Ye shall gather store of women .
-
@Froclown said
"Yes, but stereotypes are not the whole truth they "see the whack and don't see what is dope" as a wise man once said."
Of course they are not the whole truth. That is why they are called 'stereotypes' and not 'whole truth'.
I have no idea what "see the whack and don't see what is dope" means.
I did a google search and pulled up nada,zero,zip on that one.
-
@kuniggety said
"I have bought my wife a couple of pieces of jewelry, but none of which she asked for. When I took her into Tiffany's to get her a 10 year anniversary ring, I was having to talk her up in the price of what to spend - not down."
10 years...
A "couple" pieces...
Gird yer loins sonny boy... the best is yet to come....
what a freekin' joke!
I have bought my wife countless pieces... !!
(or so she told me so after the fact...
)... "normal"... sheesh....
is there such a thing?...
-
Yikes, this is not what I expected to have in my face his morn....
but since it is, I will share that I sometimes have misoginistic moments.
When I go to help the women and children at the abuse shelter,
or council the Ladies in Al-Non, or in my classes.Sometimes for a brief moment I think and feel the worst I have ever felt.....and mistakenly has directed that at a sex.
Thank the Gods I have been trained to watch myself, for these moment are brief
like a blink of the eye.I remind myself an adage my sister taught me years ago
"water seeks its own level"
So I will assert, that sure there are people of all sorts out in the world, with all sorts of nasty qualities that may appear to be a fair representation of the population. But in a heliocentric way, we bring every little thing to us, based on Laws, and the Laws will be true and just.
So if we are surrounded by people (or things for that matter) that we deem low, unworthy, yucky, slimly, beneath us, so to speak......well that will say alot about ones own true character, and where one is allowing ones thoughts to go.
I am fully aware of why I am friends with whom I am friends with, and why I have the relatives I have. And I am in complete agreement with that fact.
BTW-I do like shiny things, alot. But a silver and diamond necklace will always be valuable, where as a red convertable has a very limited exchange. Something that took a million or so years to create has a profound power, and to adorn oneself with the beauty of Gaian gifts is not something to be taken lightly.
-
Lately I'm finding New Scientist magazine to be major source of religious and mystical inspiration. Now, just as the TOT fora are hotting up with discussions of gender issues, New Scientist (17 July 2010) has an opinion article by neuroscientist Lise Eliot arguing that hard-wired, biological differences in male and female psychology are small and insignificant.
"Yes, boys and girls, man and women, are different. But most of those differences are far smaller than ... stereotypes suggest. Nor are reasoning, speaking, computing, empathising, navigating, and other cognitive differences fixed in the genetic architecture of our brains. All such skills are learned, and neuro-plasticity ... trumps hard-wiring every time." So any differences that may exist can be unlearned.
Differences are also statistical rather than absolute. So, "By around 8 or 9, the average boy is more active than about two-thirds of girls, meaning that a third of girls are more active than the average boy."
And gender differences are sometimes just in the eyes of the beholder. When male infants were dressed as girls and females as boys, observers unaware of the switch reported more stereotypically masculine behavior in the blue-clad girls and more feminine behavior in the pink-clad boys.
Although she doesn't use Thelemic terminology, her conclusion is that by teaching a child to conform to sexual stereotypes, we are interfering with his or her opportunity to discover his or her unique true will.
-
@gmugmble said
"When male infants were dressed as girls and females as boys, observers unaware of the switch reported more stereotypically masculine behavior in the blue-clad girls and more feminine behavior in the pink-clad boys."
And I'll bet kids tied up in a straightjacket and hog tied will be less active than those by the kiddie pool in a bathing suit.
Men and women are very different creatures. One report tells us that the male human has more genetic similarity to a male gorilla than he does the female human.
I think the political correctness about what it is okay to say about the female has gotten ridiculous. How is it misogynistic to observe a group of moody women and say those are moody women. Answer: It isn't (misogyny). The Age of Stupidity that started in the 1960's and spawned groups like NOW is coming to an end. Why is it okay for women to generalize about the negative side of the male all day long but when men comment accurately about some negative characteristic of the female population in general it is misogyny?
One of my sisters is a definite casualty of that era. She went into academia and chose the career path and did cancer research all her life. Now at 60 she looks back and says, "I wish I had gotten married and had kids".
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Men and women are very different creatures. One report tells us that the male human has more genetic similarity to a male gorilla than he does the female human.
"I just don't agree with you on that. The line is so arbitrary and artificial.
"I think the political correctness about what it is okay to say about the female has gotten ridiculous. How is it misogynistic to observe a group of moody women and say those are moody women. Answer: It isn't (misogyny)."
I agree. But it would be if you generalized that to all or most women. (I think I gave my own example recently: Walking through Harlem for the first time, I noticed [no surprise] that nearly everyone on the street was Black. But, in some circles, my observing that out loud would be met with a frown or tongue-lashing for my insensitivity. That's nuts.)
"The Age of Stupidity that started in the 1960's and spawned groups like NOW is coming to an end."
Yup, back to disagreeing with you, since I hold most of what emerged from the '60s (and NOW in particular) in very high regard.
"Why is it okay for women to generalize about the negative side of the male all day long but when men comment accurately about some negative characteristic of the female population in general it is misogyny?"
The words that fall short, and therefore become technically bigoted, are "female population in general." It's the generalization that is offensive (and usually grossly inaccurate).
"One of my sisters is a definite casualty of that era. She went into academia and chose the career path and did cancer research all her life. Now at 60 she looks back and says, "I wish I had gotten married and had kids".
"And, who knows, if it had gone the other way she might have looked back and said, "I wish I'd done that cancer research I'd wanted."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"And, who knows, if it had gone the other way she might have looked back and said, "I wish I'd done that cancer research I'd wanted.""
She probably would have. I still think she would have been MUCH happier as a mom and she does too.
She now realizes the fact that she has a uterus and it is a more compelling reality to her than some contrived career path.@Jim Eshelman said
"The words that fall short, and therefore become technically bigoted, are "female population in general." It's the generalization that is offensive (and usually grossly inaccurate)."
Nope. There is nothing bigoted about making a generalization. Accurate generalizations can be made. It is only offensive or seems inaccurate to those in denial. Inaccurate ones can be made too. But to label all generalizations as bigoted is illogical.
-
@Froclown said
"
Also I am basing what I have said here off of my own experiences with several women who are diagnosed Bipolar.
"well that's a biased opinion if I ever saw one.
You don't need to summon devils, they are always calling you, all you need to do is step down and fraternise with them on their level, (and by devils i don't mean women, more like disordered nephesh). -
@Labyrinthus said
"Nope. There is nothing bigoted about making a generalization. Accurate generalizations can be made. It is only offensive or seems inaccurate to those in denial. Inaccurate ones can be made too. But to label all generalizations as bigoted is illogical."
Agreed with the first sentence as written. It's not in the making of the generalization, but in its application to those outside of the original observation group, that the problem lies.
The basic nature of bigotry, its defining characteristic, is the presumptive applying to Person X characterizations that may or may not be true of X, but are believed to be true of some set that shares some other characteristic of X. That is, it leads to enthymemes.
-
"Why is it okay for women to generalize about the negative side of the male all day long but when men comment accurately about some negative characteristic of the female population in general it is misogyny?"
I dont think it is ok at all, but it seems as if the culture we are immersed in leaves people feeling inadequit and that they need to lift them selves up ( so to speak) by knocking others down. Negative characterization and generalizations tend to do exemptlify this, and IME are not signs of balance and harmony, but usually indicate some sort of dis-ease.
I know from my personal trials that I have made false generalizations, and not just about sexy things. I am always grateful when I am brought to attention to this. I remove myself from situations and people that make sweeping generalizations.
I do dare say as well, that since this worlds reality is heavily male influenced and run, most women do not DARE say anything negatively about men at all. The ones who do dare to challenge the status quo are usually attacked and run out of dodge-so to speak.
I do not think that anyone should have to negatively characterize anyone, sex, age, race, species at all...IMO it only reflects negatively on the one doing it in the first place.....But of course....Your milage may vary....
-
93
A blanket statement is exactly that, a blanket, something to comfort a child or cover up something you don't want to look at too closely.
It takes courage and clarity to take everything as a thing in itself, indivisible, and see it/him/her for what they are, without the lenses of social conditioning, Freudian phantasm to distort it.93 93/93
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The basic nature of bigotry, its defining characteristic, is the presumptive applying to Person X characterizations that may or may not be true of X, but are believed to be true of some set that shares some other characteristic of X. That is, it leads to enthymemes."
Well, now you are simply talking about bigotry by itself which is beside the point.
Enthymemes happen. Not much to be done about the fact that sometimes one thing will lead to another. Driving a car can lead to negative outcomes that are not possible if one never got into a car in the first place. Yet, despite possible negative outcomes most people still choose to drive.
Generalizations may not be as useful as a car but they can serve a purpose.
Cops use these all the time. They know most serial killers are white males. Pretty negative thing too. (Is that bigotry?)
Heh. I just thought of further uses... but that is also politicized and this is drifting enough already.
-
In general, most generalizations a flawed.
And most people aren't like most people anyway.
-
@Veronica said
"most women do not DARE say anything negatively about men at all. The ones who do dare to challenge the status quo are usually attacked and run out of dodge-so to speak.
"Say WHAT!?
No way that is even a little bit true. There is even a name for this once near chronic behavior -- "man-bashing". It was so bad that it became a joke of a caricature in itself.
Here's a good one;
*Man Bashing - Funplex > Gender. ... The man bashing will stop when you men
figure out how to treat women with the respect and common courtesy we deserve! **
*I don't know what universe you live in but in my world women challenge the status quo all the time with no undo negative consequences whatsoever.
-
Having spent a fair amount of time in the middle east, (and Yorkshire
) I'm inclined to agree with Veronica.
IN many parts of the world women are indeed treated like slaves, kept out of sight or covered up so that men do not have to deal with there own sexuality. -
@Jim Eshelman said
"In general, most generalizations a flawed.
And most people aren't like most people anyway."
What does that mean? Sounds just plain wrong. Otherwise well crafted generalizations can appear to be flawed when they are expected to be something they are not. To point out how the generalization fails to account for an individual characteristic is like saying an apple is not a watermelon. Senseless.
No one is saying that everyone is the same. Why state the irrelevant obvious? To obfuscate, if you ask me.
The neurotic aversion to something as simple as a 'generalization' among liberals is something to behold. This sort of logic and discourse is why Savage has concluded that Liberalism is a mental disorder, and Denis Prager calls the psychology/philosophy emerging on the Left from the sixties "The Age of Stupidity"
Simple, obvious observations are falsely labeled in a negative light (words like bigot are used) because it is politically incorrect. Jim, you are averse to most political correctness but in this matter you have succumbed.
Men and Women are VERY different. Genetically, chemically, hormonally, ==> temperament, behavior.... It may be politically incorrect, but its true. Half a century of Leftist denial hasn't changed that.
I highly recommend folks tune into Prager's male-female hour. You might learn something.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"In general, most generalizations a flawed.And most people aren't like most people anyway."
What does that mean? Sounds just plain wrong."
It's a self-busting commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of generalizations.
"Otherwise well crafted generalizations can appear to be flawed when they are expected to be something they are not."
If you don't qualify them when stating them, then they come across as absolute, invariable statements. Yes, you have to use language better, saing things like, "More often than not," and "In cases I've seen," etc. Otherwise, they are nearly always factually wrong.
"To point out how the generalization fails to account for an individual characteristic is like saying an apple is not a watermelon. Senseless."
Wrong. It's good use of language.
You can't say, "People named Labyrinthus have green hair" and have it be a right unless you've done a 100% survey. You can, however, say, "Anyone I've ever known named Labyrinthus has had green hair," or some other qualifying remark - that returns it to a statement of your experience.
"\The neurotic aversion to something as simple as a 'generalization' among liberals is something to behold."
They do tend to be the foundation of a lot of bigotry, not to mention simply wrong information. (I tend to give conservatives the benefit the doubt and assume that their greater tendency to flat statements is a result of poorer education and bad rearing, rather than diminished mental capacity or moral corruption.)
It's just intellectually and linguistically sloppy! That's why I categorize it as an education issue. If I were grading an English paper, I'd mark it red on the basis of construction.
"Simple, obvious observations are falsely labeled in a negative light (words like bigot are used) because it is politically incorrect. Jim, you are averse to most political correctness but in this matter you have succumbed."
If I take you at your word - read exactly what you right and interpret it as you say it - and you persist in making flat statements without qualifications or allowing for exceptions - then I must conclude that you mean what you say.
To say, in English, "Women are a pain!" actually means "All women are a pain always." That's what the language means.
"Men and Women are VERY different. Genetically, chemically, hormonally, ==> temperament, behavior.... It may be politically incorrect, but its true. Half a century of Leftist denial hasn't changed that."
The majority of differences are socialization. The remainder of the differences are negligible other than for the specific issues of sexual reproduction and matters immediately attached to that. It's science, not denial.
