GENIUS FORUMS

Rory wrote:

Actually, the government doesn't do this, but non-profits already do. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0244,basu,39531,5.html

Hooray for CRACK! ... umm.. by the way, I meant the organization in the article, not the drug.

So they lost their leisure and ‘master status’ of housewife, so that they could join their fellow men and feel equal to him, by working along side him doing the same miserable soul crushing jobs.

I know plenty of women who abhor the very notion of being a housewife, and love their "miserable soul crushing jobs". Particularly women with no particular compulsion towards marriage. Some women love being a housewife, and more power to them, but I don't see anything ironic about a desire for equality. Particularly when you understand that power isn't directly synonymous with equality and freedom.

Expectantly Ironic:

but I don't see anything ironic about a desire for equality. Particularly when you understand that power isn't directly synonymous with equality and freedom.

Yes, women now have the equal opportunity to pursue misery like men, and they do so quite unconsciously. You don’t think that is ironic Expectantly Ironic? They wanted freedom, but they got slavery, just like the men. They wanted to be like the boys so they imitiated them unconsciously believing they would achieve freedom.

However, I’m not denying the fact that there was and still is a certain degree of enslavement with some housewives, however 'free women' have merely jumped blindly into new positions of slavery, and many of these new positions are worse than the traditional labor of housewives.

They wanted freedom, but they got slavery, just like the men. They wanted to be like the boys so they imitiated them unconsciously believing they would achieve freedom.

They wanted the freedom to choose their course in life, and that's what they got. You may be of the opinion that employment is slavery, but even so, the freedom achieved and initially desired was towards entry into that particular type of slavery, rather then towards some sort of vague ultimate freedom from toil.

EI wrote:

They wanted the freedom to choose their course in life, and that's what they got. You may be of the opinion that employment is slavery, but even so, the freedom achieved and initially desired was towards entry into that particular type of slavery, rather then towards some sort of vague ultimate freedom from toil.

Yes, I agree, it represents a certain degree of universal autonomy, which is a necessary progression in the development of society, however we must not mistake these feminist accomplishments for freedom itself.

Moreover humanity will never be completely free from toil, but we can minimize that toil through not reproducing, renouncing slavish institutions like marriage, minimaling hedonistic pursuits and so on. Humans do not have to work 40-60 hour work weeks as we do now in western civilization.

Most contemporary feminists miss the point completely, They vent their contempt over things like how women still make slightly less money than men in the workplace. However, these are such petty concerns in the big scheme of things. They equate freedom with power and material wealth, whereas a wise person equates freedom with minimalism, leisure to contemplate and freedom from worldly responsbilities that are not necessary in the first place.

The problem with most radical feminists is that they equate female independence with blind economic ambition and progress. They adopt and accept the contemporary bourgeosis male values of our age as a means to acheive equality, but the entire approach is flawed. The result is that the society as a whole ends up being more parasitic and enslaving.

Commenting on Dhodge’s Supply and Demand curve argument: Dhodges perhaps you can help me understand what you have stated earlier, and correct me if I’m incorrect.

You have suggested that because both genders are working in the society, it has created more of a burden on the civilization as a whole. People are working longer hours, and because both genders are working, the consumption rates are higher, which creates a higher demand for services. A higher demand for services causing the economic power of the dollar to decrease, and the overall cost of living increases.

Basically, the more energy a society exerts, the more energy is required to meet those demands, so as a result we end up experiencing an ambitious race to the bottom, where survival becomes increasingly difficult to sustain because both genders are now working to sustain it.

Correct? No? why?

Ryan wrote,

You have suggested that because both genders are working in the society, it has created more of a burden on the civilization as a whole.

That's not really the root of the problem though - - there's nothing wrong with both genders working, the problem is the quality of the work, the intelligence of the work.

How many jobs in society are neccesary? What is being produced? How much is neccesary?

Police are working such long hours these days, because crime increases to the degree that worldly gratificaiton increases.

Criminals are multiplied by people who puff themselves up, hoard and store up precious, shiny gratifications that can only be attained with an income that not everyone can have.

A guy I go to school with is always (losing his money) playing poker - -- he tells me that he's going to save up for a big tournament that he knows is going to happen in a few years.

He has his sights on 'about a million dollars'. He's dead serious. The more I get to know him, the more I see how profoundly plagued by envy he is. I also notice how much he winces and becomes uncomfortable when I criticize society only slightly. A very high maintenence fellow.

ryan: People are working longer hours, and because both genders are working, the consumption rates are higher, which creates a higher demand for services.

I would say, because the consumption rates are higher, it forces both genders to work. Once they get themselves in debt, they can't get out of the double-barrelled work routine.

Bigger and bigger christmas's every year. hipper and hipper clothing lines for the kids -- - locks in the degradation.

Basically, the more energy a society exerts, the more energy is required to meet those demands, so as a result we end up experiencing an ambitious race to the bottom, where survival becomes increasingly difficult to sustain because both genders are now working to sustain it.

Correct? No? why?

to generlize -- we become habituated to gratifications, become bored with them, and move on to the bigger and the better - - with envy and boredom always lurking below the dimly conscious mind.

The bigger and better the gratifications get - -the greater the stress gets put onto the individual, the family, the society, the eco-system and the humanity.

For instance, consider the sort of family or individual that goes to Disney world for vacation, or to a casino. What empty-painful work they must do! The most stressed out and degraded families end up in places like those. And the poor people wish they could go to these hell holes.

The greater the pleasure, the greater the pain. The way up is the way down.

An aspirant of wisdom I think goes through the same proccesses, great high's and great stresses - - but the proccess is a more intelligent, concentrated, and focused microcosm of a principle that has become far to bloated and diffused.

Also the aspirant of wisdom may feel greater joy in what he produces, and greater stress in terms of what he consumes, at least at first.

With the mediocre fellows, its the other way around.

Cory:

Yes, I understand that part of the argument. How luxury and hedonism creates an unnecessary burden, but I’m trying to determine whether or not a higher population creates an unnecessary burden as well…

For instance: why is survival more difficult in Calgary (population ~1 000 000) compared to Halifax? (population 320,000)?

For instance: Calgary has a booming economy, but many people from Halifax that travel there claim that it is much more difficult to survive, everything is more expensive there, and wages arent that much better.

An interesting dynamic I have observed in that highly populated and overly productive cities have a much higher cost of living compared to smaller, poorer cities with a lower population.

People say the same thing about New York City, they suggest that New York is an atrocious place to try to survive even though there is lots of work and the economy is booming.

Higher populations create more burden for each citizen, real estate prices are higher, rent is higher, there is an extra demand for many different services, and people have to work that harder to supply the society with everything it needs, while the spending power of their dollar decreases.

Dhodges argument depicts how when women entered the workforce, the cost of living went up, not down, the increase of labour made things harder, not better, so the argument indirectly implies that a smaller work force functions better than larger ones.

Slavery is a point of view, if you view being able to work for a living, and contribute to sociatity as slavery then I guess it is, or you can think of it as a way of doing some you do well or like well enough that you can make money at it. The choice of being to chose to work, and live a life you choose rather than grow up get married and not leave home as something as a great way of life is kind of a sucker punch because of the limited point of view.

A woman who stays at home, and her husband dies is in a world of hurt these days with out an education and a way to support her family. The ones that do make a home, (my mother stayed home most of the time I was growing up), its a job all day long and all night, if kids are sick the mother takes care of them, the garden, the cleaning, and all the children helped, if it was a farm day, roundup, we were out on horses helping, its not an easy life, not if you really are a home maker.

Though I have seen another side you have talked about, how a female will corner a male, and you either do it to shut her up, or get tired of fighting with her. I think this is a break down in communication, and should be handled differently than stating one stays home and has fun and the other goes out and slaves.

Kitoak wrote:

Slavery is a point of view,

I suspect one can be enslaved or free to certain degrees, which implies a truth of the matter. By suggesting that slavery is a point of view implies that it can be true for me, but not true for you, which is simply not true.

Kitoak wrote:

you choose rather than grow up get married and not leave home as something as a great way of life is kind of a sucker punch because of the limited point of view.

I am simply outlining what absolute freedom entails, which most people fear because of the huge commitment, it entails not getting married, not becoming a slave to a 9-5 job and all the rest of it. I claim that the contemporary way of life that most people blindly accept is a limited point of view.

Kitoak wrote:

Though I have seen another side you have talked about, how a female will corner a male, and you either do it to shut her up, or get tired of fighting with her.

Yes, that’s right. Most women and most men are actually intolerable to live with.

The degree to which something is slavery is the degree to which it is difficult to get out of the situation. If a man hates his job all that much, he may get another one to replace it. In the society where women were property of men, and the man she married turned out to be abusive, the men had a code by which once a woman was once married, especially if she had children, even if she left him for very good cause (her very survival in severe abuse situations) she was usually no longer able to find another husband. Without the option of being able to support herself or her children, she was unable to get out. The question became whether to stay and maybe get beaten to death, but she could probably protect her children most of the time who would still have a decent place to sleep and enough food, or leave and definatly not be able to provide for her children or herself - and probably die anyway. That's slavery.

Of even actual slaves, "house slaves" often had a pretty good life - it was just that they didn't have the option to leave, and didn't have any freedom. It wasn't worth it for actual slaves, so why would it be worth it for women?

Now as for this arbitrarily deciding that it is the woman who should not work, what if it is the woman of a particular couple who is better able to provide a particular service? I read an article many years ago that women were proving to be better managers than men because they were better able to manage the interpersonal dynamics of staff, and they were good at coordinating multiple projects. Perhaps it would be better if only one of each couple were to work, but it's silly to just arbitrarily say it should always be the man to work and the woman to stay home. Actually, it sounds pretty nice to be able to just go to work and have someone else take care of household stuff, come home to a clean house and a decent meal that someone else cooks and cleans up after, all the minutia taken care of... Perhaps who goes and who stays should be decided amongst the couple based on their individual personalities - not some arbitrary gender-based dictate.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Basically, the more energy a society exerts, the more energy is required to meet those demands, so as a result we end up experiencing an ambitious race to the bottom, where survival becomes increasingly difficult to sustain because both genders are now working to sustain it.

That may or may not be true, but was not the point of my argument, which was just textbook macroeconomics.

Let's say there are a bunch of farms that need people to pick crops. With more people you can pick more crops, but there's a limit - each additional person will be less productive. Twenty people can do more than ten people, but they can't do twice as much (the law of diminishing returns). Let's also say you've had the same number of farms and people for a while, and there is an equilibrium wage - a fairly stable amount that farmers are willing to pay for pickers.

Now, what happens if the population of potential pickers suddenly doubles? It could be due to immigration, a baby boom, women entering the work force - whatever. In economics, this will be a shift in the supply curve, where the supply in this case is labor.

The wage for pickers will decrease. And since one picker is pretty much the same as another picker (economically, to the farmer paying the wages), picking wages fall for all the pickers.

But how much do wages fall? The answer to that question depends on the elasticity of demand. If there is very inelastic demand, that means that the required number of pickers is pretty much fixed. This might happen if all the crops are getting picked as it is, and so additional (or marginal) pickers are worth relatively little, and wages will drop sharply.

On the other hand, if demand were elastic - say, you had fields that were going unpicked, and each additional picker is nearly as valuable as the ones a farmer already has - then picker wages will drop only slightly.

So, what happened when all these women entered the work force? Wages dropped. How much they dropped is dependant on the elasticity of demand. Depending on external economic conditions, adding all those additional workers may mean a more or less severe drop in wage levels overall. It's possible (but not necessarily true) that adding all those additional workers would mean that two salaries are required to support a family, where previously one would do.

Similarly, farmers has sometimes found, in certain markets, that if they all agree to destroy 10% of their crops, they all end up making more money. (Whether they will gain or lose by doing that depends on the elasticity of demand for their crop.) A similar principle applies with OPEC - the oil-producing countries can sometimes all make more money by mutually agreeing to limit the supply of oil (which has, in the short term, a very inelastic demand).

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Men and women, who have the wealth and freedom to ensure their own health, security and rights, mostly turn a blind-eye to the horrendous state of affairs that millions of women endure daily. Around the world, women continue to die from preventable diseases, starvation, poverty, over work, complications during pregnancy, complications caused by too many pregnancies, infections caused by circumcision, domestic violence, unsafe abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, illnesses caused by pollution, and as civilian casualties of civil disputes and wars. In developed, and undeveloped countries alike – these events take place on a daily bases.

Okay!

Yes, the horrendous state of women...

1. "Preventable diseases." Sure---men and children happen to die from these, as well. In fact, more men die from these things than women. (If women are suffering so very badly, why aren't they the ones dying 8 years earlier?) Need evidence, just ask, or look up prostate cancer deaths in men versus breast cancer deaths in women (and then look at how much each gets funding-wise), for one example.

2. "Starvation?" But aren't 85% of the homeless men? It's been years since I've seen gangs of hairy-legged, unkempt, Scope-breathed, burlap-sack-clad chicks fighting over the cheese in an empty pizza box---oh wait: I have never seen that with women.

Unless you're talking about people starving in undeveloped countries (yeah, feminists don't seem to care much about women in Africa), but that includes children, too, and I'd be willing to bet more men starving than women (if not, it's probably because the men are all dead already).

3. "Poverty." Any group making up the majority of a population of a nation would tend to have higher percentages in "poverty" than other groups. I wonder what entails "poverty" in the West compared with places like China...having only one TV or one car?

(Hell, I've lived in poverty for most of my life, by choice, and there's nothing bad about it; it's freeing to have almost no possessions.)

4. "Over work?" Hey, I'm really interested to see where you got this from. This causes stress or something? The type of stress that's proven to shorten life spans? Well, then it adds up: men die 7-8 years earlier. Oh wait, it doesn't really add up...

5. "Complications during pregnancy;" surely reasonable compared to two hundred years ago? If not, there must be a Women's Pregnancy Organization somewhere getting funding for this problem, right? I mean, in the US alone there are 1,700 funding sources for women and women's health and what?---3?---for men?

6. "Complications caused by too many pregnancies." A Western woman barely has two kids these days...

7. "Infections caused by circumcision." Yeah, men get those too...and in places other than just Africa.

8. "Domestic violence?" Pure crap. Men are actually killed more often than women are in domestic violence cases (women are far more likely to use weapons and are more likely to initiate it).

9. "Unsafe abortions." I guess. No comment.

10. "Sexually transmitted diseases." Sure, those affect women a million times more than men and kids! Sarcasm aside, this not a "female problem"--it's a human problem.

11. "Illnesses caused by pollution." Again, this not a "female problem"--it's a human problem. (Frankly, I'm more concerned what pollution does to the planet.)

12. "And as civilian casualties of civil disputes and wars." Oh, you have got to be kidding me. I guess when only men are dying (instead of merely 99.99% of the time in wars) everything will be peaches and cream...for women.

Looks like perhaps someone let Hillary's 1993 ("Women are the primary victims of war") fem-propaganda speech sink in and get dogmatic on vast tracks of grey matter...?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Even though there are a number of feminist and religious organizations, humanitarian groups, as well as government and UN programs all trying to address many of the above issues - they are impotent at even creating a dint in this chaos. It isn’t that they aren’t trying their hardest to do their best to ensure that every individual on the planet lives a life free from pain and suffering – it’s just that they don’t understand the deeper causes of this suffering, and are therefore incapable of addressing them.

If they understood that the many problems females face daily: such as, sexism, hostility, violence and disinterest in their development, comes directly from the deeply felt egotistical pleasure 99.99% of the world’s population gain from living mindlessly in the Feminine – they would then be able to assist women’s development by educating those billions of people away from the Feminine.

A dint in the chaos? What planet do you live on? Seriously. Here on Earth, women are the most pampered, coddled, spoiled, over-protected "minority"---which is in fact a majority---or "class" that has ever existed on the planet. Never in 8000 years of recorded history have women been better off, wealthier, and had such easy, care-free, comfortable lives----which I view as the main problem with women (the exact opposite of "oppression").

1. Sexism. It's amazing what only one sex considers sexist, or it's amazing that only one sex can be considered sexist. I've seen far more evidence of sexism against men than against women. (Male-bashing is not only far, far more common in society than female-bashing, it's also legal and politically correct.)

2. Hostility. Well, 75% of all murder victims are men (who are overwhelmingly the victims of major violent crimes, including rape), so women don't seem to have cornered the market on being targets of hostility quite yet. (I'd suggest trying to get people interested in the subject of dead babies---infanticide---and their murderous mothers, but everyone seems intent on finding dubious psychological reasons for why the poor dears keep doing that. So, I won't suggest that anymore---over 90% of prison inmates are men, and were that 90% women or 90% black, then we might start looking at why so many of one group of humans disproportionately end up in jail, are not getting any help except for lessons in brutality and becoming cleverer criminals...then we might have some compassion and think about a better system. Of course, this is silly---these are men in cages. Who cares. As long as women receive half the sentence as men for similar crimes, or get off with a psychobabble defense, it's just femtastic.)

3. Violence. See above.

4. Disinterest in their development---here's something I finally agree with.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Only when the majority of the world’s population is sufficiently masculine, and therefore conscious, will women receive the help they so desperately require.

-
Sue

Women are never, ever going to approach masculinity until men do. Women need anything but "help"---women are never going to edge towards genius because it is precisely their opposite state that produces genius---suffering, as much as thought-direction, free-thinking, or creative mental taxation, is key. Women's notion of suffering is having a couple kids. (And hey, I used to think that was awe-inspiring, going through that pain to create life...until I realized that women do not create life---without sperm cells, her egg is flushed, useless---and then I had a bullet pass through my abdomen, liver, and out the other side, recovering later for a few months with a 8-inch wound down my belly. I doubt giving birth, especially today---with techniques and drugs---is that painful, but I'd go through it again in order to have a kid. Big deal. I've had worse day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month pain than that.)

A common question I have that never gets answered: where's the female Blues?

If women had it so bad, wore rags and slaved away 10 hours a day with no time off, no pay at all---like black slaves---where is the soul? Where's the creative passion coming out through music and art and song and poetry? By what feminists claim, the women's movement should have been preceeded by a wave of jazz and blues and Motown stuff a hundred times the size of what the blacks managed.

There was nothing.

The only answer I received was something like "well, men didn't let them." Heh. A non-artistic person said that, I assure you. Nothing can stop the creative genius. Nothing---the more you try to suppress it, the more it comes out some other area, like trying to squash a water balloon. All you need is a pencil and paper---surely when Hitler-Hubby was off doing mean man things, little helpless wifey was brave enough to leave the kitchen to tippy-toe about for a piece of paper? A sheet of cloth and a crayon? A wall and her own blood?---it's happened.

If women were suffering, we'd see more female genius. Bottom line. The fact that female genius is virtually non-existant is (more) evidence that they are the opposite of "oppressed."

In fact, they need to start suffering, for a change. All soldiers should be female from now on; all the dying can be done by them for a very refreshing change. Shitwork---garbage collecting, mining, and all the dangerous jobs---we'll make equal, giving half to women. Homelessness? Suicide? These things are male-dominated as well (downright patriarchal). Surely equality extends to these areas, too?

Let's see...in the US, childhood suicide rates are even between boys and girls (similar to brain size) before age nine (why a nine-year-old would kill itself is beyond me, but anyway...); by ages 10 to 14, boys suicide rates are TWICE as high as girls. From age 15 to 19, the boys kill themselves FOUR times as often as girls; from age 20 to 24, young men are killing themselves SIX times as often (for any math types, that's a 25,000% increase in suicide rates for males compared to females from birth), and it steadily gets worse through life until age 85, when male suicide rates are over 1,300% higher than that of females in a similar age group.

What else...?---reproductive rights. Men have none. From now on, men get to say whether the child (that's half his) gets to live or die. We'll come up a male birth control pill, and switch consent so that women need to ask men permission for sex. And she has to pay child support---for the kid she might get to see during visitations, if she's really good.

In fact, she can pay for everything---dates, car repairs, mortgage, everything.

Well, that's good for an utterly absurd start. Maybe then, like men, women will be forced to use more of their brains (because, seriously, will they ever by choice?), problem-solving, dealing with stress and despair, overcoming obstacles and challenges, reacting quickly in life-or-death situations, introspection, deep-right-brained thinking... and then we'll see more female creative and intellectual genius. I'd bet my life on it.

If not, women will simply stay as they are, remaining too stupid to realize they're not even close to being oppressed.

You’re absolutely right. Women are not oppressed, they’re just stupid. I know this because they live in my street. In all the years that I have lived here, every time I have had a dispute with one of them over something, the husband ends up on my doorstep. So, then, I have to get a temporary husband. That rather quickly solves the problem. No more delinquents -- women, children or husbands -- on my doorstep.

I get to thinking these permanent husbands of this neighbourhood get to thinking maybe I’m the only woman here.

.

DHodges, may I ask of your attention?

Dave: Let's say there are a bunch of farms that need people to pick crops. With more people you can pick more crops, but there's a limit - each additional person will be less productive.

Isn’t that just the same as saying there would be less work to do? And so, isn’t a solution to grow more crops in order to balance things out?

Dave: Twenty people can do more than ten people, but they can't do twice as much (the law of diminishing returns).

Why can’t you just double size of the farm?

Dave: Let's also say you've had the same number of farms and people for a while, and there is an equilibrium wage - a fairly stable amount that farmers are willing to pay for pickers.

Now, what happens if the population of potential pickers suddenly doubles?

Double the farms?

Dave: It could be due to immigration, a baby boom, women entering the work force - whatever. In economics, this will be a shift in the supply curve, where the supply in this case is labor.

The wage for pickers will decrease. And since one picker is pretty much the same as another picker (economically, to the farmer paying the wages), picking wages fall for all the pickers.

But how much do wages fall? The answer to that question depends on the elasticity of demand. If there is very inelastic demand, that means that the required number of pickers is pretty much fixed.

The problem is earning a living in a way where you don’t depend on people to earn their godamn living by doing brain dead job all godamn day.

hahaha! You know what I mean?


- Aaron Mathis

Aaron Mathis wrote: Isn’t that just the same as saying there would be less work to do? And so, isn’t a solution to grow more crops in order to balance things out?

Why can’t you just double size of the farm?

No, because there is also a limit on how much corn the population will demand and eat. As it is, tons of the stuff gets left to rot... why grow even more that will get wasted? Certainly not worth paying for.
More is not always better.

Rory, you said:

No, because there is also a limit on how much corn the population will demand and eat. As it is, tons of the stuff gets left to rot... why grow even more that will get wasted?

I grew up on an organic farm you know. The wise let nothing go to waste - there is great diversity working on the farm - -


no need for people to only pick berries all day. [/quote]

Nordicvs wrote:

A common question I have that never gets answered: where's the female Blues?

A very good question. We sometimes get angry female music, such as with Alanis Morisette - but then again, female anger is really a form of sprightly fun and enjoyable reveling in womanly indignation. Anger is one of woman's favourite emotions. Like sex, it makes her feel so alive.

I guess you could call some of Joni Mitchell's music blues, but even here, a lot of her music is simply her reminiscing about past experiences with lovers and friends, and so on, and not really a reaction to being oppressed.

I think you're onto something there.

-

Nordicvs wrote: "Domestic violence?" Pure crap. Men are actually killed more often than women are in domestic violence cases (women are far more likely to use weapons and are more likely to initiate it). (italics added for emphasis)

According to the CDC:
In 2002, 76% of IPV homicide victims were female; 24% were male (Fox and Zawitz 2004).

same site, to address more of the IPV/DV issue raised:

IPV accounted for 20% of nonfatal violence against women in 2001 and 3% against men (Rennison 2003).

Nordicvs wrote: Sexism. It's amazing what only one sex considers sexist, or it's amazing that only one sex can be considered sexist. I've seen far more evidence of sexism against men than against women. (Male-bashing is not only far, far more common in society than female-bashing, it's also legal and politically correct.)

Male bashing is not politically correct anymore. As for seeing sexism - perhaps you as a male have seen more of it against males than a female would, but I as a female have seen and experienced more of it against females. And it may be illegal, but it is usually unenforcable. In one job as a respiratory therapist, I was told by my boss that another female therapist got more work than I did because she wore tighter shirts, was prettier (actually, she just wore more make-up), she smelled better (she wore perfume - respiratory therapists working in a hospital are not supposed to wear perfume because their patients have breathing problems), and she flirted with the male staff. His statements were not legally provable. I lost another job working in a mental health facility for reporting a company psychiatrist for dropping his pants in front of me - and mostly I'd reported it because one of his patients had complained he was staring at her chest through the entire psychiatric session. Again, legally unprovable that I lost my job for reporting him - even though it was obvious to everyone including the lawyers (there's a difference between what's obvious and what is legally provable). I've seen and heard of so many instances where the females noticed that the females who got preferential treatment were the flirtatious, made-up ones - and I've seen and heard of so many instances where if there are more males than females working in a group, lewdness is considered acceptable. In one respiratory department, the most often repeated phrase by guys was "Who's your daddy?" and I saw one guy talking to a female therapist who had just gotten back from maternity leave (and she was in really good shape) telling her that he thought her husband would appreciate it if she would do more sit-ups. She was thinner than most women who had not just had a baby, and while he was going on and on about how she should work out more since she just had a baby, she was looking at the ground and her shoulders were kind of up by her ears. I reamed the guy out for saying that to her - and shortly after that, one of the other female therapists had a private word with me about "how it is" in that department - and pretty much told to just deal with it because that's how the world works and there's nothing we can do about it - and anyone who raises a stink about it will be on their own. This was followed by examples of females who complained that didn't work there anymore.

Nordicvs wrote: Well, 75% of all murder victims are men

Okay, men are 4 times more likely to be murdered than women, but men are 10 times more likely to commit murder than women.
.

Nordicvs,

My post, which included the “horrendous state of affairs” list was to highlight the fact that even though feminism is considered a powerful influence on society, it had actually done very little to change the lives of many women. I made the point that modern feminist’s continued to treat women’s rights and development in a “superficial and crassly egotistical way”. As they concern themselves with making their own lives comfortable by disregarding other people completely.

Women not caring one iota about each other explains why there is no ‘Sisterhood of Woman’. But this doesn't stop both men and women being brought up to believe that the whole female sex is the kinder and more caring of the two. Yet there is nothing at all kind and caring in their nature, for they are purely parasitic creatures who use other people and society to their benefit. And being a parasite requires little, or no consciousness. Which then explains why they are not at all interested in promoting any change which would take away the pleasure they experience being women.

So my post was to emphasis the insanity of expecting over half the population of the planet to operate as responsible human beings towards each other (or towards the other half) when most of them obviously exist with the barest of consciousness.

Nordicvs wrote: Women are never, ever going to approach masculinity until men do.

As you point out, most men are ‘women’, and therefore show very little potential to develop their masculinity/consciousness. But, if either a female or a male did have enough consciousness to pierce through the Feminine and free themselves of her – neither could then be considered a ‘woman’. And if any individual has the potential to develop their consciousness, they need wait for no one.

Nordicvs wrote: Women need anything but "help"---women are never going to edge towards genius because it is precisely their opposite state that produces genius---suffering,

I wrote with part tongue in cheek:

If they (feminist and religious organizations, humanitarian groups, as well as government and UN programs) understood that the many problems females face daily: such as, sexism, hostility, violence and disinterest in their development, comes directly from the deeply felt egotistical pleasure 99.99% of the world’s population gain from living mindlessly in the Feminine – they would then be able to assist women’s development by educating those billions of people away from the Feminine. Only when the majority of the world’s population is sufficiently masculine, and therefore conscious, will women receive the help they so desperately require.

The more conscious/masculine society becomes, the smaller and weaker the Feminine is. Women depend on other people’s attachments to delusions (the Feminine) to get hold of them. This is how they exist. When those attachments are broken, woman’s hold is also broken. Without someone to attach herself to, she is set adrift. Being set adrift is the “help” I think women so “desperately require”.

So, Nordicvs, I do agree with you that most women lack enough consciousness to suffer. But to the degree that they are conscious, they do experience suffering. And to the degree that they suffer, they do produce some works of interest.

Nordicvs wrote: A common question I have that never gets answered: where's the female Blues?

The problem with Blues – or for that matter, any music - is that most of it is used entirely by the emotions to foster the Feminine. But I do agree that women’s emotions are too superficial to create the depth of sorrow that some Blues represents.

-
Sue

Aaron Mathis wrote:Why can’t you just double size of the farm?

Sometimes you can't do that. The land is being used for something else, or there is a limited quantity of arable land. Or there may be more land available, but it is of lower quality, farther away, or more expensive. Obviously, the best land gets used first.

Farms require more than land and people. You also need other equipment, and especially water; those things may also be limited.

The point was, what happens, holding other things constant, and changing one variable. While that's never what actually happens, if you don't understand the simplest case, you won't understand more complex ones, either.

To the author of this thread: it is true some things are true whether you believe them or not.

Slavery is work without pay, if you are getting paid to do work, and have a choice to work, then its only slavery from your point of view, and if you find something you are good at and make money then its something you live for. If you choose to take a job then you take on all the burden that goes with it, you can choose to handle that burden in two ways, as a weight of depression, or a means to a ends, or a steping stone to get to where you are going. if in the end your dream and ideas are that of slavery then that is all you will find. If you have dreams of doing what you like the best, you have honurable goals and a sucessful life.

If you choose to belittle people rather than using their strengths then you will only find conflict to reach your goals. If you learn that empowerment begins by giving it first, then you will find others will empower you. This type of repect gains you a position above slavery because there is no empowerment.

Kitoak wrote

Slavery is work without pay, if you are getting paid to do work, and have a choice to work, then its only slavery from your point of view, and if you find something you are good at and make money then its something you live for. If you choose to take a job then you take on all the burden that goes with it, you can choose to handle that burden in two ways, as a weight of depression, or a means to a ends, or a steping stone to get to where you are going. if in the end your dream and ideas are that of slavery then that is all you will find. If you have dreams of doing what you like the best, you have honurable goals and a sucessful life.

The fact of the matter is the most labour is unrewarding, unfulfilling, and destructive to both the body or mind. Slavery is probably not the right word according to historic definitions, but I labeled it slavery because it is undesirable toil. The goal as I see it should be to minimize ones wants, goals, and dreams as a means to toil less.

Because there are no rewarding careers, the rewarding career is a myth.

Kitoak wrote:To the author of this thread: it is true some things are true whether you believe them or not.

Slavery is work without pay, if you are getting paid to do work, and have a choice to work, then its only slavery from your point of view, and if you find something you are good at and make money then its something you live for. If you choose to take a job then you take on all the burden that goes with it, you can choose to handle that burden in two ways, as a weight of depression, or a means to a ends, or a steping stone to get to where you are going. if in the end your dream and ideas are that of slavery then that is all you will find. If you have dreams of doing what you like the best, you have honurable goals and a sucessful life.

If you choose to belittle people rather than using their strengths then you will only find conflict to reach your goals. If you learn that empowerment begins by giving it first, then you will find others will empower you. This type of repect gains you a position above slavery because there is no empowerment.

Actually, the defining charactersistic of a slave is not that they work for free but that they are owned by another human being.

Dhodges, noble paddler.

Aaron: Why can’t you just double size of the farm?

Dhodges: Sometimes you can't do that. The land is being used for something else

Land used for something else? How much of that something else is useless facilities to profit in the worst way!

Diogones lived in a tub. Primitive man lived in strucuters that were not built to last.

Cowardly, soft, civilized man needs castles and mansions! He tries to make everything last expect for wisdom.

There needs to be no comprimising in your reasoning!

DAvid also says: Or there is a limited quantity of arable land.

There is too much of an abundance in nature for that talk - Wasted on baseball arenas, stadiums, casinos, factorys for gadgets and gizmos and cities. Look at all the consumer products!

Fight the good fight - not the vain one!

Farms require more than land and people. You also need other equipment, and especially water; those things may also be limited.

ah, there is just too much of an abundance. Water shortages and limited space -- the root causes to these problems are what need to be tackled.

You know how I found this website? I searched for Masanobu Fukuoka.

Masanobu Fukuoka

Please dhodges, open your heart to his words.

Dhodges finishes it up with: The point was, what happens, holding other things constant, and changing one variable. While that's never what actually happens, if you don't understand the simplest case, you won't understand more complex ones, either.

Yes my friend David.

But if you don't truly fathom the great complexity - - -then you miss the simplest way, the way that masanobu fukuoka knows, and others know.