GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly:
Any top performer in any discipline, has the advantage of understanding. The principle underlying all the apparently "fragmented" information is very obvious to me. There is a clear difference in mental skills between men and women, where all males generally average out to be more skilled at logical thought. And the most logical are male. This has very significant and valuable repercussions for wisdom, namely, that the masculine mind has a greater potential for truth-consciousness.

Carmel:
Wisdom is comprised of more than just "logic". ... and "average" men don't know how to employ logical principles consistently. Then there's the little problem of the "male ego" which further interferes with some men's capacity to reason effectively or comply with their stated ideals(practice what they preach), so, no men do not necessarily have the advantage with regards to attaining wisdom.

Kelly:
If you cannot see the principles here, then it's your own problem.

Carmel:
likewise, to be sure. :)

Carmel wrote:Kelly: Any top performer in any discipline, has the advantage of understanding. The principle underlying all the apparently "fragmented" information is very obvious to me. There is a clear difference in mental skills between men and women, where all males generally average out to be more skilled at logical thought. And the most logical are male. This has very significant and valuable repercussions for wisdom, namely, that the masculine mind has a greater potential for truth-consciousness.

Carmel: Wisdom is comprised of more than just "logic".

Logic doesn't arise in isolation. Highly logical thought goes hand-in-hand with the kind of no-holds-barred courage, necessary for exposing Emptiness whilst in the throes of attachment, and the unceasing patience to see the process through to completion. Luck also has a role in the play, but we are talking of conscious traits. To put it boldly, the truly logical mind is not, without courage, strong purpose, and deep patience, and other traits that are well-represented in men. So it makes sense to focus on logic within the context of how it manifests most strongly.

... and "average" men don't know how to employ logical principles consistently.

They do far better, on average, than women. Women don't even trust in logic. You have to remember that you are somewhat unusual, Carmel. Most women would never have gotten involved in this discussion because they would have found it emotionally unsatisfying, dry, boring, and painful to the extreme. Just to give you an example, the idea of psychological issues is well-known to be the main driver for women's being obese or overweight (not genetically, of course). Women tend to overeat when stressed. But if one discusses the importance of learning to trust in your own mind, and in having a strong mind, many women would simply respond that they cannot trust themselves because of all the fears and impulses their minds present. They have great difficulty even controlling their own thoughts.

Then there's the little problem of the "male ego" which further interferes with some men's capacity to reason effectively or comply with their stated ideals(practice what they preach), so, no men do not necessarily have the advantage with regards to attaining wisdom.

Well, interestingly, we've come full circle, back to your concerns about criticising women being always egoistic. But I think it's obvious you believe that a love of truth can help a person to overcome their love of self-indulgent personal advantage.

So, as I mentioned above, logic doesn't arise in isolation. There is no highly logical thinker who has no will to truth, or courage to admit the truth. To the extent that a person is satisfied with truth, to that extent they will be truthful.

Kelly:
If you cannot see the principles here, then it's your own problem.

Carmel:
likewise, to be sure. :)

I have, and do see, the principle of truthfulness: a strong, uncomrpomising, aggression against untruth, and a willingness to experience the pain of growth when allowing the egotistical habits of the mind to fade. I see this principle as wholly masculine, because even though men are unable generally to fulfill their natural gifts in perfect wisdom, or even to reach the bottom rung of kensho, they are far superior to women, who cannot even trust in their own minds. Men are afraid to let logic have full reign - because they know its power. Women have not even tasted that power.

It's not about men being intrinsically wise, but giving us a convenient demonstration of how the tools needed for wisdom generally play out in humans. It also cuts deeply into false idealisations of what wisdom is, because so many people think that the natural self-minimisation and efffacement of women is somehow intrinsically connected to being enlightened. It is not: it is having insufficient faith in their own essence - who they are, their importance, their skills, their capaciities - that makes them bashful and hide in the crowd.

...

Carmel wrote:It's(the 5% average difference) not a signifcant difference and what you're failing to account for is that these averages don't include the people at the lowest end of the spectrum. There are more men at this end, so these numbers don't represent the whole population, only those who are college bound.

5% is not a significant difference - that's your argument? Very well, 50% is also not a significant difference....likewise, 76%. Does it mean anything to say these things? No, because as you say yourself - a figure by itself does not mean anything. And this average fails to account for a lot of people - that doesn't mean that they can't represent gender differences in math ability.

And I just noticed that the 5% figure is wrong. It's actually around 7%.

"39 points" without the relation to other numbers is utterly meaningless. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, one who claims to value logic.

I provided a link where the relations were explained - that renders your whole argument invalid. You may have had a point if I mentioned the figure without citing anything.

I'm the one who initiated the term "average" in my post.

Check the post where I provided the link - I mentioned that it was an average.

I think you are ignoring what is right in front of your eyes. You simply do not want to see women as being inferior than men as a group in terms of consciousness and logical ability. A quick comparison between the lives of any random man and woman will reveal a significant(although ultimately small) difference in the capacity for logic, not just in mathematics but in all areas of life. In fact, mathematics is just a single pointer to this, and not a particularly good one at that. True logic is deeper than all science and mathematics, and is most clearly exhibited in the deepest workings of the mind, not in puzzle-solving.

Try again, dejavu. If you pay less attention to your ego, and more to applying some intelligence to understanding the point Jupta was making, you wouldn't be a fool.

.

He's a fool and an ass, and if I knew who he was I'd gladly bust his head open.

dejavu wrote:But I love you, never let it be forgotten!

Yeah, much like some mutt with rabies can still love its owner, but it's way past the time you should've been muzzled.

prince sorted his shit out, obviously. You still seem to be in the play pen, eating the playdoh.

Kelly: What, ignore all sexual dimorphism? That flies in the face of good science.

reminds me I forgot about another species of feminism that, last count, was listing 7 distinct gender configurations in its efforts to break male-female binary-ism. Don't expect me to defend/explain it; just know that it's there.

Kelly: Who is saying it is a malformed notion? You, or the second group of feminists?

them.

Kelly: Well, apart from contradicting your point 2, by grouping all feminists into one basket (which you have been arguing was impossible), as well as possibly contradicting point 3, if you yourself was saying that men and women cannot be measured by the same standards, this statement is totally irrelevant.

There's no great crisis of rationale here, to note one point I've seen spread across the board. It's an "ought" and not the is of things from these disparate foundational approaches. Even the uni-person I've heard who promotes girly things also insists a woman is free to stomp (in her high heels) into anything and anywhere she likes.

Kelly: If you really wished people to be educated, and accept the "fracture" of contemporary feminism, then you'd be quite willing to let people remain with their own different views.

What could possibly be amiss with educating oneself about all of them, if one wishes to remain with one's best view?

If you thought it was an economic essay, you're much mistaken, so making the connection with Marxism is a joke.

I used your point about the promotion of mediocrity through consumer forces to list yet another form of feminism - the Marxist feminist variety.

Kelly: In other words, I see no sign that my use of the term "feminist" has been misguided

Did I say that you did?

You read sometimes, I think, with blood in your eyes. It's messing with your own reasonability.

Beauvoir's view of emancipation was crap, frankly. She believed that women were unable to transcend the "immanent" because they were forced to take an identity relative to men. It's only very remotely connected to the views of emancipation, female or male, on this board.

You've got this wrong, partial, in her grand scheme. The "way out" for women is to assume the same subjectivity as men, so said Beauvoir. They are also capable of transcendence, even if their road is harder, longer, and more embedded in service to the species. Further, it was social forces/conditions - arranged and reified by men - that were part of her transcendence task. Finally, I see a lot of relationship between that and the "aims" of this board, including your own particular path.

I'd be curious to know what you think of yet another definition of feminism proffered in this thread by namae nanka: any women who wants to be equal to a man ("like" a man - whatever in the hell that is supposed to mean) is a feminist. I would assume someone making efforts to crush all that is [considered] 'female' in them would fit this description.

Kelly: There is no evidence of "phenomenal equality" at all

Again, that is precisely what I heard you say, and precisely the form of feminism I thought your essay was taking after.

Get the blood out of your eyes.

btw, I have no interest in standing proxy for any of these views (except for equality of opportunity, if excellence there can be had). You have reviewed them, found them all "vague" in nature. I said as much with the word "mess."

To structure one's belief about oneself around science/statistics, surveys, etc. is to take life in the ass end. Every statistic, piece of assumed evidence. etc. remanding this or that sex to this or that set of qualities is interesting at best; and at worst, beheads the conscious human animal's freedom to pursue self-definition. At least, it can, if you let it. It's for weaker natures who do not know what they are about, or perhaps do not want the pressures and exegencies of assuming the weight of their own subjectivity.


(p.s. to whom it may concern: summer school is starting soon and I will not be reliable in appearance until around late august.)

Pye wrote:The "way out" for women is to assume the same subjectivity as men, so said Beauvoir.

Huh? That's like saying that the way out for women is to assume the same emotional freedom as men. It is precisely subjectivity that characterises the female, and which must be overcome.

Pye wrote:I'd be curious to know what you think of yet another definition of feminism proffered in this thread by namae nanka: any women who wants to be equal to a man ("like" a man - whatever in the hell that is supposed to mean) is a feminist. I would assume someone making efforts to crush all that is [considered] 'female' in them would fit this description.

I know you asked kelly, but just adding:

It depends what kind of man that is, if it's the average man, then it's a start, but not much to strive for. No doubt that men are generally more logical, and thus, it would be a step in the right direction. (for females, not the feminine).

Still, the problem is that the definition is vague. Men have strengths, yet also weaknesses. They have more logical power, but faults of their own. Females generally exhibit even less logical power, and an array of faults, though there are faults in both sexes.
Rather than focus on the biological sex, the male, which is imperfect also, it makes much more sense to focus on the strengths that men have(logic, reason), and promoting that, (logic, reason), instead of the biological sex 'man'.

"Man" is not a very clear ideal. A man can vary widely, so as a definition, the 'man' is very vague and fluid. It is much better to focus on the good quality traits that a person may have, such as responsibility, character, consistency, strength, wit, logical examination, etc, than it is to focus on the dubious entities called 'men'.

jupiviv: Huh? That's like saying that the way out for women is to assume the same emotional freedom as men. It is precisely subjectivity that characterises the female, and which must be overcome.

Well, jupiviv, Beauvoir was not a Self-killing (subjectivity-killing) Buddhist. As it happens, neither am I.

Anders: "Man" is not a very clear ideal. A man can vary widely, so as a definition, the 'man' is very vague and fluid. It is much better to focus on the good quality traits that a person may have, such as responsibility, character, consistency, strength, wit, logical examination, etc, than it is to focus on the dubious entities called 'men'. [emphasis mine]

Yes. You'll have to ask namae nanka about that - author of the aforementioned definition of "feminism" ("a feminist is any woman who wants to be equal with a man," etc.) As I said, "whatever the hell that means . . . "
But as you have probably observed here, most of this list of admirable attributes for the human being you mention is called "masculinity" here. In fact, all that is good and enlightening is called "masculine," and all that is devalued and needs eliminated in the human being is called "feminine."

I'm not the author of that idea, either.

And so, I have to leave it there. Ta all for the dialogue.

Pye wrote:Kelly: What, ignore all sexual dimorphism? That flies in the face of good science.

Pye: reminds me I forgot about another species of feminism that, last count, was listing 7 distinct gender configurations in its efforts to break male-female binary-ism. Don't expect me to defend/explain it; just know that it's there.

I know of the attitude. For example, Anne Fausto-Sterling's attempt to redefine "intersex" reconfirms the cult of blurriness that characterises feminists (pro-feminine-consciousness). It's clinically inept.

disparate foundational approaches. Even the uni-person I've heard who promotes girly things also insists a woman is free to stomp (in her high heels) into anything and anywhere she likes.

That's the problem. The approaches are only superficially disparate. At basis, the foundation is one and the same: blurriness.

Kelly: If you really wished people to be educated, and accept the "fracture" of contemporary feminism, then you'd be quite willing to let people remain with their own different views.

Pye: What could possibly be amiss with educating oneself about all of them, if one wishes to remain with one's best view?

More blurriness. You realised that namae nanka's definition of feminism was ultimately meaningless because relative, but you cannot see the same kind of blurry meaninglessness in your view of feminism?

You do have a view of feminism. Namely, that it is a miscellany of views which, owing to your inability to see their underlying common foundation, you believe to have no clear identity.

Kelly: If you thought it was an economic essay, you're much mistaken, so making the connection with Marxism is a joke.

Pye: I used your point about the promotion of mediocrity through consumer forces to list yet another form of feminism - the Marxist feminist variety.

Actually, you were using this point to demonstrate that I had a wrong conception of feminism. You said "Kelly made it relatively clear which type of feminism she is critiquing (phenomenal equality)", meaning I wasn't using the word feminism in a way that you thought correct.

Kelly: In other words, I see no sign that my use of the term "feminist" has been misguided

Pye: Did I say that you did?

Well, yes, you said my view was from the dark ages. Anyone who doesn't recognise sympathies between (some) feminist notions and this forum:

5. I would seriously love to see some self-education here on this issue, because most person's framework when they discuss "feminism" is based on a definition from the dark ages and knows nothing about the fractal and conflicting notions that inhabit the rubric now. You might be surprised to find how a few of these notions are quite sympathetic to a number of the aims and grounds of this very forum.

You read sometimes, I think, with blood in your eyes. It's messing with your own reasonability.

Reasonability or rationality? Safety or truth?

I hope I always wield the sword of discrimination, whether reading, contemplating, or talking. You find it aggressive, perhaps. No doubt. Reasoning is supposed to demolish the shelters and edifices of the ego.

There is a reason Socrates saw some similarities between the wild, taboo-breaking Dionysian Mysteries and enlightenment.

Kelly: Beauvoir's view of emancipation was crap, frankly. She believed that women were unable to transcend the "immanent" because they were forced to take an identity relative to men. It's only very remotely connected to the views of emancipation, female or male, on this board.

Pye: You've got this wrong, partial, in her grand scheme. The "way out" for women is to assume the same subjectivity as men, so said Beauvoir. They are also capable of transcendence, even if their road is harder, longer, and more embedded in service to the species. Further, it was social forces/conditions - arranged and reified by men - that were part of her transcendence task. Finally, I see a lot of relationship between that and the "aims" of this board, including your own particular path.

Yet forming one's own identity has nothing to do with enlightenment (transcendance). Except perhaps in the earliest stages.

Service to the species? There is no species.

I'd be curious to know what you think of yet another definition of feminism proffered in this thread by namae nanka: any women who wants to be equal to a man ("like" a man - whatever in the hell that is supposed to mean) is a feminist. I would assume someone making efforts to crush all that is [considered] 'female' in them would fit this description.

I believe namae nanka means a feminist is someone trying to stop whoever is doing something, or trying to do something, that may deliberately or accidentally prevent a woman fulfilling her desires. Certainly that woman, nor the feminist, are not trying to crush anything 'female' (I suppose you mean psychologically feminine), so aren't doing anything wise.

Kelly: There is no evidence of "phenomenal equality" at all

Pye: Again, that is precisely what I heard you say, and precisely the form of feminism I thought your essay was taking after.

Get the blood out of your eyes.

But I'm not arguing that men are intrinsically wise; so, that women are unlike men is a minor point. It's hardly got anything to do with the main issue, namely, the relationship between feminine-mindedness and samsara. Blurriness, mediocrity, the endlessness of the preta realms, and wish-thinking don't end simply by being sufficiently conscious and logical to create artifacts for the hopeful satiation of the masses.

btw, I have no interest in standing proxy for any of these views (except for equality of opportunity, if excellence there can be had). You have reviewed them, found them all "vague" in nature. I said as much with the word "mess."

Okay. Yet calling the superficial disparateness of views a mess, is still a long way from seeing their psychological unity. This is the crux of my argument.

What my concern was, and what still remains my concern, was how you believed that many of those views were in sympathy with this forum's purpose. I am not sure you have grokked that there is no sympathy at all. Quite the reverse.

To structure one's belief about oneself around science/statistics, surveys, etc. is to take life in the ass end. Every statistic, piece of assumed evidence. etc. remanding this or that sex to this or that set of qualities is interesting at best; and at worst, beheads the conscious human animal's freedom to pursue self-definition. At least, it can, if you let it. It's for weaker natures who do not know what they are about, or perhaps do not want the pressures and exegencies of assuming the weight of their own subjectivity.

I was on the point of thinking you were going to write something interesting here. For instance, that statistics are created by scientists whose prior education, personal values, and what they can actually perceive, creates bias. Or more interesting, such as that statistics are easily distorted by sampling. Or even more interesting, that they're often quoted to prove something already obvious, and are therefore often superfluous to the proof, but used because some people tend to want to hide in the power of numbers (the authority and psychology of the mob).

But you've fallen into the same blurriness, characteristic of the feminist. Just as we saw with Anne Fausto-Sterling's on intersex, she was trying to redefine what intersex is, so that the sense of being "deformed" is removed. More applause to the wishful mediocrity: you can be whoever you want to be.

(p.s. to whom it may concern: summer school is starting soon and I will not be reliable in appearance until around late august.)

What sorts of views will you be teaching, I wonder.


...
[edit: Clarified meaning of response to question on namae nanka's view of feminism.]

Pye wrote:Well, jupiviv, Beauvoir was not a Self-killing (subjectivity-killing) Buddhist. As it happens, neither am I.

As I define it, the self is not subjective. Subjectivity would be the opposite of what the self is, because it would mean that there can be many "selves", whereas there can be only one self, just like there can be only one "1". 1+1 will always equal 2. There will never be a situation where 1+1=3, because 1 is not feeling well that day.

Buddhism is about killing the *false* self, and thereby understanding the true self. That is the essence of the Buddha's teachings, and also the teachings of every other wise man who ever lived.

dejavu wrote:Human being will have you yet.
Do you think the feeling in your words is not...felt?
What is it in the instantaneous that so divides us?
In which stage of the complaint against life is denial itself denied?

Do you have some aversion to making yourself clearly understood?

Pye: (p.s. to whom it may concern: summer school is starting soon and I will not be reliable in appearance until around late august.)

Kelly: What sorts of views will you be teaching, I wonder.

dejavu: What wondering blurriness is this Kelly? Or is it just more blood? How clear cut is your overall point, for like Juptas, I haven’t found it. You are welcome to mine, and I know it galls you to accept it, but yours is within it. There is no wish to see you drain away! It has been written that you have a sweet face, and so you shall! I am in the process of removing trouble from our collective brow, but I do encourage anyone who thinks they can help me to do so!
How can Pye teach views? She is a view! She permits them. If I could learn Pye, I would have captured you all by now. :D

As above. I've no idea what you're saying.

I don't mind if you wish to engage intelligently in this thread, in fact I hope you do. I understand it'll take a while for you to get the chemicals out of your system, and until then, we can't hope for anything much. But do try to make your points simple and clear, would you? It's like reading the desperately unhappy poems on the wall of a psychiatric ward at the moment.

Thanks.


...

Kelly:
Logic doesn't arise in isolation.

Carmel:
Neither does wisdom.

Kelly:
To put it boldly, the truly logical mind is not, without courage, strong purpose, and deep patience, and other traits that are well-represented in men.

Carmel:
That's the idealized version of "MAN". It isn't realistic. "Logic" without vision or love of truth is useless. Combine logic with an overinflated ego and the result is petty redundancy as can be seen in this and most every thread about women that arises. The typical misogynist don't generally possess the attritubes you listed. They are neither patient, courageous, nor purposeful. They hide behind the intelligence of other men in a rather pathetic attempt to cover their own insecurites or form an identity through a larger group. They escape themselves at every turn. At best, they're unwise, at worst, they're petty tyrants.

Kelly:
They do far better, on average, than women. Women don't even trust in logic. You have to remember that you are somewhat unusual, Carmel. Most women would never have gotten involved in this discussion because they would have found it emotionally unsatisfying, dry, boring, and painful to the extreme.

Carmel:
It has been a bit boring, at times, Kelly...but, at least we've moved on to some new points, but you have to keep in mind that I'm not a kid. Not much of what's been said here is new to me. It's natural for people to explore gender issues as young adults, eventually, or hopefully, they find some sense of resolution or integration and move on to more compelling philosophical concepts.

Kelly:
Just to give you an example, the idea of psychological issues is well-known to be the main driver for women's being obese or overweight (not genetically, of course). Women tend to overeat when stressed. But if one discusses the importance of learning to trust in your own mind, and in having a strong mind, many women would simply respond that they cannot trust themselves because of all the fears and impulses their minds present. They have great difficulty even controlling their own thoughts.

Kelly:
hmm, well that explains why I've never seen a fat man:)...or one who drinks too much, the point being, men don't always possess the ability to control their thoughts either. It may manifest differently in men than it does in women, but it's no less prevalent. Typically, this tendency in men can be seen in egotistical outbursts of boyish aggression. One need only read a few you-tube discussions to see this dynamic and it happens here on occasion.

Kelly:
But I think it's obvious you believe that a love of truth can help a person to overcome their love of self-indulgent personal advantage.

Carmel:
Yes, I do believe that, but we're speaking about a relative truth whenever we discuss gender. There are no absolutes here.

Kelly:
So, as I mentioned above, logic doesn't arise in isolation. There is no highly logical thinker who has no will to truth, or courage to admit the truth. To the extent that a person is satisfied with truth, to that extent they will be truthful.

Carmel:
I agree.

Kelly:
I have, and do see, the principle of truthfulness: a strong, uncomrpomising, aggression against untruth, and a willingness to experience the pain of growth when allowing the egotistical habits of the mind to fade.

Carmel:
I generally agree with this...but,

Kelly:
I see this principle as wholly masculine, because even though men are unable generally to fulfill their natural gifts in perfect wisdom, or even to reach the bottom rung of kensho, they are far superior to women, who cannot even trust in their own minds. Men are afraid to let logic have full reign - because they know its power. Women have not even tasted that power.

Carmel:
..this is where we diverge. I would never deny that that masculinity in it's ideal form is beneficial to truth and wisdom, but if they are not tempered by some positive feminine traits, they are useless...i.e. intuition, receptivity, creativity, compassion. If these aren't incorporated in the man's ideology, then he becomes a narcissistic clod, too rigid in his thinking and behaviour.

Kelly:
It's not about men being intrinsically wise, but giving us a convenient demonstration of how the tools needed for wisdom generally play out in humans. It also cuts deeply into false idealisations of what wisdom is, because so many people think that the natural self-minimisation and efffacement of women is somehow intrinsically connected to being enlightened. It is not: it is having insufficient faith in their own essence - who they are, their importance, their skills, their capaciities - that makes them bashful and hide in the crowd.

Carmel:
Yes, thanks, I really ought to stop being such the delicate little wallflower. :)...anyway, yes, I generally agree with this and would never recommend that women should be shrinking violets, but a little civility and grace would not be remiss from time to time. :)

Carmel wrote:Not much of what's been said here is new to me.

You've invoked this appeal to seniority and experience more than one time already. It's actually a sign of inexperience with quality discussion. Experience one can only show, it doesn't have to be waved around as a flag. Perhaps you could reconsider the assumption you have 'been there' and 'done that'. Do you think you're too old to reconsider beliefs?

I would never deny that that masculinity in it's ideal form is beneficial to truth and wisdom, but if they are not tempered by some positive feminine traits, they are useless...i.e. intuition, receptivity, creativity, compassion.

This statement builds on the assumption that intuition, creativity and compassion are feminine traits. Which is as I far as I know never researched, nor can it be discerned in daily experience of anyone I know. Perhaps compassion in the sense of feeling for the suffering of certain ought-to-be-cared-for beings. But that's closer to pity than to deep compassion, which builds on truly understanding of suffering.

Free at last, and I realize that I didn't really reply to your post Carmel.

Carmel:
Actually, that's what you and other xenophobes are doing, speaking and whining about women all the time. We can certainly talk about another subject if you'd rather. I, in fact, would prefer it. As it happens, I find these most of these gender discussions redundant and tedious. Your comments about women don't offend me as a women. They offend my sense of intellectual integrity i.e. you are spreading misinformation. I am merely correcting some of the blatantly incorrect ones.

I am so sorry.I hope you didn't hurt yourself.

Carmel:
There is no discernable content here and your poor grammatical structure makes much of what you say essentially meaningless. Is English your second language? Apparently, you don't understand what "standard deviation" means. If, perchance, you've never taken a basic statistics course, this would be understandable. I could explain it to you if you'd like.

Yes, english is my second language, my machine code still operates in hindi.

Carmel:
This is merely an ad hominen attack, a clear indication of a weak argument or an attempt to boost your ego by insulting someone else. You demean yourself when you engage is this type of adolescent behaviour.

Well I just made an assumption that since pye is above average and Kunga is way below, you must be about average.
(in fact below average but you look better than that)
Don't blame me, blame Kunga.

Carmel:
Good for those in the top .4% of men, but the other 99.6% of men really ought to quit hanging onto other men's intelligence . It won't change their mediocrity and averageness...ever.

Yes but I cannot have marie curie as a role model now, can I?

Carmel:
Yes, they do in the U.S., in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of 1972.

Then if men and women are equal, why do more women get in colleges, why do girls score better grades? Is it not discrimination? Then, why is it discrimination if more boys play on the field than girls?

The S.A.T.s are standardized, objective tests. Girls and boys perform nearly equally in all categories on this test. Boys score only slighty better than girls in mathematics. The difference is negligible. The above said applies from 1980-2009.(U.S.)(Source: World Almanac 2010)

The difference between me and genius is negligible too if you see it that way? Or let's say between me and Brad Pitt.(when he was younger)

Carmel:
No one did. You are the one who initiated the subject of education.

But you itched my genius...

Carmel:
What law are you referring to? In the U.S. men and women can't be discriminated against on the basis of gender, at least not legally, though "The Old Boys Network" is still firmly in place in many fields, i.e. politics and likely academia, according to what Pye wrote. Strong women(like Pye) don't let it interfere with their goals. They acknowledge it and carry on with their goals. No big deal.

I don't have a uterus so I don't have the right to choose. :(
The law isn't the problem in all cases, it's when discrimination is held up to be a valid excuse for the under-representation of women yet at the same time "excellence of women" is the excuse in case of men.

Carmel:
Why are men buying into mass media marketing of marriage? ... This whole paragraph is a bit confusing to me, especially "articles about man-child in papers". What does this mean?

You know man-child like dejavu who stays in his mom's basement and plays on his xbox all day long. Since he gets to eat women from the sideline he doesn't need to go out and have a real job and a family. And then women complain that he is not growing up; well he has no incentive to do so. What's the point in marrying and getting ass-raped in the divorce court when he could just as well score some married slightly overweight poon being single?

Oh and I'm still waiting for the SD lesson. :P

I would never deny that that masculinity in it's ideal form is beneficial to truth and wisdom, but if they are not tempered by some positive feminine traits, they are useless...i.e. intuition, receptivity, creativity, compassion.

Men actually have better intuitive abilities than women(right hemisphere of the brain bigger), but intuition is a female trait because the reasoning ability of females is even lower.Same for creativity.Even without going into the metaphysical, the empirical data suggests that overwhelmingly.

namae nanka wrote:

Carmel:
Why are men buying into mass media marketing of marriage? ... This whole paragraph is a bit confusing to me, especially "articles about man-child in papers". What does this mean?

You know man-child like dejavu who stays in his mom's basement and plays on his xbox all day long. Since he gets to eat women from the sideline he doesn't need to go out and have a real job and a family. And then women complain that he is not growing up; well he has no incentive to do so. What's the point in marrying and getting ass-raped in the divorce court when he could just as well score some married slightly overweight poon being single?

Yes, in the US they are referred to as girly-boys. Clearly, beta-boy's posts some nonsense. Kelly really needs to send Dan a message to have him blocked, at the very least, from this thread.

Diebert,
You missed my point, entirely. I'm not going to explain it again.

namae nanka,
You're clearly here for egotistical reasons and not to garner wisdom. I've no interest in playing ego games with you or anyone else.

edit to add:

I would like to say one thing about the discrimination issue in the US as I really don't think you understand how things work here. If a man thought he had a genuine case of discrimination, he could easily contact the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), this is a non profit group of lawyers who represent people whose civil liberties are being violated. If this man faced any educational discrimination, he could sue the shit out of the University in question, or sue the govt. if it were a financially related matter.

.

Tomas earlier:
Seeing that 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce .. why would homo/lesbian couples care to travel down that path?

Carmel:
yes, I know, as a matter of fact, I'm part of that statistic. That statistic is further evidence that marriage may be becoming increasingly obsolete as I contended in another thread... Anyway, I don't think you're asking the right question. The question is should homosexuals be entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexuals? Whether or not marriage is a good idea from a personal, subjective viewpoint is a different matter entirely. Personally, I ascribe to a general anti-marriage viewpoint for a variety of (mostly)objective reasons, but in spite of this, I wouldn't want these views legally imposed upon anyone else.

-tomas-
Should homosexuals have the same rights? - What "rights" do they not have now?

.......

Tomas earlier:
I mean, why do they not start their own "churches" (mosques/temples/buddhist/whatever) and truly be liberated? Why go into the mainstream "churches" where there will always be resistance at every turn. As long as the voters of each state keep turning it down at the ballot box it will always be this way.

Carmel:
Tomas! really, separatism? Should homosexuals have their own separate drinking fountains like blacks used to...? I don't know why you would consider that true liberation. This is what the civil rights activists fought against in the 60's, was it not?

-tomas-
"Churches" are 501c3 organizations empowered by The State. In the US, they must have a president, vice-president, secretary & treasurer .. and must be "incorporated". If a homosexual couple wants to "attend" a specific church - no one is stopping them. However, if a homosexual couple wants to "join" a specific church, they must ascribe to that particular churches belief system. Is that too much too ask? If it is, the homosexual couple need shop around for their particular "ideology" (godhead) that fits them best.

Why not gay churches/mosques/temples .. and then down the road see how they respond when a straight couple, with children in tow, come to attend or join their flock. Perhaps even bisexual churches, where does it all end?

........

Tomas earlier:
Change comes at the edges - not from the center .. or the old left/right schisms.

Carmel:
You're right. It does...but, beyond that, it comes from groups of people who consider themselves oppressed in some way. I seriously doubt that homosexuals will find contentment by slinking off quietly into their separatist churches as you seem to be proposing. They'll continue to fight for legal equality until they achieve goals.

-tomas-
Geepers, oppression is everywhere. Example: Oh, those poor Mexican immigrants who have a serious criminal background, let's just let them cross the border into the United States. They don't need a driver's license or car insurance to drive. They kill someone? bah, let them out and they can go to another state and do it all over again. Their rights are being trampled upon by The Gringo!

.............

Tomas earlier:
It's like the cookie. No matter how careful one takes a bite, a crumb or two always escape. That is where the homosexual issue should be taken up at.

Carmel:
I have no idea what this means. :)

-tomas-
What I am saying the East Coast gay movement is completely different than the West Coast gay movement or the Florida gay movement.. The Internet is about the only unifying force that brings all the gay/bi/trans diversities together, though even the Net has its limitations. Some are closet Democrats, other are open Log Cabin Republicans yack, yack, yack. The "individual" person (crumb) has got to figure out their grand scheme in this Universe of ideas.

.........

Tomas earlier:
If the federals force the little people (of each state) to conform to their dictates it simply creates another firestorm that is next to impossible to put out.

Carmel:
nor this...Could you please elaborate?

-tomas-
Barack Obama recently signed some Executive Order mandating that same-sex partners have full federal rights to maternity leave, federal benefits for this and that blah blah. Thus, if the voters of North Dakota, Alabama or California holds a vote and determines that gays/bi/trans have such-and-such rights or don't .. then so be it. California's voters didn't want gay marriage that their Legislature voted for .. well, so be it. The voters voted, and rescinded what the legislature and governor placed "into law". Others states have also gone that way.

........

Tomas earlier:
Witness that former (Republican) senator from Idaho. He's cruising for some gay sex in a toilet stall, the whatchamacallit foot tapper dude. It just sets the whole thing back for everybody concerned. Or, Democrat Barney Frank chasing after some 17-year-old page/intern back in the 1980s.

Carmel:
Yeah, alot of people (read men) are obsessed with sex, this type of behaviour is not exclusive to homosexual men... and some women and girls are promiscuous as well, obviously. Larry Craig is anecdotal, meaning, one can't judge an entire group of people based upon one person's actions.

-tomas-
That sort of behavior exhibited by Larry Craig didn't come out of the blue. He probably started fudgepacking in high school or whenever. The rumors about Craig started when he came to Washington, DC. But hey, he can join some bi/gay group now and claim he's been wronged and the Feds will write a law allowing 'wide stances and foot-tapping is permitted in bathroom stalls' located in airports, Amtrak and National Parks.

........

Tomas earlier:
You know, Carmel, there are child molesters in the homosexual/lesbian community, you see? It sends a message that those perverts are rife in the gay world and they are all out to get your son/daughter to take a walk on the wild side.

Carmel:
Are there more child molesters in the gay community than in the heterosexual comm...per capita, I mean? Do you have any evidence of this?

-tomas-
What I mean is, where are the gay/lesbian gonna find the replacements for sex partners. Homosexuality, by its very character, does not produce human offspring.... see?

.........

Tomas earlier:
Look. My opinion? Just shack up with some guy/girl and get on with living...... The hell with society and making a difference.

Carmel:
Well, personally, I hear ya :)...but, I simply don't think it's for me or the government to impose our "morality" or lifestyle on others, dictating how they should lives their lives, who they can or can't marry...It's should be a personal choice and freedom.

-tomas-
Agreed. Just get up and go run.

PS - Sorry for not responding sooner. I had to backtrack as the "Read First Unread Post" function wasn't working properly or better yet, blame Dan the Admin :-)

Yeah, it's Dan's fault.

PPS - Good topic, Kelly :-) + :-) = :-|

.

Carmel wrote:Diebert,You missed my point, entirely. I'm not going to explain it again.

Let me state it again then: you are mistaken to speak of "positive feminine traits" when all you do is listing desired traits of wisdom, like compassion and intuition. Creativity and receptivity are very neutral terms, they can mean too many opposing things to pin it on genders or gender-based distinctions. No doubt females have larger social "conscience" and empathy toward the complex vibes of human relating. They have evolved to be good at that. For the type of spiritual understanding we're talking about here, it's not a very beneficial trait though. And I can explain that further if asked.

Tomas wrote: Kelly really needs to send Dan a message to have him blocked, at the very least, from this thread.

Dan made it clear that starting to ban might put him in the mood to call it a day with this forum. I can understand that somewhat: where to stop such traffic control? If it's really a problem, just enable the foe list. Or in other words: change your own diapers for a change!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Tomas wrote: Kelly really needs to send Dan a message to have him blocked, at the very least, from this thread.

Dan made it clear that starting to ban might put him in the mood to call it a day with this forum. I can understand that somewhat: where to stop such traffic control? If it's really a problem, just enable the foe list. Or in other words: change your own diapers for a change!

My understanding is that "if" beta-boy shrooms out on his drug and shows up here and talks rubbish. Then he's a goner.

PS - She's already on my shit list. "Foe" is so .. yesterday sounding.

Back to 'The Woman's World' -- Diebert's fave thread

Carmel wrote: namae nanka,
You're clearly here for egotistical reasons and not to garner wisdom. I've no interest in playing ego games with you or anyone else.

Of course I am here for egotistical reasons, why else would I be here? Why else would I be replying to you? Why else would I care if you got hurt or not?
And your wisdom is too much for me, I'll try, nice and slow, but I can't make any promises.

I would like to say one thing about the discrimination issue in the US as I really don't think you understand how things work here. If a man thought he had a genuine case of discrimination, he could easily contact the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), this is a non profit group of lawyers who represent people whose civil liberties are being violated. If this man faced any educational discrimination, he could sue the shit out of the University in question, or sue the govt. if it were a financially related matter.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... bias_suit/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/1 ... 35246.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

Men suck it up for that's how they are, they like to play by the rules. If they lose, they lose, they don't whine.

Things are made easier for women because the society acknowledges that they are different, but doesn't have the guts to say that they are inferior.

Though I do agree that I don't understand how things work in US, how can I understand something that's irrational?
A madman raves at me, I laugh with him, I move on. He isn't worth my time, nor I am worth his.