The difference between men and women

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Iforgot

When I said you are to be the conqueror, I meant that wholly: You are the conqueror period. It is your job to be her helper as a conqueror and it is her job to be your helper as the body.

That is pretty creepy dude. You are looking at women like objects you can conqueror, you are looking at a human as "property" and thats pretty unhealthy.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Iforgot

...

p.s. I meant the post for you, not her. I wanted you to answer the questions to yourself so you would actually look in your heart. (It was man to man, and not about her, and for no one but yourself to know the answers to.) Go meditate on it. (contemplate) And finally, if you said your initial comment just to bolster her ego, you should check that nonsense and build her up properly. Besides, I'm pretty sure I never even said weak to begin with, but if I did, I meant physically not as strong or big / less rugged / fairer, as woman are often called.

"Weak men look for weak women"

Emphasis mine.

Since the edit, I'll add: You want to discuss gender and refuse to listen to a woman?. If you fail to see the issue here, I hope others do.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Maybe I have you wrong, this sounded to me like the same whiny ass MRA crap that I have seen in far too many posts.
My wife is not submissive and either am I. I'm sorry that you can't understand that there is actually a way to make that work. Perhaps whatever culture you were raised in has some other mitigating factors to counter the abuse potential that I see in the framework that you propose.
I have a coworker that lives in a marriage like what you describe. She tries to raise issues in a calm respectful manner and he doesn't listen. She works 20 hours a week and is responsible for all the housework of 5 people. He comes home after work, puts his feet up, and relaxes. She is frustrated because her personal and religious beliefs tell her he is the head of the house. She is out of options and miserable. This is an example of the one sided relationship that is all too easy in your paradigm. It is, in my opinion, severely broken.
He needs a reality check but won't get it! By not hearing her respectful cries, he gets to do what makes him happy, at her expense, and never even recognize the damage he is doing.

Just an example of my experience. My marriage is healthier than that because we are not submissive.

As for your comment about the "man to man" discussion: I don't know what you think happened. That post was all me buddy (including the mis-spellings that she pointed out after I posted it).

Our marriage is one of mutual respect, not dominance/submission. This can be done. It's not easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. I'm sorry if this clashes with your nice, tidy "universal truth" theory.

I understand what you are saying. I disagree with your view. You are not changing my mind, not because I don't understand your point, but because I Disagree With You.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

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.

Do you often rush into interpretations? First, to say "you already told me this" is not a useful, helpful, or very self-aware way of communicating with other people. Think what it implies: you know something "more" and in a "better way" than I know.

Are you even talking to me, or responding from a conversation or position you had with someone else? Do you know the difference between efficient and ultimate causation? Google the difference if you do not know it: try to speak with respect towards others - which is to say - try and control your negative affects, because they're communicated and known to the reader - even through a medium like language, the words and forms of expression we use tell us what we think about the other party - and simply reading your posts, I sense a lot of aggression and incredible self-surety, but without, unfortunately, much internal coherency to your argument.

All we have to make sense of one another - and make sense, and thus, establish coherency in our social relations - is attunement, humility, and self-control. I know when I'm using it, and I know when others are or aren't using it. Even people who claim to be "spiritual" so often seem motivated in ways that derive from negative experiences they've had-with-others, yet, for whatever deep seated insecurity, frustration or anciety, they overlook the nature of their motivation - the miniature injustice - because THEIR NEED to experience themselves as strong supercedes their concern for fair, rational and incisive conversation.

Let me explain something Bleeep. You don't need to be threatened by the concept of emergence - because it only represents a consequence of a process. You seem to think that emergence means 'atheism', or denies a God. No. Yuo need to understand that we live in a world of PROCESS, and so this is a whiteheadian idea - Emergence: it means that atoms are emergent properties of quantum dynamics; molecules emergent on atomic relations.

Everything, ultimately, is positive vs. negative. Charge at the electro-magnetic level coordinates events at the atomic, molecular and cellular. With the emergence of animals, we are still talking about emergence. emergence is an undeniable truth - to which only misunderstanding of the concept would prompt denial.

Emergence is perfectly compatible with panentheism - my own view that God IS the world, as well as beyond the world. The infinite within the finite. Time and Space "creaitng" and imposing order on the organization of matter. Time = emergence, which = a search for coherency.

Try reading my posts before you jump the gun and start saying "your gods of randomness and chaos are make believe", when I don't even believe such a thing (although other people do). I am complex mind - and I see no contradiction between a diachronic EMERGENCE and a synchronic EMERGENCE. Mind emerges in evolutionary processes, yet strangely seems able to determine the structure and behavior of those processes when mind functions within natures (matters) determined boundaries.

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

originally posted by: PBL666
That is pretty creepy dude. You are looking at women like objects you can conqueror, you are looking at a human as "property" and thats pretty unhealthy.

By objects you mean inanimate objects? No, women are not inanimate objects. Are humans property? Yes, I think so. And I think everyone basically agrees because of the rights we all demand over our own bodies and the rights of our spouses body's upon injury or death and the rights over our children, etc. and so forth. More, if you're going to be a progressive women's lib advocate, you should know that women claim their bodies' as their own property, and that is, for the most part, what their causes are based on.

What I mean by conquer is to successfully seize control of something, not by destroying it, but by bringing it under control by submission.

She must submit, or you haven't conquered.

And that's the part you're overlooking: submission.

By submission, I'm not talking about clubbing someone over the head - that's not submission, that's abuse.

What I'm talking about takes both halves, the conqueror and the submissive, so think about it like subduing their heart and mind, like a male bird doing a mating dance, and if he is successful, she submits.

I mean, what you're talking about doesn't even exist, I don't think. You can't just go in by force and conquer their body, if you try, they will never submit - their heart will always be against you.

originally posted by: PBL666
Since the edit, I'll add: You want to discuss gender and refuse to listen to a woman?. If you fail to see the issue here, I hope others do.

I listen to women. If anyone, it's the progressive libs who aren't listening. All you guys see is the propaganda you've been fed.

With that said, what you're referring to, I think, is a bit of post that was a response to iforgot in regards to him thinking that I was speaking to his wife, when I was actually speaking to him about her. It is similar to how she spoke about me to someone else: she wasn't addressing me when she spoke about me to someone else just as I wasn't speaking to her when I spoke about her to her husband. So, yeah, you are just confused about some confusion he was having; I will speak to whomever, regardless of gender.

You should go back and read my posts in this thread and try to actually understand what I'm saying instead of just assuming what you're programmed to think. Go read up on women's lib and find out what got them out of the house and into the work place. Find out where all this nonsense is coming from. Start with Torches of Freedom and maybe you'll soon see that most of woman's lib is just a means of using them to further state and corporate control.

a reply to: Iforgot

You have me wrong because you don't know what you're talking about. As I keep saying, there are no two ways about it - there's just not: where there are two heads, there is conflict, and someone will have to submit. Period. When submission occurs, you call it compromise, and that's fine if you need to dress it up, but it is submission, and it is there. So, why not just have a head and body as it naturally occurs?

You keep saying abuse will arise, but it doesn't have to, not if you love each other like you're supposed to. But no, that's not what marriage is for, is it? It's not about love and raising children, its about you getting what you can get out of the relationship. That's why you need two heads - so you make sure you get yours.

It's so ridiculous.

a reply to: Astrocyte

My post to you was turnabout for a post you made to me that is practically the same as this one I am replying to now.

No I am not insecure in my beliefs. I am trying to warn you against yours because I see you keep making the same errors - that's all - trying to steer you away from emergence, randomness, chaos, and nothing / nowhere. (Speaking on your view of chaos theory and the like.)

Your theories demand the cart comes before the horse, but you cannot have order in that way. Order must precede event. You cannot have event / order out of chaos or true randomness / true indeterminable order as chaos and "emergence" demands.

What you're looking at is not emergence from true indeterminable order / chaos, but free will.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Wow, there are a lot of assumptions you are making there about me. I can read and comprehend what you have posted, and I really think this pathological desire to make women submit speaks volumes about your own identity.

Are humans property? Yes, I think so.

You think humans are property? Or just women? Or is it all minorities?. Please do clarify.

I listen to women. If anyone, it's the progressive libs who aren't listening. All you guys see is the propaganda you've been fed.

You clearly dont listen to women, as you have demonstrated with your archaic views on women being property. Then to politicize it by saying on side of the political spectrum doesnt listen to women, when clearly the other side of the political spectrum trying to limit womens rights such as access to safe abortions.

And that's the part you're overlooking: submission.

I'm not at all overlooking submission, I am addressing it. Women dont have to be submissive, and you thinking that we all must is creepy.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: SprocketUK

You like a women who is more your equal?

1 prefers that balance of yin/yan energy. No conquer or submit just balance between my masculine and her feminine...

this I like a reflection of , a woman who mirrors me and is the opposite of me , not me but apart of me , a duality like the photon , we are together both particle and wave
my partner is darker than me , she says I am the light side and she the dark side! and we balance each other perfectly

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Ok, now I don't understand you.

That's why you need two heads- so you can make sure you get yours

Sometimes I win. Sometimes she wins. Most times we meet in the middle. Compromise is about being fair to all parties. Respect both ways. I get my way less this way than if we're the "head" the " conqueror".

You have your view, I have mine. We will never agree. We both have that right.

This conversation, I believe, has reached the point that it is no longer an exchange of ideas, and just about you winning.

a reply to: Iforgot

because he claims to be a conqueror but he is not , thats his ego !

if you just tell it to shut up for a minute and you can think clearly
you dont have to dominate everything , thats just primal fear
be a part of the world around you dont dominate it , live in it
be it

once you realise you arent standing in the river but are a part of it then you dont need to control it