The difference between men and women

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: SprocketUK

Most women share an understanding of things like periods, pregnancy and just dealing with us chaps which leads to a kind of universal empathy.

Most men share an understanding of loving sports, peeing standing up and shaving our faces.
Sure a alot of women can do all those things too so probably bad examples.

But the point stands, women are just as screwed up as guys. Any attempt to raise one over the other is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in equality.

But if you want to think of yourself as a parasite leaching on the almighty woman go ahead.

Hey, it wasn't a dig.

I just wondered about the fact there seems to be (to me) a sort of universal sisterhood but no corresponding brotherhood. Peeing standing up is no chore, after all and shaving is a cultural thing.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Didn't take it as a dig.

I think there is a universal brotherhood. How many women can understand the friendship gained after a solid punch up.

There's plenty of things that men go through that women can't understand, just like there's plenty that women go through that men can't understand.

There's infinitely more that we do exactly the same however.

a reply to: SprocketUK

What I said was the spiritual difference.

Force/energy is the Spirit. (Holy Ghost/Will/Energy/Force)
Measurement/Quantization is the Head. (Father/Head/Conqueror)
Form/Physicality is the Body. (Son/Body/Submissive)

In physics, measurement causes / determines "collapse" of fields thereby producing form.

Quantization of fields produces quanta.

The soul/head measures out will/spirit into form. (Measuring out the spirit into the body.)

The female form doesn't show up until the division or opening up of form/body.

If anything is female in terms of physics, it is the physical body and not the spiritual body / fields.

When thinking female, think opening, like the egg opens to the sperm.

The opening up or division in form is the female archetype.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: SprocketUK

Didn't take it as a dig.

I think there is a universal brotherhood. How many women can understand the friendship gained after a solid punch up.

There's plenty of things that men go through that women can't understand, just like there's plenty that women go through that men can't understand.

There's infinitely more that we do exactly the same however.

Good point. But we have to have that punch up, don't we?
Women, no matter how disconnected by geography or other stuff, get the shared experience of just being.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it all

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: SprocketUK

What I said was the spiritual difference.

Force/energy is the Spirit. (Holy Ghost/Will/Energy/Force)
Measurement/Quantization is the Head. (Father/Head/Conqueror)
Form/Physicality is the Body. (Son/Body/Submissive)

In physics, measurement causes / determines "collapse" of fields thereby producing form.

Quantization of fields produces quanta.

The soul/head measures out will/spirit into form. (Measuring out the spirit into the body.)

The female form doesn't show up until the division or opening up of form/body.

If anything is female in terms of physics, it is the physical body and not the spiritual body / fields.

When thinking female, think opening, like the egg opens to the sperm.

The opening up or division in form is the female archetype.

If I get you right, female is acceptance, receptivity?

a reply to: SprocketUK

The end of its spectrum I would consider to be a desire to be conquered. So not just acceptance, but a yearning, just like a male will yearn to be within the body.

You yearn to put your seed into the body and it yearns to receive it.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Good point. But we have to have that punch up, don't we?
Women, no matter how disconnected by geography or other stuff, get the shared experience of just being.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it all

Just gotta wait for the female response I guess, it just conflicts with everything any woman has ever told me.

I'm sure we'll find out we're both wrong.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Good point. But we have to have that punch up, don't we?
Women, no matter how disconnected by geography or other stuff, get the shared experience of just being.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it all

Just gotta wait for the female response I guess, it just conflicts with everything any woman has ever told me.

I'm sure we'll find out we're both wrong.

Now that is a shared male experience if ever there was one.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: SprocketUK

The end of its spectrum I would consider to be a desire to be conquered. So not just acceptance, but a yearning, just like a male will yearn to be within the body.

You yearn to put your seed into the body and it yearns to receive it.

Again though, that's the relationship between us isn't it?

a reply to: SprocketUK

While everything you say about sisterhood is correct, I think you are missing a whole lot from menfolk.

While men (in general) may lack in the divine feminine department, many men tap into a stoic masculinity that I've been seeing more and more lately. These men seem to get along with women much better, as a whole, and showcase a more intense masculinity than what we normally consider "manly"... almost like a strong, deep undercurrent of raw strength. They are the ones who speak out against injustice and will read a book or two on how to treat their partners and fellow humans. In short, these are the men I see enjoying a brotherhood with one another, gladly sharing their deepest feelings with those who will listen.

As far as men being a type of "mayfly" existing off of women, I think that might be the case for the majority of men out there, playing an auxiliary role in spite of holding most of the power. But I think that's changing. Ironically, the more women rise in equality, the more men rise to meet them and find their own strength in the process. Instead of an auxiliary relationship, we are entering into a truly equal symbiosis.

a reply to: Abysha

Now that's a hopeful looking vision.

I even get the idea of feeling closer through equality there.



ETA if you could expand on your thoughts regarding the divinity of the feminine, that would be cool.

From my own point of view I always feel like an orc among elves

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Abysha

Now that's a hopeful looking vision.

I even get the idea of feeling closer through equality there.



ETA if you could expand on your thoughts regarding the divinity of the feminine, that would be cool.

From my own point of view I always feel like an orc among elves

The divinity of the feminine is just the counterpart of the masculine divine. There is divinity throughout the gender spectrum (nature being universally pulled from both ends of it) but being disenfranchised because of your own gender identity will make a person tap into it more readily thus the ubiquitous "divine feminine". People forget that men are also victimized by the patriarchy, even those who help perpetuate it.

My thoughts on the divinity on that spectrum is a bit unorthodox as I was socialized a bit differently as a child than how I identify as an adult. To me, tapping into the divine was a survival mechanism for decades. I know there are other women on ATS who could answer that better than I can.


And as far as feeling like an "orc among elves"? Some men are orcs but some men are those super hot centaurs saying "hop on loser, we're going to crush the patriarchy after sexy time is over". Be the centaur.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Us who?

Men and women?

Yes and no. You still need to provide money, humor, bravery (all the things a good conquer brings to the relationship), otherwise, she may play more into the male end of the spectrum towards you.

Think about it like the color wheel, how green and yellow are definitely there, but you cannot tell where yellow ends and green begins.

That is, similar to how green and yellow fall within the spectrum of color, male and female fall within the spectrum (will/spirit) of sex, so while their spirit / will / forces are dialed into male/female, they can still will any behavior within the spectrum.

The spirit (the everlasting God) is infinite and so it is conceived as a spectra or sets within sets (set theory).

Edit: I guess it depends on whether it is just or not per occasion. We definite don't want a man to conquer all women just as we don't want a woman to submit to all men.

Human beings still do not understand themselves.

We are complex dynamical systems made up of 75 trillion cells. These cells create a body with around 10 octillion atoms (1 with 28 zeros) which somehow integrate each of their processes into one giant, mammoth physical system.

People like to believe fairy tales about how they work, but science shows that we generated and controlled by non-linear feedback processes - a system within a system within a system.

By way of example: every cell has a mitochondria - an organelle - which in itself constitutes a system. However, in organic evolution, the mitochondria - once a bacterial cell - co-evolved with a larger cell which swallowed it up - an archea. By doing so, the genes (nucleic acids) within the early bacteria cell "migrated" to the nucleus of the parent archea cell which absorbed it. In this way, the two systems remained two systems (the organelle of the mitochondria still being enclosed by a membrane) yet had become dynamically integrated and complementary in their functions to become one intgrative system - the cell.

Thus, there are "emergent" layers of complex self-organization which "fit" within each aspect of the body's system. Mitchondria in cell, cells in tissues, tissues in organs, organs in organisms. The parts which emerge constitute a logical self-regulating whole - and you cannot eliminate one element without jeopardizing the whole structure.

Humans are basically the same thing. We just don't realize that the largest system which determines our relations is our own reflexive responsivity to one another's relational language. Were basically "entrained" to a very sub-optimal attractor which produces strong dissociations - largely between the male and female.

George Lakoff rightly sees the "nurturing" personality as being opposed to the "authoritarian" personality. Yet Lakoff doesn't emphasize how interpersonal trauma underlies the "emergence" of the latter, whereas therapeutic healing, mediated by intersubjective "objectification" of subjective experience, allows greater depth of knowing by permitting GREATER FLOW OF FEELING KNOWN.

We are living at the very end of the dark ages. The male has gotten power - and the authoritarianism of the male, at root, is a function of an intense difficulty in processing interpersonal processes of non-recognition i.e. to recognize feelings of shame, and to recognize what shame means i.e. it indicates a fundamental need.

The authoritarian culture is based upon a "virtual double" of what is actually happening in matter (read, the "mother"). Matter flows symmetrically, thus, in producing creatures of the same species, it has done so by generating a self-other equivalence between human agents: we are one being, held together by empathy and affect; yet, if interpersonal trauma occurs, the amygdala screens out unwanted information, and replaces it with an "idealized double". Since affect is a communicative vehicle - if you don't feel connected to the other (because the other is being reflexively processed as 'other') its s if you and the other were two alien creatures: you see him, but experience him as an object - instead of the subject that he or she actually is.

We now live in a world controlled by the ultimate purveyor of false realities: Donald Trump. Everything I have thus far written applies to him more than anyone else. He hates weakness, denies weakness, denies mistakes, denies anything that could imperil the image he seeks to control: he is all about 'perception', not reality. His thoughts - so far as he thinks - are "his", and not simply events happening in a screwy little brain that grew up around psychopaths.

a reply to: Astrocyte
"Thus, there are "emergent" layers of complex self-organization which "fit" within each aspect of the body's system. Mitchondria in cell, cells in tissues, tissues in organs, organs in organisms. The parts which emerge constitute a logical self-regulating whole - and you cannot eliminate one element without jeopardizing the whole structure."

I have already told you about this. Emergent properties, in the way that science views them, is 100% wrong. "Emergence" can only be from what is already there - it cannot come from nothing or nowhere or arrange itself in ways that weren't already available. That is, the order for what comes out from something is already contained within the thing it comes out of.

Your gods of randomness and chaos are make believe. Go look and see if there is true randomness or true random number generators.

a reply to: Abysha

I meant or cush in a spiritual sense but I take your point

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I like the colour wheel analogy.

a reply to: Astrocyte

And I thought Krebb's cycle was all that mattered

Oh hell everyone knows there is a vas deferens between men and women.

(look it up)

I wonder if there was a shift sometime in ancient history from largely matriarchal organizational rule?
Perhaps back before the time of the Sphinx when men were driven by their hunter gatherer instinct.
What does that mean for modern society.
If we had run a herd of Centaur back and forth on the roof of the World Trade Center towers would it have been a good substitute for a mechanical inertial damping system?

originally posted by: jtma508
Oh hell everyone knows there is a vas deferens between men and women.

(look it up)

That was a crime against comedy.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
I wonder if there was a shift sometime in ancient history from largely matriarchal organizational rule?
Perhaps back before the time of the Sphinx when men were driven by their hunter gatherer instinct.
What does that mean for modern society.
If we had run a herd of Centaur back and forth on the roof of the World Trade Center towers would it have been a good substitute for a mechanical inertial damping system?

I did read that the start of farming was the shift.