Dan Rowden wrote:Yeah, I knew you were going there, and it's wrong to do so. Tell me, are soldiers inherently more psychologically violent because they're the ones whose duty it is to enact violence on everyone else's behalf?
I must say that I find this in particular to be of interest.
The idea of "woman" is largely about things that are the bad stereotypes about females.
Violence and aggression are very much stereotypically male behavior.
So I wonder, if the idea of feminine is derived from biological females and masculine from biological males, then why is violence being included in the feminine category? It seems that "woman" is nothing more than a scapegoat and effigy for all that is bad.
Dennis Mahar wrote:dependent arising
What does that mean?
Last edited by Orenholt on Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Actually, you'd probably collapse in an emotional heap and do nothing. Or, shoot randomly in an hysterical state and kill the woman too. This is what most people, make or female, would tend to do in such a circumstance. But your violent reaction to violence is instructive.
Dan Rowden wrote:Actually, you'd probably collapse in an emotional heap and do nothing. Or, shoot randomly in an hysterical state and kill the woman too. This is what most people, make or female, would tend to do in such a circumstance. But your violent reaction to violence is instructive.
I think intension is everything.
If using force is what it takes to prevent a ,tragedy then it is the right thing to do.
To do nothing would be more violent.
Your violent reaction, (wanting to rip this to shreads...lol) is instructive also Dan .
Kunga wrote:Why do they have men in the infantry instead of women ????
Haha. Why are women all over the world pushing to be in that job and why is the vast majority of the feminist movement behind them?
Probebly has more to do with money, than anything else. Also there are a lot of masculine females that want equal rights. I am equally masculine and female (i think so anyways). I don't feel a need to be equal . I never felt unequal.
Violence has its uses. If one were to be attacked by a wild animal, or an unreasonable person, violence may be the adequate response for protection.
It is only when sentiment is involved does violence get out of hand. And, well, sentiment is a primarily feminine attribute, as women tend to respond emotionally in almost everything they do. In contrast, while men too are driven by sentiment in much of their lives, they are still remarkably more abled at logic and reason when the situation calls for it. Not many of them ever fathom the benefits of becoming fully logical, and that's why they continue to use violence in unproductive ways.
Dan Rowden wrote:Actually, you'd probably collapse in an emotional heap and do nothing. Or, shoot randomly in an hysterical state and kill the woman too. This is what most people, make or female, would tend to do in such a circumstance. But your violent reaction to violence is instructive.
I think intension is everything.
Yeah, so your intention is right while everyone else's is wrong. See where this is going?
If using force is what it takes to prevent a ,tragedy then it is the right thing to do. To do nothing would be more violent.
See where this is going?
Your violent reaction, (wanting to rip this to shreads...lol) is instructive also Dan .
I'm sorry, that was a bit petty on my part. I was attempting to have fun at your expense and you walked right into it. The fact that you did so it what's instructive.
Dan Rowden wrote:
Haha. Why are women all over the world pushing to be in that job and why is the vast majority of the feminist movement behind them?
Should women not have an equal opportunity to waste their lives for politician's financial gain?
Russell wrote:
Violence has its uses. If one were to be attacked by a wild animal, or an unreasonable person, violence may be the adequate response for protection.
It is only when sentiment is involved does violence get out of hand. And, well, sentiment is a primarily feminine attribute, as women tend to respond emotionally in almost everything they do. In contrast, while men too are driven by sentiment in much of their lives, they are still remarkably more abled at logic and reason when the situation calls for it. Not many of them ever fathom the benefits of becoming fully logical, and that's why they continue to use violence in unproductive ways.
Why is self defense ok but defense of one's offspring/friends/loved ones not acceptable?
Dan Rowden wrote:
Haha. Why are women all over the world pushing to be in that job and why is the vast majority of the feminist movement behind them?
Should women not have an equal opportunity to waste their lives for politician's financial gain?
In the current paradigm, yes, they should, but I'd rather they didn't. Or, to be more accurate, I'd rather they chose not to and saw through the bullshit that leads people to do so.
When all things are seen as being empty, one can form no dispositions about them
and will cause neither passionate attractions nor aversions to come into
play. This will prevent grasping.
cease grasping and being disposed prejudicially ceases
Pincho Paxton wrote:This thread is growing faster than a thread by a man.
That's one Paradox of the thread itself.
If you can figure out the Growing Universe Pincho.....you should be able to figure this growing little thread :)
(holes & fillers)
A paradox doesn't mean that you can't understand something. A paradox means in this case that to discuss why posts by a woman end up with different comments than a thread by a man. If that thread grows faster than a thread by a man it is paradoxically showing that the thread was answering itself.
I could be wrong, I could be projecting, by I think Sue meant to abandon your self-history (take off your dress) as a way to overcome your ego. You still remember it and operate from it for practical matters, but for your spiritual progress try to get outside of it. You're so much more! And you have everything it takes to realize and actualize this (all you need is blood and guts (character, namely courage)). So keep thinking! ... If you can. :)
Getoriks correctly describes the ego as loving to dress up. But the funny thing is that the more the ego drapes itself, the more obvious it becomes. Showing up clearly that most people are ‘so much less’.
sue hindmarsh wrote:Getoriks correctly describes the ego as loving to dress up. But the funny thing is that the more the ego drapes itself, the more obvious it becomes.
I'm not attempting to hide the fact that I have an ego. I merely try to make my ego work for a greater good.
sue hindmarsh wrote:Showing up clearly that most people are ‘so much less’.
That's good. Now that you've got out of your own way we could discuss some of the issues you have with women being described as 'Woman'. Where do you want to start?
sue hindmarsh wrote:That's good. Now that you've got out of your own way we could discuss some of the issues you have with women being described as 'Woman'. Where do you want to start?
I don't mind some women being called unconscious, because some in fact are, but to make the word "woman" itself which already encompasses a certain group of people synonymous with unconsciousness when it doesn't apply to everyone within that group and actually applies to some people outside of the group is inaccurate.
Edit:
I don't mean to detract from the conversation and I don't think it REALLY matters but I would like you to be straight forward and tell me if that was meant to be an insult or not because I suspected that it was (and to be honest with you I was of the verge of feeling slightly insulted) even though I didn't know for sure.
As for the thread itself, I think Kunga singlehandedly proves each word of Quinn's essay to be very realistic, nearly with every of her posts, no matter how well intended at times.
Orenholt, the point is to stop trying to defend some offended "womanhood" because it doesn't make sense considering the back story you supplied like "completely divorcing myself from the concept of the male female dichotomy". And then you come on a philosophy forum having an issue with an article "vilifying all women" and suggesting the author might have "mommy issues". If you really want to break free from male-female dichotomy you should not see yourself as part of the "women" at all, or men. It just doesn't add up, do you even know what you want?
The problem with the males is that they created the division by loading all kinds of qualities on an ideal called "Woman". In a way a man created sexes on top of genders. There's no fix to this apart from attacking this ideal, this set of emotions and this ego game as direct as possible. And by the way, your obsession with "insult" shows you haven't even started to look into the Woman issue yet. You start sounding more like a man with woman issues than a woman with man issues....
Diebert asks you, “do you even know what you want?”
That’s a good question, for you show no interest in understanding your own mind enough to come to a consistent position.
You wrote in your first post on this thread that you hoped outing yourself as being female “doesn't taint your view of me as thinking something negative about me or not taking me seriously”. You shouldn’t be concerned about being female tainting you, for it’s your mind that is doing the tainting.
Look, if you are truly concerned about being mistaken as a female of the ‘unconscious’ type, do your best to make all females conscious – then you’ll not have to go about apologizing to all and sundry.
