social structure.

I hear this standard pablum so much today...and it passes for intellect ...and even often defaults through without comment.

I just thank that woman very often for teaching me different. I don't think she intended to so do..but that is what came out of my experience.

The willingness of the male to labor, often at great risk, and turn over his production to his woman for her disposal is one of the greatest adaptations of all time. And it is looked down upon by posters such as this without even a mention.

There are only a handful of authors and speakers who tell the truth about how history has worked out...and how it is going bottom up today by intellect..by logic and reason.

This affluence which both men and women take for granted today ..only works in an economically developed nation. For in non economically developed nations..neither males nor females can take such affluence for granted.

This is why some years ago..when Hillary and Chelse Clinton went to India to speak to their big meeting for women...what Hillary spoke about to Indian women meant nothing and she lost her audience. They thought she was way out of place or nuts.

We do so today by increasing the rift between male and female relationships...at our own peril in survival.

What was once functional..is now being deliberately destroyed and turned dysfunctional. This can only last as long as the economics are there to support this..even if kept afloat by a lie. If the economics take a rapid downturn...so to the functionality ..or disfunctionality trying to pass as excellence.

LOL LOL LOL>..the woman I see...likes to watch those flip this house programs..home and garden television..et al. I notice that as part of the patriarchal fingerprint all the women on these programs wear duct tape over their mouths..or at least a burka....don't you???

Women and children have been the greatest beneficiary of western economic affluence..and the willingness of the males to labor ..often at great risk ..then turn over their production to their women for their discretionary spending. Yet in western thinking this is so seldom mentioned in lieu of the victim nonsense and pablum of the above quoted poster.


tothetenthpower,


I don't think women have a hard time discussing anything intellectually. Most of the smartest people I've ever met were women.


With me it is not a matter of smart pe se. I know smart people..male and female both. For me it is a matter of how well they function in hard times..not good times per se. Some of these smart people I would not trust to feed my cats...they will mess it up. This world takes all kinds to keep going..but I am at times very wary of smart people.


This..I find greatly disturbing...


originally posted by: kaylaluv
Men didn't have to fight, kick and push their way through.


This is textbook of todays intellect/stupidity trying to pass as intellectual. Men have always held most of the death occupations and still do. Most women even today try to find occupations which better suit their personalities..not necessarily were the moneys are to be found.

For there is no more or greater loss of power in life and this world than loss of life. Men often, and even today, perish at younger ages than women. Is todays woman of equality trying to argue for perishing at a younger age than todays male...and calling that equality??? Even calling it Love!!!



SallieSunshine,


"Men literally cannot listen as well as women, because a man's mind focuses more on perceiving, or understanding a thing, instead of feeling, and becoming a thing. Men cannot multitask as well as women, because they are so singularly focused on perceiving. Men cannot nurture as well as women, because they think with their mind, instead of feeling with their hearts. And men damn sure can't be as beautiful or tantalizing as women, as their bodies are the image of conception, or fruition, whereas a man's is just the image of a seeder or phallic."


This really is disgusting and also again textbook of what tries to pass or default through as intelligence. It is called by those who know..as default thinking and beliefs.

Men occupying most of the death occupations...do not have the luxury of option of feeling. They must often and singularly focus on getting the job done and survive intact to get home and turn over their production to their women for her discretionary spending.
However..this is a rapidly declining/disappearing process in todays feminized man who have been raised primarily by women. These men are often competition for women not assets. Which is why these marriages often do not last.

This is an understanding hardly ever posted for thought on these boards in lieu of the feminized pablum attempting to default through as intelligence. It is none of these.

Men who can multitask with life and death..safety in mind..are often managers of other people. They are out here.but the political social pablum tries to disregard them as well...default as if they do not exist. They too turn over their production to their women for discretionary spending.

This is not a patriarchal society. It is a matriarchal society masquerading as if it was a patriarchal society all the time screaming victimization.




posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
continued to SallieSunshine,

The problem with todays female thinking is that just because a man does not nurture as does a woman..does not mean that he is not nurturing.

As I stated ...a man often takes his production and turns it over to his woman for her discretionary spending. This means she has the discretion over how his monies, often earned at great risk, as well as monies she has earned are spent. This is a lot of power. It also means he nurtures.

I taught a young man who had gotten out of the Marines something which will stick with him for the rest of his life. Something the Marines never taught him.

I was helping him with a piece of machinery he had brought to me and could not find the problem with it.

I told him..."don't you understand what it often means to be a man in this world...

"You often have to go out alone and solve problems..take risks...and then bring the solution or production home to your family for their disposal. When you are doing this ..you are often alone..no one is coming to help you...no one is coming to rescue you if you don't make it or get hurt. Your family and woman don't care what you had to do to get it done. Just don't rock the boat on them. Your feelings are expendable and disposable. Don't count. No one asks how many "Feelings " you had to suppress or discipline to get these jobs done and bring home the bacon. It does not count...does not matter.

That is what it means to be a man." "And the Marines will never teach you this while they send you out to die or be maimed for more of this."


Now this young man got the point very very quickly. He had never before heard anything like that. He was nurtured.

Do not ever be dumb enough to think that because a man does not nurture as does a woman that he is not nurturing. What you are doing here is called Misandry. You tell and take for granted only one side of the story and think it is all there is out here..not so.


What I am pointing out here is a difference in the manner in which men and women communicate as well as think...as well as nurture.
And the results will follow.

Orangetom

edit on 10-3-2015 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

I understand & agree with your points to an extent, however a main point seems to be in the discretionary spending aspect of it. I think the existence of a disparity based, materialistic society is the true oppressor of both sexes.

It's not that women can't be intellectual, it's more that they, for whatever reason, are more naturally inclined toward materialism & integration into society.
I used to make this joke: if okcupid taught me one thing, it's that all women are the same but think they're different. They love dancing, travel, & the beach. If I was as pathetically desperate & horny as every other guy on this website, I could fake all these things too. (Yes, that was actually a line on my dating profile, I spit game yo)

As sexist as this may sound, the only sex I have anything against are men. While maybe not as easily addicted to "modern reality", they are far more responsible for the propagation of long term conditioning & oppression.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I did not read all the pages of replies here- so I may be out of sync, or repetitive. I apologize if that is so.

I am not sure there is such a big void as you perceive, OP.

Personally, I don't feel any hesitation to engage in intellectual discussion or debate, and feel I need it to an extent. Intellectual stimulation is a necessary part of my general happiness. But my father is a highly esteemed professor of philosophy and psychoanalyst, my mother had a degree in philosophy and was a psychologist -learning philosophical thought and verbal expression was actively impressed on me and learned. I actually find that mental skill is not just "natural" for everyone, neither men nor women. It must be developed.

So some questions could be asked, such as- are the genders equally encouraged to learn this skill in a specific culture?
Are there some hard wired differences in the workings of the male and female brains which influence what we are perceiving here?

I don't perceive such a huge void in literary production, between the sexes. I do, however, see a cultural value which is higher upon masculine type of literature.

A difference we see often between the majority of males and females is focus upon object (for men) and focus upon relation (for women).

I think that both of these ways of thinking and concern are possible for all of us, regardless of gender, but it seems that in many cases, it takes more effort for one to use the opposite sex-type of thought.

I perceive that the US culture devalues feminine type of thinking.

The focus on humility, is part of social bonding.
This is not encouraged our valued in the US. In other cultures, it is. In Japan, for example. I find that in France it is- they hold relational focus much higher, and everything you express is interpretted in terms of "what is this saying about us in relation to one another?"
I learned the hard way- saying, "wow, I am proud of myself- I just worked really hard on this thing, and it came out well!" is heard as "I work harder than you, and what you do doesn't turn out well." No one is viewed as an island. Part of the humility thing is not seeking recognition; in fact actively avoiding it, out of respect for your peers. This fosters group bonding.
Lots of women instinctively do this, some without even realizing it. So it is no wonder guys are more likely to rise to visibility in most areas! Not always because they are objectively better, but because they have less tendency to limit their visibility.
I have watched other women willing let others take credit for their work, (my husband has published three books in english now- he's french by the way
).

The derogatory references to "gossip" and "romance novels" and "chick flicks" show were the void isn't.

Women, being the main educators in early childhood, often have the draw to examining morals and ethics, as these are the bedrock of the culture, which is instilled early into the members of the community. Women get together, in all cultures, to examine these topics and try to "get on the same page" as a community. The social bonding, cooperation, and communication will be enhanced if all the members share the same values and morals. So gossip is that very important work, discussing real life behaviors around them and determining what shall be deemed culturally approved or not, when they go home to their young children in formation.
But we use it as slur, and openly acknowledge no usefulness in it.

Chick flicks and books focus on relationships, in all their different nuances. There are tons of them out there. But relationships are not important in our culture, so we ignore them, and we insult those who read, watch or make them.
Relationships are made up of laws for us- marriage, divorce, child custody.... the complexities of human emotional exchange are "irrelevant".

Maternal type of leadership is devalued (don't need to illustrate that much- "nanny state" and "socialism" is all I need to say), paternalization is valued (the masculine type of education which works through opposition, challenging the individual to provoke him to "stand up", project himself, or toughen up). So you will see more male leaders, or females who have highly developed masculine skills.

These kinds of contrasts really only became evident to me once I left the US. I bet some will call it rubbish and nonsense. That's fine. It is just my own personal view at this time.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: orangetom1999

I understand & agree with your points to an extent, however a main point seems to be in the discretionary spending aspect of it. I think the existence of a disparity based, materialistic society is the true oppressor of both sexes.

It's not that women can't be intellectual, it's more that they, for whatever reason, are more naturally inclined toward materialism & integration into society.
I used to make this joke: if okcupid taught me one thing, it's that all women are the same but think they're different. They love dancing, travel, & the beach. If I was as pathetically desperate & horny as every other guy on this website, I could fake all these things too. (Yes, that was actually a line on my dating profile, I spit game yo)

As sexist as this may sound, the only sex I have anything against are men. While maybe not as easily addicted to "modern reality", they are far more responsible for the propagation of long term conditioning & oppression.



I tend to agree with you here about women and materialism. I often associate this in women with status...social status. Now are all women like this ..no definitely not..but every woman out there is to me more aware of status and another word associated with status..."competition."

I used to think this was not so about women..until I watched a group of woman at a ccompany party observing who was coming to the party out in the lobby. This turned out to be the very best seat in the house. After observing these women for a few minutes I realized that they were quickly and judgmentally establishing some kind of pecking order...giving the nod of approval or the head shake of disapproval. They were watching not the men who came with their women..but the women. I realized I was watching some kind of feral pecking order ..like chickens in a barnyard. It was indeed wild and feral..the looks in the eyes of some of these women.
I found this not only feral and wild..but in its own way materialistic...and even base. But it was a rare and even privileged moment into the world of women. I was glad to have seen it unfiltered and uncensored...for what it was.

Now..in fairness to the women...what happens to the feminized male. He too becomes materialistic. defining himself by his gadgets...his sports teams and sports Idols for which he worships ..et al. He too in his own way becomes materialistic.
He even and often defines himself like many women..by their sex and sexuality.

I began to notice this about materialistic women in watching with this older women ..some of these daytime talk shows..back when there was such a plethora of them infesting the daytime television circuit and I was back then working the graveyard shift. I quickly noticed that along with the constant barrage of the "Victim Dictum" there was also a constant barrage of sex and sexuality...combined with runaway rabid emotions.

I realized that if you removed the sex and sexuality from these programs...you have no program.

Now mind you ..I don't watch sports ..with the exception of a fishing type program..but not interested in football..basketball..NASCAR or any other contact type sports..but think about it. What happens to these sports if you remove the cheerleaders from the game???

I am just not much interested in the male occupation of running touchdowns for a career and for women of equality.

When you become aware of how much advertisement time ...during prime time ..you also become aware of how much "materialism" is directed to and towards women. For women also know that if they play their cards correctly...they can get a man to lower their RISK level in life ..and he will run the touchdown for her. And no one will notice what she has done. Often even the male himself will not notice. He thinks it is his idea.

Now do all women do this ..no they don't..but if few ever notice it....well.........

This is much ado about how a politician also works..no one sees what we do.

It is a standing joke among the men in our fuel loading crew...about running touchdowns. When one of the guys tells about what he did for his family or woman...I often get out of my chair...drop back with the imaginary football and make the pass to the touchdown. This is called..." Trying out for female approval...running touchdowns."

When you begin to comprehend this pattern of operation ..it quickly makes a joke out of the dogma of the patriarchal society and social structure.

But it is incredibly difficult for most men to think and operate outside of the "Running a Touchdown" mentality.

Not so much with a woman ..using social default settings to lower her RISK Levels...and if no one sees what we do.



I have no problem with intellectual women..but I also require more from a woman than talking. I can do that myself as clearly evidenced by the length of this post.
I also require more from a woman than sex and sexuality. Obviously more than standard "victimization."

How long does a man or male who can mostly talk..last among men who know he difference?? Why would a man accept that non standard from today's woman of equality???

Materialistic in a woman, and to me, often means "High Maintenance" and thus meaning someone needs to run the touchdown for all this material goods..to acquire it and also to maintain it. This means touchdowns..not Peace.

And Peace is the most valuable commodity a man can get from a woman...children or not.

Peace..not Piece.


Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 11-3-2015 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Very interesting post you have made here...much of which I agree..



I actually find that mental skill is not just "natural" for everyone, neither men nor women. It must be developed.


Agree and I liken this difference to the understanding and or belief of what one considers important in reaching their goals in life. No everyone is even aware of the importance of many things or understandings/Knowledge in reaching their goals.


Are there some hard wired differences in the workings of the male and female brains which influence what we are perceiving here?


Agree here.


I don't perceive such a huge void in literary production, between the sexes. I do, however, see a cultural value which is higher upon masculine type of literature.


Agree..and I attribute this to RISKS and how RISK taking is handled...socially...or put another way... materialistically.



A difference we see often between the majority of males and females is focus upon object (for men) and focus upon relation (for women).


For me it is often object for men...problem solving...ie..running touchdowns...and women...feelings...in order to get someone else to take the RISK and solve the problem for them.

For many women ..it is just problem solving one step removed from RISK Taking. It is still problem solving. Feelings are a substitute in the step process for risk taking. They just get someone else to do it for them and at the same time...and often..no one sees what we do.

For as a rule...not all women mind you ..but many...problem solving involving RISK Taking ..can get them injured and lower their Beauty value..physical value or purchasing power in the marketplace against the competition.

This in addition to the hardwiring ..is why socially.. feelings are so important to many women..to protect the social purchasing power...of physical attributes...ie beauty. Lowering their risks..maintenance costs...by not having to take risks.



I perceive that the US culture devalues feminine type of thinking.


I don't think so. I believe that someone out here does not want many to know the full extent of feminine type thinking.

Ever watch a politician?? They can often take credit for what they have not done or RISKED in their speeches and place blame if it goes wrong. In a hidden and concealed manner...ie...no one sees what we do.

This is, in certain books, called Occult..hidden concealed. Not known by those it is going to affect. Getting others on the bandwagon as if it was their idea all along...by manipulating their feelings and emotions!!

Now observe carefully much of what has become of the feminist movements. Then take another close look at what passes for politics today....the blame game...and guilt manipulations...guilt politics. Feelings!!


I become very very cautious by training and conditioning ..to observe for someone trying to manipulate my feelings.


Agree with as to what you describe in Humility. We need more of it here in America. Too much self promotion and back slapping. Not enough humility. Particularly among leadership here...it is verily noticeable there and today.

This lack of Humility is also one reason among many for which I am not interested in what passes for sports today. I don't care to live my life on that treadmill. No thanks. I prefer to be Mused..not Amused.


The derogatory references to "gossip" and "romance novels" and "chick flicks" show were the void isn't.


I don't agree here. For I have noticed this trend in thinking not only in the Romance Novel Genre but among those highly addicted to television and movies. They have television and movie thoughts..television and movie emotions, Television and movie values. I can do the same thing with Romance Novels...many of which I consider soft porn..after reading a handful. Today one can say this about much of television programming as well...soft porn.

I look at a number of people I have known for whom you ask them a question which requires thought ..a moral or ethical question and they quickly reference a movie or television program they have watched.
You realize that they have few real life experiences or the thoughts which accompany them...but have instead substituted television, movie, and even book programming for independent thought.

What is really disturbing is when you realize these people are voters and at least half of them are raised on what?????

Feelings!!!!

And now that you are feminizing the males as well???? What is going to happen???

I am not against values and morals here...I just put a different perspective on it than that which is today so promoted.


Maternal type of leadership is devalued (don't need to illustrate that much- "nanny state" and "socialism" is all I need to say), paternalization is valued (the masculine type of education which works through opposition, challenging the individual to provoke him to "stand up", project himself, or toughen up). So you will see more male leaders, or females who have highly developed masculine skills.


I would agree here up to a point. You cannot get things done in a world where most are worried about "Feeliings" and the feminine. They quickly become competitors for "Feelings and sensitivities" not working in cooperation but how to get someone else to take the risks while they sit back and direct.

Feminism is also the basis for Occult power and control in this world. Hidden and concealed. Another word for this is absolute power..or feudalism..Royalty. Not known or seen by those it intends to control or manage.

It is the basis of todays pseudo excellence called PC or Political Correctness which is amounting to censorship/control and not liberty and freedom.



These kinds of contrasts really only became evident to me once I left the US. I bet some will call it rubbish and nonsense. That's fine. It is just my own personal view at this time.


No problem with you stating your views here. It needs to be added to this thread and I thank you for adding it.

I do not believe women in foreign nations view the world as do many American Women. I think that American women have had their views, thinking, and understanding of how things really are out here in this world tainted by our economic affluence. I don't believe this to be true of most foreign women. I believe many of them more practical than our women here in America. ...with one exception...English women.

If our economic affluence goes down the tubes..and I think it will...American women and men both are in for a rude awakening.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: orangetom1999
For me it is often object for men...problem solving...ie..running touchdowns...and women...feelings...in order to get someone else to take the RISK and solve the problem for them.


(I only took one sentence here to make clear what concept I am responding to, but I did read carefully all that you said, and I think I understood your point).

What I feel on this is two things:
One- you emphasize risk taking in material/physical ways, and radically downplay emotional risk taking.
Dependency upon another person is risk taking and I found it very scary. Terribly scary. When I met my husband, I had pretty much total confidence in my ability to live and get along fine physically without a man. I had been independent for a very long time, and didn't trust anyone as much as I trusted myself.
Being dependant on another is so scary that I don’t even know many men that dare try it.

The establishment of a state in which I became materially dependent upon my husband was HIS proposition and idea.
He asked me to come to his country with him, where we both knew I would be lost and rendered powerless for a while, not being able to speak the language. But he expressed a belief that we could handle this, make a new life together, and get me on my feet eventually, even with a period of him carrying me materially for a while.

It was very scary for me to consider this. When I finally did, I had to get rid of my job, apartment, my car, furniture, all my belongings, and kept only one suitcase of clothes- again, with no real idea of HOW we were going to do this. I had a crisis of tears the night before we left, really freaked out. It was a material AND emotional risk.

Two- Which brings me to the second point- why some men do this. It was not to get sex- he was getting that. It was not to make me happy- I didn't ask for this, I was happy with him as things were, with my material independence.

But he was a young man driven by a desire to "make something of himself". He thinks in terms of objectification, including himself. He wanted to be a "provider", a "family man", a strong man, and recognized by others in the world as such through his actions. I was simply the muse he chose to inspire and motivate when things were going to get challenging- which he knew they would, and he'd need something to focus on to help him get through.

I see this in young men often- a desire to become a man who faces risks and challenges and is victorious, and they choose a mate to help them in this endeavor of self creation. When things get rocky, and sometimes they blame that appointed muse, forgetting it was their choice of path in the first place!




This is, in certain books, called Occult..hidden concealed. Not known by those it is going to affect. Getting others on the bandwagon as if it was their idea all along...by manipulating their feelings and emotions!!

Ah, then I see this, and recognize it is within this context that you shall read what I have written. Nothing I can do about that then, even if I asked my husband to come here and bare witness to what I have said, you'd probably say he had been manipulated by me to believe it himself. All you can do is really look inside and see if, as a young man, you didn't have the urge to face challenges and test your strength and abilities in real life situations....




Now observe carefully much of what has become of the feminist movements.


I don't really know much of current feminist movements in the US, I was exposed to it in the '70's, but am not sure what is going on now... I will refrain from making comments based in ignorance!




..to observe for someone trying to manipulate my feelings.

I have started a thread on this subject, because the word manipulate means "to move". Now, that is not always negative, when you give someone a hug, or kind word, you manipulate their feelings. It is not always done in hidden ways.

The agreement with my husband was- he will face these challenges outside, and I will manipulate his feelings to give him the most confidence and strength possible! I had to do and say things to wipe out his fear, his discouragement, his moments of self doubt.
We established a relationship of interdependence, in which both took risks, materially, physically and emotionally. It was a lesson and exercise in development of trust and respect.

Even having kids- you say women avoid physical risk out of fear for their beauty? You seem to have forgotten the risks of childbearing, the pain, and the unavoidable damage it does to our body! If we are objects on the market to you, as you say, we fall into the damaged goods mark down bin after that, and we know it.

I want to attend to the rest of what you wrote, but I have to do it with another post, we’ve used our quota of words per post! ☺



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: orangetom1999


I look at a number of people I have known for whom you ask them a question which requires thought ..a moral or ethical question and they quickly reference a movie or television program they have watched.
You realize that they have few real life experiences or the thoughts which accompany them...but have instead substituted television, movie, and even book programming for independent thought.


This is what I referred to as the problem of devaluing social relations. Instead of interacting with other people, they sit in front of a movie or book about social relations.
It is safer, easier, and we are encouraged to do so by those who want to make money off of our natural social instincts.



And now that you are feminizing the males as well???? What is going to happen???

Well, LOL, I don’t think I’m doing anything to males…. But I see it that American culture has masculinized females- teaching them to think of themselves as objects, teaching them to be competitive and oppositional, teaching them that being aggressive is acceptable, being vulnerable is not, living social bonds, and determining ethic and moral through movies is acceptable, but doing so with each other is not. (that is the best way to make a good capitalist consumer and mindless citizen).


You cannot get things done in a world where most are worried about "Feeliings" and the feminine. They quickly become competitors for "Feelings and sensitivities" not working in cooperation but how to get someone else to take the risks while they sit back and direct.


I don’t agree. I have gained a different perspective in a country which highly values such feminine characteristics. Because part of that is a de-valuation of competition (back to the topic of humility and striving to be part of the masses, rather than rise above it).


Feminism is also the basis for Occult power and control in this world.


Feminism does not come into play in cultures who do not repress feminine characteristics. I noticed here, women don’t feel any need for it. Things become hidden or occult, when they are repressed. Taboo effect. The same reason America has the biggest taboo on sex, and yet simultaneously the biggest porn industry, and sexualize even breast feeding or nudity. Or another example- extreme religiosity creates extreme atheism. Activist atheists do not exist where there is no activist religiosity.



It is the basis of todays pseudo excellence called PC or Political Correctness which is amounting to censorship/control and not liberty and freedom.


Taking ethics and morals out of the social domain, and into the domain of official powers and laws, is what makes it control and censorship. When it remains in the hands of the people, the mothers of a society, it remains only peer pressure, which has a limiting effect on it’s power over the freedom of the individual. An individual can still choose to defy their communities morals, face their discontent, but not have any real punishment, such as fines or jail.



What is funny is that what I percieve here is that while the community establishes certain guidelines of what is acceptable or not (in non-official ways) they also have the clear understanding that stepping out of those lines is necessary at some point for a person to become an individual. So like, teens who trespass those lines are regarded with a warm sort of humor, going along with a grumble of “that wasn’t good”. A mixed message, but it seems to be understood between them- part of being an adult is knowing when the rules need to be broken. When it won’t hurt anyone, and when it will, that is true responsibility for oneself.

The exterior legitimate authorities taking all this out of the hands of the people and peer pressure, push the limits to be “sacred” almost, never to be transgressed, meaning you don’t get a chance to discern when they need to be broken.

Choice making is the most important part of intellectual development.

edit on 12-3-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I keep finding my mind turn back to this assertion of men taking risks while women avoid them, in order to stay physically marketable.

I think about every pregnancy I went through, and the women who were friends who died in childbirth (making me intensely aware of what I was risking).
While my poor husband was risking his life as a commercial artist, poor thing, at that risky desk where a pen could stab his hand at any moment,
or the husband of my friend that died in childbirth, just one month before my delivery- he was living a life of danger and risk, as a store manager. God knows, he could have had a box drop on his foot at any time.

I’m sorry, it doesn’t hold up for me. Not today. Maybe when men were going down into mines and stuff, but now? Not much.

______________________________________

But on another note, more directly on the OP, something I didn’t include yesterday-

I am distinctly aware that when women get intellectually challenging around men, it stimulates them. Start getting into a debate on a subject which stirs their neurons, it stirs nether parts as well.

Because of this, many women will refrain from doing so, especially in group settings, or public, or with men that are not single or familiar. I have a friend who is quite opinionated and educated, and we get along because we have active discussions and debates. But at parties, she always starts to do this with men, and it is seen as flirting. It makes wives and companions very uncomfortable.

Allowing myself to only expose a rather superficial image of myself is also a way of not giving off “available” sorts of vibes, that would be misleading.
This could be another cause of less visible intellectual force in women.

(just yesterday, when I challenged a man on some assertions he made about international affairs, he responded to another by claiming I have some sort of crush or attraction to him! "She stimulates my neurons" = "she wants me" for lots of men. I think a lot of us are aware of that potential misinterpretation...)

edit on 12-3-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

In summation, men think that when a woman talks to them, she's interested. That strikes me as the epitome of a patriarchally favored society.

The biggest problem I see with this, is women have become so inclined towards not trying to "stimulate neurons" that they've forgotten how to show a man their interested. The common culture of women *not* making the first move, even if she's interested, is one of the worst outcomes of a patriarchal society.

Maybe I'm just weird for being solely attracted to strong, vocal, assertive women.

edit on 12-3-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: orangetom1999

Great post! I freaking love that football analogy (or at least I think I do from the excessively little I know about football)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: Bluesma

In summation, men think that when a woman talks to them, she's interested. That strikes me as the epitome of a patriarchally favored society.

The biggest problem I see with this, is women have become so inclined towards not trying to "stimulate neurons" that they've forgotten how to show a man their interested. The common culture of women *not* making the first move, even if she's interested, is one of the worst outcomes of a patriarchal society.

Maybe I'm just weird for being solely attracted to strong, vocal, assertive women.


I kinda think most men like when women are strong vocal and assertive. Even when there is an initial reaction of feeling provoked negatively, they usually get rather turned on by that after a few minutes.

I always found the big problem with this is that if I am actually interested in a man, that assertiveness leaves me, and I can't think anymore. My body sort of tunes out my brain.
So the sad part of it all is- what many men find exciting and a sign that a woman is interested,
is often the complete opposite- a sign they aren't, and are gonna end up saying the dreaded words, "I just loove you....as a friend."



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Bluesma,


Thank you for your excellent post.


Dependency upon another person is risk taking and I found it very scary.


It is scary ..indeed. You are correct. However...the basic assumption/default setting here in America is that only the female risks so much. Not so.

What people are learning to do is justify their entitlement beliefs and victim status here in America. This has become a cottage industry here and sells a lot of television and movie time...also a lot of advertising time among downtrodden, brow beaten, victimized, burka wearing women..who have bought into the dogma.

It so seldom ever comes up that a man takes great RISK in the woman he chooses...or makes himself vulnerable.

As I have stated..his feelings don't count or matter..they are expendable and disposable. This is going to backfire down the road..big time in this country with professional victimizers now in public office exploiting the system for their cottage industries in feminism, racism, homosexuality and also now ..illegal alien status...unto legality. All of them exploiting the "Victim Dictum." for votes or political lucre...and let us also not forget on the public purse.



I had pretty much total confidence in my ability to live and get along fine physically without a man.


Nothing wrong with this Blues Ma..nothing .

However ..here is a thought for which so few women and men both fail to understand because no one promotes it in todays thinking so tainted by professional politicians, social engineers, and those cottage professional victimizers.


A woman who can take care of herself ..is also a woman who can come to a man for love only. The very thing so many women lament is missing from their lives. In particular American Women. But do they in fact do this ..come to a man for love only????

And they are trying to place blame for a man not committing???? Once you understand this about love only...as a man you will never be fooled by this merchandizing system again. It is in the deceitful business of selling peoples souls to a phony concept or ideology...dogma.

So too with a man...but with so much professional victimizers out her spreading the victim dogma in all corners...what area his chances of finding love..or only having to settle for sex??? How about finding Peace within that love framework???

If a man never knows this concept in thinking how would todays smart educated savvy woman ever know it in lieu of cheap materialism.

I read cosmo magazine .take the quizzes too...Southern Living ...redbook et al. Even occasionally a romance novel.



As to this....


Two- Which brings me to the second point- why some men do this. It was not to get sex- he was getting that.


Think through what I posted above about love only....

As to sex...that is the dumbest reason to get married...male or female.

Long ago in dating older women...I learned that there was no "Oil Shortage " going on out here. No commodity in short supply that you have to rush to the oil pump before the next idiot trying out to run a touchdown...for attention...ie..trying out for female attention.

I know women for whom taking off their clothes is the main tool in their tool box...outside of that they have few usable skills and mostly high maintenance costs.

No thinking man should ever have an "Oil Shortage" ....ever.

Older women understand competition far more acutely than most..as they are also fighting time...Pumkin time for many of them Cinderella. Talk about vulnerabilities. Many of these women will hunt you down..you have to do little hunting...and today .even the younger women will hunt you down.

The only question is ..what do they really offer in the marketplace against the competition..what real intrinsic value do they bring to the table. Particularly if they do not understand the concept of Peace verses Piece. That is the true nature of devaluing going on out here in a substitution scheme. Piece verses Peace.

How do I know this...because I know that a woman who can, in love, bring a man Peace in his life..can put a man on a drug for which he never wants to get off it. Children or not.

Is that what they teach men and women today or or do they teach devalument material education passing for excellence??

A television and movie education in false feelings.


I see this in young men often- a desire to become a man who faces risks and challenges and is victorious, and they choose a mate to help them in this endeavor of self creation. When things get rocky, and sometimes they blame that appointed muse, forgetting it was their choice of path in the first place!


Think this through..carefully..not just in good times but also in hard and bad times. What woman wants a man who is higher maintenance than she or her and children???? Or would she prefer a man who can take RISKS ..carefully calculated risks ...in hard times...as well as good times.
Most women I have ever known want a man who is already made..not one they have to help make. What does that teach us about the real intrinsic value of a man to many women??? Disposability and expendability????



Ah, then I see this, and recognize it is within this context that you shall read what I have written. Nothing I can do about that then, even if I asked my husband to come here and bare witness to what I have said, you'd probably say he had been manipulated by me to believe it himself. All you can do is really look inside and see if, as a young man, you didn't have the urge to face challenges and test your strength and abilities in real life situations....


Please stop....this is not worthy of your excellent post to date. I believe you can do much better than this type of insecurity.

You are talking to a man who is part of a crew which is specially trained to install nuclear fuel cells into reactors.
The women I have mostly seen over the years do not ask or factor in what risks I take when I am spending my monies on them. They do not ask how many "feelings" I have to suppress in order to accomplish these goals. How much "Instant Gratification " I must forego to get a cell prepared and then loaded. Understand now about RISKS????

The death occupations are even today in times of "equality" manned mostly by men...not women.

I hardly believe that todays women are arguing for that much equality.

When one knows this...it makes simple out of the standard default setting of women and childbirth. You realize that this is the very best that most women have in RISK.

I will tell you however..that I am very aware of history . Here in Virginia on the Eastern Seaboard...graves go back some 400 years..verses out in...let us say...California.

It is obvious looking at numerous gravestones...how many women in past years ...died along with their newborns. The gravestones do not lie. But still...men in those days died off much faster than most women..a higher rate...and at younger ages. This is hardly ever taught to either males or females today..while pushing victimization.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
continued...

More men ought to realize this but they are to busy thinking about running touchdowns to get it. They really can be dumb at times. By the way..men really do deceive themselves about a lot of things. Most have no idea how subtle some women can be. They often wont believe it even if it slaps them in the face. They are at fault for this ignorance.


I don't really know much of current feminist movements in the US, I was exposed to it in the '70's, but am not sure what is going on now... I will refrain from making comments based in ignorance!


They are decompensating ...but must needs be held up by politicians and also media shilling for politicians as they desperately need the women's vote. They have learned that if you stroke women's fears and insecurities...as a staple diet..you can predict how they are going to vote...and they are half the population. A guaranteed malleable, controllable voting block.

They are getting heavier into the blame game before the next election..and you can already see them posturing for it. More blame game, victimization, and emotional feelings to follow by the media shills...politicians, and the feminist groups. Very predictable...even wolfie. It backfired on them in the two year election as they played the "War On Women " card to many times and with predictability..they had to stop it or look incredibly silly. They got laughed out a couple of times using and misusing it..even by women. They finally got caught.

Now if people can only catch on to the rest of the professional victimizers and such predators. The cottage industries in this template.


Feminism does not come into play in cultures who do not repress feminine characteristics. I noticed here, women don’t feel any need for it. Things become hidden or occult, when they are repressed. Taboo effect. The same reason America has the biggest taboo on sex, and yet simultaneously the biggest porn industry, and sexualize even breast feeding or nudity. Or another example- extreme religiosity creates extreme atheism. Activist atheists do not exist where there is no activist religiosity.


I'm glad to hear this..it means that women there take more RISKs than do they here. They are more equal.

Things become more hidden and occult when it is necessary to make social changes which will not go well with the general populace but must needs be carried out for political expediency..profits...by unseen predators influencing leadership In nations.

I do not approve of a people anywhere who define themselves by their sexuality. I think it is stupid..incredibly dumb. I am not arguing here against sexuality...I am saying that people are so much more than sexuality...male and female both.

Again this is a view not heard in this country in lieu of more victimization...politics and social engineering.by default..without all the cards in the deck for people to examine or think about them.


I have started a thread on this subject, because the word manipulate means "to move". Now, that is not always negative, when you give someone a hug, or kind word, you manipulate their feelings. It is not always done in hidden ways.


Agree with you here. In like manner that RISK taking teaches one to move.


We established a relationship of interdependence, in which both took risks, materially, physically and emotionally. It was a lesson and exercise in development of trust and respect.


NO problem by me with this ..it is great that you do this. More people should so carry on.



Even having kids- you say women avoid physical risk out of fear for their beauty? You seem to have forgotten the risks of childbearing, the pain, and the unavoidable damage it does to our body! If we are objects on the market to you, as you say, we fall into the damaged goods mark down bin after that, and we know it.


Stop...stop again BluesMa...Stop. You mean this does not happen to men??? Their bodies and minds wearing out??? Unavoidable damage to men??? Spiritually as well as physically???

This is not worthy of you and your intellect. For it is obvious that you are a deep thinker and that is good. Otherwise I would not have spent so much time replying to you..but this of which you describe is not a one sex thing.

I'm going to give you the clincher here for men and women who can think outside of a television and movie education in "Feelings."

By custom..by social constructs....what is it a woman brings to a man which is protected or maintained in some form if she dies first??? After all..her body wears out so rapidly...she in love must be protecting something for her man if she dies first??? What security blanket does she provide for him if she goes first..after all..equality is taking place!!!

Don't worry ..this is way to deep for the touchdown running man. Way to deep for him.

Orangetom.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
BluesMa,

continuing,


This is what I referred to as the problem of devaluing social relations. Instead of interacting with other people, they sit in front of a movie or book about social relations.
It is safer, easier, and we are encouraged to do so by those who want to make money off of our natural social instincts.


Agree..making merchandizing of our vulnerabilities and leaving us in the dark about how it is often done...Occult ..hidden..concealed from those upon whom it preys.


But I see it that American culture has masculinized females- teaching them to think of themselves as objects, teaching them to be competitive and oppositional, teaching them that being aggressive is acceptable, being vulnerable is not, living social bonds, and determining ethic and moral through movies is acceptable, but doing so with each other is not. (that is the best way to make a good capitalist consumer and mindless citizen).


I don't have a problem with capitalism. I do have a problem with a system that tries to teach us that we are better people if we buy this product or not that one as if all this stuff makes us better people. It will not.

One of the biggest jokes to being a male to me is the shaving industry ..rife with planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is a index or fingerprint for which I often look.
Females are likewise bombarded with this planned obsolescence as well...perhaps more so as the female is the prime determiner of how the monies are spent in western civilization..not the male.

It appears to me that in the interest of merchandizing...the male/ female relationship is being made into planned obsolescence.

If you think this is bad or extreme..you might want to look into the fielf of "TransHumanism." Quite a shocker when you read the potential carefully and where some want to take this.

LOL LOL LOL..talk about merchandizing ..I will not be rushing out to watch this latest social engineering project called "Fifty Shades of Idiot."

Remember.."Oil Shortage" here.

I wont be rushing out to watch "American Sniper" as well to stimulate me to run touchdowns. Same with the Grey idiot movie.


Choice making is the most important part of intellectual development.


I think you mean "responsible " choice making here. Not choice making with the proviso that someone else is responsible for keeping the safety net moved so that we never have to hit the concrete if we fall. This is what government often tries to do ....get someone else..preferably a government to take the RISK out of life for us...at taxpayer expense of course.


I skipped over a lot of this stuff in the interest of brevity. I've gone on long enough already. But this caught my eye.




I kinda think most men like when women are strong vocal and assertive. Even when there is an initial reaction of feeling provoked negatively, they usually get rather turned on by that after a few minutes.

I always found the big problem with this is that if I am actually interested in a man, that assertiveness leaves me, and I can't think anymore. My body sort of tunes out my brain.
So the sad part of it all is- what many men find exciting and a sign that a woman is interested,
is often the complete opposite- a sign they aren't, and are gonna end up saying the dreaded words, "I just loove you....as a friend."


Vulnerability and rejection are deep emotion in both men and women...males and females.

Orangetom



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   


...the basic assumption/default setting here in America is that only the female risks so much. Not so.
It so seldom ever comes up that a man takes great RISK in the woman he chooses...or makes himself vulnerable.
As I have stated..his feelings don't count or matter..they are expendable and disposable.

I would agree, this aspect of male vulnerability is not emphasized in our culture at large.

But is that so much the fault of women, or of men who refuse to acknowledge it?
This goes right back to my observation of the “masculinized” values, in which being strong and independent is hyper valued, but vulnerability seen as a fault; something to be ashamed of. Men as well as women only wish to acknowledge that they are strong, that they are totally independent. Inter-dependance is not something to search for or acknowledge.

Men are just as responsible for that cultural taboo, and it creating occult forms of dependence- dependence upon products and media that spread unacknowledged.
“I don’t need anyone or anything! “ (sipping from that Starbucks cup, watching a tv series filled with relationships and challenges, or watching the news to find out what is happening in their own town.)




A woman who can take care of herself ..is also a woman who can come to a man for love only.
As to sex...that is the dumbest reason to get married...male or female.


Absolutely. I would like to refer you to another discussion I’ve had here with another poster (we’ve had a few, actually , always back to the same topic) with a young man who claims men only want sex from women (and everything they do is in that intent) and women only want money from men. Every time I ask, but what about love? Affection, motional security and support? He insists that not only women are incapable of that, but that men don’t need it or want it. (I think it is against the rules to refer to other threads though…). Young women hear this type of thing, and read those types of assertions from men their age. What are they supposed to infer from that? What will be their understanding of the average male? Is it the fault of feminists? (he is not a feminist, at all).




Older women understand competition far more acutely than most..as they are also fighting time...Pumkin time for many of them Cinderella. Talk about vulnerabilities. Many of these women will hunt you down..
The only question is ..what do they really offer in the marketplace against the competition..what real intrinsic value do they bring to the table. Piece verses Peace.

Part of the problem with women who develop more highly their masculine thought processes- objectification. I have no problem with men being object-oriented, but I consider the relation focused feminine aspect a needed counter balance. If both the men and the women become focused on themselves as objects, then who the hell is going to bring relation into it? How can she bring the softer aspect of vulnerability and interdependence if she has been groomed to believe that that is “bad”, and only bringing material input to the relationship is acceptable?




What woman wants a man who is higher maintenance than she or her and children???? Or would she prefer a man who can take RISKS ..carefully calculated risks ...in hard times...as well as good times.
Most women I have ever known want a man who is already made..not one they have to help make.

I agree with part of that.
It is true, many women want a courageous male who is willing to face life head on, but I percieve that they (we) want to play a part in that. We want to be their supporter, the one that builds up their confidence in the night with heartfelt discussions, and gives them emotional security. But how to do that when the man doesn’t reveal his points of insecurity, his fears, his weakness? When he refuses to open up on these?
Then you get a frustrated woman, who wants to do her part in the partnership, but is blocked from being able to- and ending up turning to provocation to get a man to break down and open up.
Obviously some men want a ready made woman as well, all matured and wise, ( with the body of a 23 yr old?)




Please stop....this is not worthy of your excellent post to date. I believe you can do much better than this type of insecurity.


I don’t see it as insecurity, and I find that patronizing. I have been very active in discussion over the years with many men, here, in real life, and on various other forums. There are some opinions views and perspectives that come out as more prevalent amongst American males than others. A common accusation I get is that my husband is probably a “white knight” that has been dominated and manipulated by me to stroke my ego in order to get a unlimited source of sex. This is so common that to pretend it isn’t a highly probable response would be outright irrational.



The women I have mostly seen over the years do not ask or factor in what risks I take when I am spending my monies on them.They do not ask how many "feelings" I have to suppress in order to accomplish these goals.


Do you consider that, in our individualist-ego oriented society, it is rather unacceptable to suggest to a man that he is vulnerable, that he might be frightened? I have changed since being in another culture, but I know when I was younger, I would understand such things, but would be careful not to say them outloud or ask about them. If I asked about such things, either a total denial would come back (ah, nah, I’m not afraid of anything, I am so skilled, I don’t need to be), a more violent denial (what do you think I am, a pussy???) or an uncomfortable subtle acknowledgement and sudden closing up (probably that is the last date- he doesn’t like that I know about this).




I hardly believe that todays women are arguing for that much equality.


Actually, I have seen many women, on this very site, who do, and hold such types of dangerous jobs. My husband spends his time taking clients out to fancy dinners, I have burns all up and down my hands and arms, and at this moment, a tendinitis in both arms from my work. My life may not be in direct danger, but my health surely is and a lot of pain is involved. In working with horses, danger is a constant and they know me well at the ER, and I’ve had a few surgeries because of it. But I’ll tell you this- this is exactly why I KNOW the reason men do such jobs, and why it has a certain pleasure to it. I don’t buy the whine about “I do this for her, and she doesn’t appreciate how much I suffer”. There are other jobs, you chose this, and there is something in it for you. Overcoming those challenges daily is a friggin’ high.




Stop...stop again BluesMa...Stop. You mean this does not happen to men??? Their bodies and minds wearing out??? Unavoidable damage to men??? Spiritually as well as physically??? This is not worthy of you and your intellect…. this of which you describe is not a one sex thing.



My point about childbirth was a counter argument to your claim that ONLY women refuse to take risks out fear of damaging their body, as a marketable object in the dating sphere.
I think this is false. I think both take risks, and accept the physical damage that will come of it.

(oh and I am not in need of patronizing)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
(Cont.)


More men ought to realize this but they are to busy thinking about running touchdowns to get it. They really can be dumb at times. By the way..men really do deceive themselves about a lot of things. Most have no idea how subtle some women can be.


I don’t feel so harshly against men. I think they have a natural drive to face challenges and risks, and experience their strengths and potential, and they look to women as some sort of inspiration/motivation for doing so. Unfortunately that also leads them to start seeing them as responsible for that choice as well.

Women do the same thing- they project a whole lot of expectations onto a male (either a mate, or father figure) and try to fulfill those…. And when the going gets hard, they also end up placing responsibility onto that male.

In many cases, neither the man or woman being blamed actually expected or desired the action or state of being in the first place! Or- they were just trying to support the other by being that “motivator” for what the person expressed they wanted to become.

This is a very common human thing that happens, both to men and women, and I don’t think it is stupidity, but simply… it is easy to get caught up in the roles we play in life, and forget that is what they are.




Now if people can only catch on to the rest of the professional victimizers and such predators.


Pfft….the victim game goes on in all circles, it seems to me. I am also active on AVFM (A Voice For Men) in which I support men, and yet even there, you get a lot of whining and incrimination of male victimization by women. It’s not a one way street. Extremes provoke extremes.




I'm glad to hear this..it means that women there take more RISKs than do they here. They are more equal.


I don’t know if they take more risks. But they don’t try to coddle mens egos by not openly acknowledging their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. They are more into a maternal type of power, which tries to help others see their points of weakness, and give them guidance, rather than stroke it, tell it is the “best in the world” and ignore the faults.
Personally, I still have trouble with this and find it a bit invasive- I prefer to keep the maternal support within close relations, whereas here a woman you don’t know will see it as her duty to stop you on the street, tell you that you are too fat, and give you an outlined diet and exercise regime- with full compassion, but firmness.




By custom..by social constructs....what is it a woman brings to a man which is protected or maintained in some form if she dies first??? After all..her body wears out so rapidly...she in love must be protecting something for her man if she dies first??? What security blanket does she provide for him if she goes first..after all..equality is taking place!!!


I am not sure to understand this- you mean, materially?
I don’t know many (any? I don’t think so, at this time) women that do not work outside the home. In the US, my female family members have insurance. But here, the focus on feminine has brought about a social security system which makes sure all citizens are supported no matter what happens to them. I think it is what would be described as a "nanny state". The need for one individual to provide material support for another is traded in for “we all need to support each other”. (that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms).
But yes, the system which places support of individuals under the responsibility of individuals is rather unfair… but it goes right along with the masculine individualism value system.

But there is other things women can offer in a relationship, and that would be missing if a man has his mate die. We have covered that. Emotional security and support. I understand that many young men will scoff at that as unimportant- I do not know your age, but I watch how my husband, at fifty, is suddenly finding that to be EXTREMELY important, and an essential element in his life. He could go on supporting himself materially if I passed today, but that would not be enough.




talk about merchandizing ..I will not be rushing out to watch this latest social engineering project called "Fifty Shades of Idiot."
I wont be rushing out to watch "American Sniper" as well to stimulate me to run touchdowns. Same with the Grey idiot movie.


I won’t see Shades- I read all three books, and heard the movie is terrible. I did watch American Sniper last week. I find these interesting to examine and know as cultural pulse points- what is attracting the attention of americans? What are the underlying themes and ideas rising out of them collectively?
My philosopher dad was an atheist, but always claimed that everyone should read the Bible at least once- simply because it is such a huge influence in our culture, that it is important to be familiar with for navigating modern life and comprehension of others and where they are coming from. I see this as similar.





I think you mean "responsible " choice making here. Not choice making with the proviso that someone else is responsible for keeping the safety net moved so that we never have to hit the concrete if we fall.


I think responsible choice making is learned, not a gift one either is born with or not. It take lots of experience and practice. (and it is in those practices that intellectual thought is developed- having to weigh things, consider many angles and probabilities, consider intents and goals…).

I am not sure where I stand on this, as far as having a safety net. My husband and I still sort of disagree and debate it often, and it became a big issue when our kids were still at home. I take a hardline, as most americans.

My husband had the view that, if one mistake or bad choice in life means game over, than there is no ability for them to learn and make better choices later. There should be a minimum of security, so that they can get back up and try again.

But the results might vary according to the individuals and the values they were brought up with.
Context is very important in such questions.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   
(Yeah, I'm bored and enjoying the mental stimulation,
)

Men and women blame each other for their own fears, weaknesses, and faults all the time, everywhere!!!)

What you are expressing here is completely reversed in the culture I find myself in-
I get so fed up with hearing men complain that they want to do more in life, have adventures, take risks, but they can't because their wife won't let them!

We're going to visit a couple of friends in a couple of weeks, who, alone tell us this story of how their relationship is on the rocks because the other is so fearful. The guy drones on to my husband about him wanting to pack up and head off to another country to live, or even visit...or set off on some financially risky investment- but she won't agree to it. She is too scared of taking risks.

Then she goes on with me with the EXACT same story, of how she wants them to do these things, but he is too afraid!

Get them together, it becomes clear- they are together because they share this internal conflict between desire for adventure, challenge and risk, and a huge fear of it. So they can project the "fear" thing onto the other, identifying with the more admirable trait of courage.

Humans, regardless of gender, are often prone to this sort of behavior in relationships. I don't accept the one sided accusations.

-I'll admit to having moments where I was crying and injured and wanted to blame my husband for having surprised me with my first horse as a gift, or placing pressure on me to keep the job at first.... but it took only a moment to remind myself that he was only trying to help me fulfill MY dreams and choices. I CHOSE them, for a reason, and I am not doing any of it FOR him- no more than he has done any of his risk taking FOR me. We just try to support each other in facing our own personal limitations to realizing our desires.

Did you choose your risky job for the women you date? To pay for them, to impress them? Or for your self?
edit on 13-3-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
As a woman I find the problem to be that it is still socially unaccepted in many circles. I get shut down a lot or people will make the assumption that I am parenting my spouse because everyone sees him as the "professional intellectual," I tend to over use the word totally, and thing that "like OMG" is a completely acceptable way to finish a sentence and Dude, like totally... like you know!

The truth though is that in all my previous relationships I was the intellectual and longed for stimulating conversation. I was so excited when I got together with my husband and could actually discuss things like the Bildeburgs or the Rothchilds and the role of thermite in 911.

I am the first one to admit that my views on just about everything are constantly growing, changing and expanding as I learn new information and learn to let important but corrupted or unreliable beliefs go.


Remember it used to be leagly for women to write or even act in a play. Men had to dress for the role of a woman. Even as things changed and it was allowed, woman had to keep to specific genres like fluff or how to be a good wife manuals. Writing anything of intellectual subsistence would have caused a scandal.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Funny how if you interchanged the word "woman" with the word "black" this thread would disappear so fast. I guess its ok to challenge the intellect of a woman but not a person of color, I guess this thread is sexist since the other would be racist? we are not allowed to ask questions any longer.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join