Why don't women make the first move?

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=12327]Anywhere But Here[/MENTION]

Also, althought feminists like to think they are "their own woman"...that is a lie that even they themselfs do not believe it.
Why? Because women are not attracted to men who are not strong. They need to respect him, to feel his strenght, not to walk all over him. This is simply true, it doesn't even need any argumentation, because its happening in real life, and when you see it, you laugh and learn of those striking differences between a woman and a man.

And to give you a little food for thought, I was always intrigued by the woman's desire to literarely despise a man is she can. Its just amazing. Its deep stuff right there.

i mean, if she can, the little princess can despise the man, strepping him with her "princess" foot. Its interesting, because that kind of despise that women have for a certain type of men is a totaly different type of despising then what usualy despise is...if someone knows what do I mean.

 

[cvp12gh5]

Oh dear.... Here we go.

Here we go? Are you referring to how I described him? You must think I want a fight. If so, I'm sure you are rather excited. In reading some of of your comments in others threads, you can get pretty nasty and inappropriate indeed. Shocking to say the least. So let's not. Oh dear.

 

[LucyJr]

When we are referring to the very specific problem I have with his train of thought- men naturally being mentally stronger than women- I don't think I am being unfair at all. It doesn't matter where you are from geographically to understand this and see examples of women being mentally at the top of their game and more so than men in some instances. I am not judging his traditional culture. I am judging him as a person. And he can judge me in return, I'm fine with that. We all do this on a daily basis, it's part of who we are as humans. And to be fair, I never accused him of hating women. He was surrounded by manipulative women growing up and it left a bad taste in his mouth, but no I do not believe he hates them.

Nope, you're wrong. It does not happen that I was surounded by manipulative women, it just happen that all women are very manipulative.
Now to you this might sound abhoring, but from my perspective, and because I'm a guy, I can see it very clearly.
Its not like women are all the time manipulative, only when they can: its something in them that triggers this, its like it activates.
There isn't any of that in men, and even if it is, men are ashamed of it, they know it and don't like it in themself.
but with women is different: if a woman is rebuked for being manipulative, she just calms down, but she isn't ashamed of what she did, which is the typical response you would get from a guy.

 

[cvp12gh5]

Nope, you're wrong. It does not happen that I was surounded by manipulative women, it just happen that all women are very manipulative.
Now to you this might sound abhoring, but from my perspective, and because I'm a guy, I can see it very clearly.
Its not like women are all the time manipulative, only when they can: its something in them that triggers this, its like it activates.
There isn't any of that in men, and even if it is, men are ashamed of it, they know it and don't like it in themself.
but with women is different: if a woman is rebuked for being manipulative, she just calms down, but she isn't ashamed of what she did, which is the typical response you would get from a guy.

Such insight.

 

[La Sagna]

Nope, you're wrong. It does not happen that I was surounded by manipulative women, it just happen that all women are very manipulative.
Now to you this might sound abhoring, but from my perspective, and because I'm a guy, I can see it very clearly.
Its not like women are all the time manipulative, only when they can: its something in them that triggers this, its like it activates.
There isn't any of that in men, and even if it is, men are ashamed of it, they know it and don't like it in themself.
but with women is different: if a woman is rebuked for being manipulative, she just calms down, but she isn't ashamed of what she did, which is the typical response you would get from a guy.

Your mind reading capabilities are incredible! You actually know what every man and every woman on earth thinks and feels! I didn't know that this was possible but the mere fact that it is your opinion is the proof that it is true. Your arrogance is breathtaking.

You cannot be taken seriously by any man or woman that has an ounce of common sense and intellect. Opinions are not facts. Your opinion is not more valid than anybody else's. Your keep discrediting yourself through your use of the word 'stupid' for anything that you don't have a proper argument against.

 

[sassafras]

Now, you are incorrect again, refusing to see something so simple.
I think all men are mentaly stronger then women. Why? Because they are men, not women. This is to say they are stronger simply in the virtue of being men and not women...why? because the nature of a man is different and stronger then the nature of a woman.
Imagine two ships. One is big, huge (the male), while the other one is small (the woman). Now, even when the big ship gets down and is unable to function, it is very true that the big ship is still bigger and stronger then the small ship, even if its unable to function.
Can you get this?
Its not something about what you can do as a woman, or something men can do as men, to change something in their very nature. Its about what makes a man a man, and what makes a woman a woman. Its the stuff that makes a woman, and the stuff that makes a man. And althought there are huge similarities, because both men and women are from the race we call humans, there is still fundamental differences, and one of them is that men are stronger then women, and somehow, wether you like it or not, more proud creatures.
Now if the instant reaction of you at the idea that this might be true (just that it might be true, not necessarely that it is) is one of offense and somehow of a inferiority complex, it proves that your understanding lacks sound reason.
If I would to take offense at something bigger and higher then me, I would be a fool. There is nothing to be ashamed off on my part, because my very nature is different then that of that being who is more complex and stronger then me. Its not about something I can do or i can not, its just how things are. And when I understand this, I realise that I need to be proud of who I am, and not feel inferior to anything, not even of those who are higher then me.
I hope you can understand this, if not, I'm not beating my head to explain it anymore.

I don't think @Anywhere But Here is arguing that there are no general biological-based differences between men and women that contribute to generalized ideas about what women are like and what men are like, only that these traits are not universal and that the problem with weaving them into the fabric of our culture necessitates that THIS collection of traits is essentially feminine and that THIS collection of traits is essentially masculine. This kind of attitude creeps into social construction of gender roles that may marginalize those men and women that do not naturally fit into those boxes. Does this make them any less man or woman? What about the fluid, nurture-based aspects of our lives and personality? Why must they be shaped and slotted into categories solely because of what is between our legs? Essentially, there is a spectrum. On one extreme, we have the eternal masculine and on the other end we have the eternal feminine dictated by archetype, but instead of moving toward the middle that a balanced viewpoint would require, men and women are encouraged to pursue the ends to keep a binary and separate perspective on what man vs woman is.

At this point, this stops being about what is essentially man or woman, but what is socially constructed to be man or woman. There is nothing natural about it. The only natural is that which approaches the middle without guide or structure.

As for whether men are mentally stronger than women, I am assuming here that you mean that men are naturally more rational and less dictated by emotion rather than specifically meaning intelligence. I would argue that this is one of those aspects of men and women that is dictated in three parts: by biology (our hormones do play a role in the emotions we frequently experience and thus, the opportunities we're given to get a grip on those same emotions), by genetics and by nurture. We know the brain is incredibly plastic and that how we're brought up plays a huge, HUGE role in how our minds develop. If society expects women to behave in one way and men to behave in another, naturally, the mind will adjust to those expectations. There is, however, nothing ESSENTIALLY feminine or masculine about the human brain apart from the way it is molded. In other words, this particular difference between men and women is almost entirely a gender construct.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Here we go? Are you referring to how I described him? You must think I want a fight. If so, I'm sure you are rather excited. In reading some of of your comments in others threads, you can get pretty nasty and inappropriate indeed. Shocking to say the least. So let's not. Oh dear.

I am referring to all of your interactions with him through the thread. A lot of assumptions about his experience or inexperience, saying that what he's written is the stupidest thing you've ever read, stating that you will laugh at him and let it slide, but then pick up with insulting his intelligence after he responds to you, etc. I find it interesting that you responded to my post by attempting to turn on me and shine a light on my "nasty an inappropriate" comments. There's nothing shocking about why I say or do what so ever but I do find your attempt at deflection to be really amusing. But I do love to talk about myself, so if that's what you want to do here then I am more than happy to fulfill your desires.

I wouldn't say you are specifically looking for a fight because I don't know what your motivations are. But your posts come off as if you think you are superior to him because you've "risen above" your "conservative" upbringing. I think your ignorance shows when you think that he should change how he was raised among an ENTIRE CULTURE by reading the internet. Also, you stated earlier that you weren't going to respond to any of Lucy's posts any longer and yet you continue to do so. You really can't seem to help yourself. So like I said, I can't say that you're looking to start a fight, but it looks like you can't let anything slide that doesn't work within your own personal frame work.

So, I will "Oh Dear." Just as you've read through my posts and have formulated an opinion about me, I have formulated an opinion of you which seems to be primarily an emotional reaction to what you are reading instead of any measured kind of logic.

 

[La Sagna]

I want to clear this issue up once and for all

The people who are saying that 'equality' means that men and women are EXACTLY the same are the MARXIST FEMINISTS

Ok?

Not me!

I am the person saying that i believe men and women should have EQUAL say in the decision making of our society but at the same time we as a species should realsie that we are different and that evolution assigned us different roles and equiped us phyiscally to carry out those roles

Men are stronger and have a more focussed field of vision because they have evolved to hunt prey (if you look at indigenous people in africa you will find that they are running down prey over large distances)

Women are anatomically desinged differently with wider hips for child rearing which are not as good for physical pursuits but which nontheless are VITAL for the survival of the species

Mens more athletic build has been vital for the species and womens child rearing build has been vital for the species...BOTH have had a vital role

Women actually have a wider field of vision than men! They can seea wider angle than us.....they can literally watch their man in the corner of their eye! this is probbaly because women were gathering rather than hunting and they were scanning the environment. once again if you look at indigenous people for example the aborigines of australia you will find this to be true. The women folk there teach the children songs about all the plants. The songs are a memory aid which helps the children identify a plant and also know what its properties are

Another use for womens wider field of vision is possibly because as they gathered and as they prepared the fruits of their labour they would have been TALKING...chatting away and singing and being sociable with the women and children around them

Men on the other hand would probaly have had to be more reticent because you cannot hunt animals and talk and sing at the same time!

men and women ARE different it's a scientific fact but this is not something to lament and indeed i don't believe people have been lamenting it until feminism messed with peoples heads!

Men and women have been complimenting each other for thousands of years and have even celebrated each others roles through feasts where the combined labours of the men and women come together to create something that the community shares and appreciates

It is marxist feminism that has told people that men and women are EXACTLY the same and that any differences are purely cultural ones thta exist in the mind and can be undone through social conditioning

I'll give you an example of the marxist mindset: recently Facebook and Apple have offered their female employees to freeze their eggs so that women can work later in life before having children. This is an unnatural act and a denial of womens assigned role by nature and it will have consequences for our species for example an older parent lacks the energy to give a child and children have a lot of energy!

So i think whilst campaigning for women to have equal say and for them to be treated with equal respect and to have equal opportunities is a noble thing i think we should also realsie that there are some differences betwene the sexes and that we shouldn't try to deny these because to do so is going to cause problems (and already is)



I'm afraid you are simply wrong about this and i strongly recommend that you read up on marxist feminist thought; i also strongly recommend that you 'follow the money' to find out which of the strands of feminist thought are most financially backed by large corporate interests (you will find out that marxist feminism is the most powerful and is the one with the most influence in the media and in universities)



Then call it 'equality' NOT feminism because i'm sick and tired of certain groups claiming an ownership over the belief in equality

A belief in equality does not belong to feminists...it belongs to human beings who are able to be objective and there is nothing objective in the word 'feminism' (it is linguistically and energetically biased towards women through the linguistic construct of the word...'FEM'-IN-ISM)

The comment wasn't aimed at you but other posters who make this erroneous claim.

I have to admit that I am not schooled in marxist feminism but I have no issue with saying that there are problems with some groups and schools of thought that call themselves feminist.

As for differences between the sexes I agree with most of what you are saying but I also don't think that it is as black and white as some people would have us think. There are some general tendencies in each sex but there are also huge variations within each sex and my wish is for everyone to not be pigeon-holed into any particular role so that we can all be free.

I am personally a very feminine person but I am also more attracted to men that are more nurturing and caring rather than the supposedly more typical male characteristics. Personal characteristics as well as personal preferences are all very individual and the generalizations that some people like to make are constrictive and inaccurate.

 

[cvp12gh5]

I am referring to all of your interactions with him through the thread. A lot of assumptions about his experience or inexperience, saying that what he's written is the stupidest thing you've ever read, stating that you will laugh at him and let it slide, but then pick up with insulting his intelligence after he responds to you, etc. I find it interesting that you responded to my post by attempting to turn on me and shine a light on my "nasty an inappropriate" comments. There's nothing shocking about why I say or do what so ever but I do find your attempt at deflection to be really amusing. But I do love to talk about myself, so if that's what you want to do here then I am more than happy to fulfill your desires.

I wouldn't say you are specifically looking for a fight because I don't know what your motivations are. But your posts come off as if you think you are superior to him because you've "risen above" your "conservative" upbringing. I think your ignorance shows when you think that he should change how he was raised among an ENTIRE CULTURE by reading the internet. Also, you stated earlier that you weren't going to respond to any of Lucy's posts any longer and yet you continue to do so. You really can't seem to help yourself. So like I said, I can't say that you're looking to start a fight, but it looks like you can't let anything slide that doesn't work within your own personal frame work.

So, I will "Oh Dear." Just as you've read through my posts and have formulated an opinion about me, I have formulated an opinion of you which seems to be primarily an emotional reaction to what you are reading instead of any measured kind of logic.

It was the stupidest thing I ever read. I was giving my opinion. And I responded to your post because there seems to be a pattern with you. You pretend to laugh at or disapprove of name calling, yet you actively engage it in the the worst kind of way. The epitome of contradiction. I felt the need to point it out for you since you seem unaware of this.
And "superior"? No. Openminded? Yes. And I wrote that he had access to the internet to help him learn. Did I say that it would completely change his mind on how his ENTIRE CULTURE views this? No. It could help him broaden his mind to other possibilities, and by doing so, saying 'yes, what you are saying is possible'. I'm not a man hater and I do not think women are better than men. We are a mixture of everything and we are all wonderful. There is no natural which is natural.

He continues to attach my name to things so I respond. Big deal. Nothing I need to explain to you. And I can't let anything go that I don't personally agree with? Ha. Welcome to the FORUM!

You can say I'm having an emotional reaction. I don't think I am but okay. I think you try too hard to be logical. We done now?

 

[SpecialEdition]

I am personally a very feminine person but I am also more attracted to men that are more nurturing and caring rather than the supposedly more typical male characteristics. Personal characteristics as well as personal preferences are all very individual and the generalizations that some people like to make are constrictive and inaccurate.

To me this is an interesting point. It made me wonder (and this is not aimed at you specifically, but both genders and anyone reading or participating in this thread): Does it matter more how your SO is with YOU, or how they are with OTHER people? In this example, do you want him to be warm and nurturing across the board in all situations? Is that advantageous as a male? Or is it more important that he just shows this side in his intimate relationships?

Pondering this for myself, I am currently with someone who has a tendency to have a harder edge towards MOST things. Emotion does not come into play with any of his decision making. He does not feel a lot of emotions within himself and if those feelings come up, he will acknowledge them, process them and move on. At no point do they have an influence in how he behaves or interacts. Every decision he makes is run through fairly strict logic and the choice to act depends on how efficient that action is and whether or not it's worth it. Seeing how he operates in the outside world, in his job, in his day to day life and even in his friendships can be vastly different to how he is with me. So for myself, I am attracted to the typical "manly" behaviour of making very solid and sound decisions that are thoroughly thought through. However, that is separate from how he is with me when we are together, which is a lot warmer and "nurturing" in the sense that he cares of my well being. This is not to say he is a different person when I am not around, but that that particular ASPECT of him comes through when we are together.

I myself tend to be a lot harder of a person overall, but tend to be very mushy in my personal relationships. However, I also consider myself to be a feminine person. It brings me satisfaction to nurture to a certain degree though my version of nurturing looks more like tough love than hugs and "sharing feelings." But the tendency is still there to want to nurture a person to be a better version of themselves and to be a companion and a shoulder to cry on. I don't really feel anything about what other people are feeling, but I do recognize that I play a certain role to people that might be considered "typically" female. It's just that I don't reciprocate in sharing feelings, that is where a line is drawn.

Now, to touch on the subject of manipulation, I do think women are naturally manipulative. I do NOT infuse that word with negative connotations. I DO think that women have a natural tendency to manipulate because they are more driven for social control. When you are driven to maintaining a certain social harmony I do think that there is a sort of push to draw people into a certain idea or a certain way of being. It's not that women are malicious about it (though some ABSOLUTELY are), but I do think that many women have a certain awareness of what is ideal for the group as a whole so that the community can remain solid. This goes for small and large groups alike and is something that I have witnessed in a lot of environments I've worked in and even social environments. To me, manipulation can be trying to draw something out of someone to help weave them into the fabric of the social environment. That can be trying to pull information to assess where a certain person stands on something, it could be bringing up subject matter which others are familiar with in the hopes of fostering conversation and bonding... That sort if thing. It is manipulating conversation or circumstances in order to kind of create a certain closeness. Now, SOME women will do this in a more selfish way that benefits them or people they care about specifically and lose sight of what is best for everyone as a whole. It's not about enriching a social environment but extracting from it to suit themselves. And this isn't even touching on romantic relationships. That is a whole other ball game.

Manipulation is results driven. It's about doing A to bring about/create B. I think with men the tendency to manipulate is much less on a SOCIAL level but more in an environmental sense. I also thing with men it's more of Start from A, get to B. It's a lot more linear.

 

[SpecialEdition]

It was the stupidest thing I ever read. I was giving my opinion. And I responded to your post because there seems to be a pattern with you. You pretend to laugh at or disapprove of name calling, yet you actively engage it in the the worst kind of way. The epitome of contradiction. I felt the need to point it out for you since you seem unaware of this.
And "superior"? No. Openminded? Yes. And I wrote that he had access to the internet to help him learn. Did I say that it would completely change his mind on how his ENTIRE CULTURE views this? No. It could help him broaden his mind to other possibilities, and by doing so, saying 'yes, what you are saying is possible'. I'm not a man hater and I do not think women are better than men. We are a mixture of everything and we are all wonderful. There is no natural which is natural.

He continues to attach my name to things so I respond. Big deal. Nothing I need to explain to you. And I can't let anything go that I don't personally agree with? Ha. Welcome to the FORUM!

You can say I'm having an emotional reaction. I don't think I am but okay. I think you try too hard to be logical. We done now?

Okie dokie, I don't see where I name called. I'll take your word for it. As for that being the stupidest thing you've ever read, count yourself lucky. I have read and see things that were far more off based and stupid. Perhaps I have just been around a wider variety of people and seen a wider variety of posts than you have. Perhaps you are misreading everything he writes because of a language barrier.

I would say based on your posts that you are absolutely not open minded when it comes to the opinions or observations of other people. If you were, I never would have engaged in a discussion with you to begin with and you wouldn't be having such a ridiculous back and forth with Lucy.

I never said you were a man hater or that you thought women were better. I did not pick up on any of that in any of your posts, so I never addressed that.

I've been to the forum since 2009, so technically I should be welcoming you.

I don't try too hard to be anything, that seems really exhausting. Whether or not we are done is entirely up to you. Based on your posting pattern, I am not so sure.

 

[RandomSoul]

I want to clear this issue up once and for all

The people who are saying that 'equality' means that men and women are EXACTLY the same are the MARXIST FEMINISTS

Ok?

Not me!


A belief in equality does not belong to feminists...it belongs to human beings who are able to be objective and there is nothing objective in the word 'feminism' (it is linguistically and energetically biased towards women through the linguistic construct of the word...'FEM'-IN-ISM)

Barbara Ehrenreich 1976

What is Socialist Feminism?

Note: This article was first published in WIN Magazine in 1976. It later appeared in Working Papers on Socialism & Feminism published by the New American Movement (NAM) in 1976. NAM was a mixed gender organization heavily influenced by socialist feminism. A number of CWLUers were associated with it.

At some level, perhaps not too well articulated, socialist feminism has been around for a long time. You are a woman in a capitalist society. You get pissed off: about the job, about the bills, about your husband (or ex), about the kids’ school, the housework, being pretty, not being pretty, being looked at, not being look at (and either way, not listened to), etc. If you think about all these things and how they fit together and what has to be changed, and then you look around for some words to hold all these thoughts together in abbreviated form, you’d almost have to come up with “socialist feminism.”

A lot of us came to socialist feminism in just that kind of way. We were searching for a word/term/phrase which would begin to express all of our concerns, all of our principles, in a way that neither “socialist” nor “feminist” seemed to. I have to admit that most socialist feminists I know are not too happy with the term “socialist feminist” either. On the one hand it is too long (I have no hopes for a hyphenated mass movement); on the other hand it is much too short for what is, after all, really socialist internationalist anti-racist, anti-heterosexist feminism.

The trouble with taking a new label of any kind is that it creates an instant aura of sectarianism. “Socialist feminism” becomes a challenge, a mystery, an issue in and of itself. We have speakers, conferences, articles on “socialist feminism” — though we know perfectly well that both “socialism” and “feminism” are too huge and too inclusive to be subjects for any sensible speech, conference, article, etc. People, including avowed socialist feminists, ask them elves anxiously, “What is socialist feminism?” There is a kind of expectation that it is (or is about to be at any moment, maybe in the next speech, conference, or article) a brilliant synthesis of world historical proportions — an evolutionary leap beyond Marx, Freud, and Wollstonecraft. Or that it will turn out to be a nothing, a fad seized on by a few disgruntled feminists and female socialists, a temporary distraction.

I want to try to cut through some of the mystery which has grown tip around socialist feminism. A logical way to start is to look at socialism and feminism separately. How does a socialist, more precisely, a Marxist, look at the world? How does a feminist? To begin with, Marxism and feminism have an important thing in common: they are critical ways of looking at the world. Both rip away popular mythology and “common sense” wisdom and force us to look at experience in a new way. Both seek to understand the world — not in terms of static balances, symmetries, etc. (as in conventional social science) — but in terms of antagonisms. They lead to conclusions which are jarring and disturbing at the same time that they are liberating. There is no way to have a Marxist or feminist outlook and remain a spectator. To understand the reality laid bare by these analyses is to move into action to change it.

Marxism addresses itself to the class dynamics of capitalist society. Every social scientist knows that capitalist societies are characterized by more or less severe, systemic inequality. Marxism understands this inequality to arise from processes which are intrinsic to capitalism as an economic system. A minority of people (the capitalist class) own all the factories/energy sources/resources, etc. which everyone else depends on in order to live. The great majority (the working class) must work out of sheer necessity, under conditions set by the capitalists, for the wages the capitalists pay. Since the capitalists make their profits by paying less in wages than the value of what the workers actually produce, the relationship between the two classes is necessarily one of irreconcilable antagonism. The capitalist class owes its very existence to the continued exploitation of the working class. What maintains this system of class rule is, in the last analysis, force. The capitalist class controls (directly or indirectly) the means of organized violence represented by the state — police, jails, etc. Only by waging a revolutionary struggle aimed at the seizure of state power can the working class free itself, and, ultimately, all people.

Feminism addresses itself to another familiar inequality. All human societies are marked by some degree of inequality between the sexes. If we survey human societies at a glance, sweeping through history and across continents, we see that they have commonly been characterized by: the subjugation of women to male authority, both with the family and in the community in general; the objectification of women as a form of property; a sexual division of labor in which women are confined to such activities as child raising, performing personal services for adult males, and specified (usually low prestige) forms of productive labor.

Feminists, struck by the near-universality of these things, have looked for explanations in the biological “givens” which underlie all human social existence. Men are physically stronger than women on the average, especially compared to pregnant women or women who are nursing babies. Furthermore, men have the power to make women pregnant. Thus, the forms that sexual inequality take — however various they may be from culture to culture — rest, in the last analysis, on what is clearly a physical advantage males hold over females. That is to say, they result ultimately on violence, or the threat of violence.

The ancient, biological root of male supremacy — the fact of male violence — is commonly obscured by the laws and conventions which regulate the relations between the sexes in any particular culture. But it is there, according to a feminist analysis. The possibility of male assault stands as a constant warning to “bad” (rebellious, aggressive) women, and drives “good” women into complicity with male supremacy. The reward for being “good” ("pretty,” submissive) is protection from random male violence and, in some cases, economic security.

Marxism rips away the myths about “democracy” and its “pluralism” to reveal a system of class rule that rests on forcible exploitation. Feminism cuts through myths about “instinct” and romantic love to expose male rule as a rule of force. Both analyses compel us to look at a fundamental injustice. The choice is to reach for the comfort of the myths or, as Marx put it, to work for a social order that does not require myths to sustain it.

It is possible to add up Marxism and feminism and call the sum “socialist feminism.” In fact, this is probably how most socialist feminists see it most of the time — as a kind of hybrid, pushing our feminism in socialist circles, our socialism in feminist circles. One trouble with leaving things like that, though, is that it keeps people wondering “Well, what is she really?” or demanding of us “What is the principal contradiction.” These kinds of questions, which sound so compelling and authoritative, often stop us in our tracks: “Make a choice!” “Be one or another!” But we know that there is a political consistency to socialist feminism. We are not hybrids or fencesitters.

To get to that political consistency we have to differentiate ourselves, as feminists, from other kinds of feminists, and, as Marxists, from other kinds of Marxists. We have to stake out a (pardon the terminology here) socialist feminist kind of feminism and a socialist feminist kind of socialism. Only then is there a possibility that things will “add up” to something more than an uneasy juxtaposition.

I think that most radical feminists and socialist feminists would agree with my capsule characterization of feminism as far as it goes. The trouble with radical feminism, from a socialist feminist point of view, is that it doesn’t go any farther. It remains transfixed with the universality of male supremacy — things have never really changed; all social systems are patriarchies; imperialism, militarism, and capitalism are all simply expressions of innate male aggressiveness. And so on.

The problem with this, from a socialist feminist point of view, is not only that it leaves out men (and the possibility of reconciliation with them on a truly human and egalitarian basis) but that it leaves out an awful lot about women. For example, to discount a socialist country such as China as a “patriarchy” — as I have heard radical feminists do — is to ignore the real struggles and achievements of millions of women. Socialist feminists, while agreeing that there is something timeless and universal about women’s oppression, have insisted that it takes different forms in different settings, and that the differences are of vital importance. There is a difference between a society in which sexism is expressed in the form of female infanticide and a society in which sexism takes the form of unequal representation on the Central Committee. And the difference is worth dying for.

One of the historical variations on the theme of sexism which ought to concern all feminists it the set of changes that came with the transition from an agrarian society to industrial capitalism. This is no academic issue. The social system which industrial capitalism replaced was in fact a patriarchal one, and I am using that term now in its original sense, to mean a system in which production is centered in the household and is presided over by the oldest male. The fact is that industrial capitalism came along and tore the rug out from under patriarchy. Production went into the factories and individuals broke off from the family to become “free” wage earners. To say that capitalism disrupted the patriarchal organization of production and family life is not, of course, to say that capitalism abolished male supremacy! But it is to say that the particular forms of sex oppression we experience today are, to a significant degree, recent developments. A huge historical discontinuity lies between us and true patriarchy. If we are to understand our experience as women today, we must move to a consideration of capitalism as a system.

There are obviously other ways I could have gotten to the same point. I could have simply said that, as feminists, we are most interested in the most oppressed women — poor and working class women, third world women, etc., and for that reason we are led to a need to comprehend and confront capitalism. I could have said that we need to address ourselves to the class system simply because women are members of classes. But I am trying to bring out something else about our perspective as feminists: there is no way to understand sexism as it acts on our lives without putting it in the historical context of capitalism.

I think most socialist feminists would also agree with the capsule summary of Marxist theory as far as it goes. And the trouble again is that there are a lot of people (I’ll call them “mechanical Marxists”) who do not go any further. To these people, the only “real” and important things that go on in capitalist society are those things that relate to the productive process or the conventional political sphere. From such a point of view, every other part of experience and social existence — things having to do with education, sexuality, recreation, the family, art, music, housework (you name it) — is peripheral to the central dynamics of social change; it is part of the “superstructure” or “culture.”

Socialist feminists are in a very different camp from what I am calling “mechanical Marxists.” We (along with many, many Marxists who are not feminists) see capitalism as a social and cultural totality. We understand that, in its search for markets, capitalism is driven to penetrate every nook and cranny of social existence. Especially in the phase of monopoly capitalism, the realm of consumption is every bit as important, just from an economic point of view, as the real of production. So we cannot understand class struggle as something confined to issues of wages and hours, or confined only to workplace issues. Class struggle occurs in every arena where the interests of classes conflict, and that includes education, health, art, music, etc. We aim to transform not only the ownership of the means of production, but the totality of social existence.

As Marxists, we come to feminism from a completely different place than the mechanical Marxists. Because we see monopoly capitalism as a political/ economic/cultural totality, we have room within our Marxist framework for feminist issues which have nothing ostensibly to do with production or “politics,” issues that have to do with the family, health care, “private” life.

Furthermore, in our brand of Marxism, there is no “woman question” because we never compartmentalized women off to the “superstructure” or somewhere in the first place. Marxists of a mechanical bent continually ponder the issue of the unwaged woman (the housewife): Is she really a member of the working class? That is, does she really produce surplus value? We say, of course housewives are members of the working class — not because we have some elaborate proof that they really do produce surplus value — but because we understand a class as being composed of people, and as having a social existence quite apart from the capitalist-dominated realm of production. When we think of class in this way, then we see that in fact the women who seemed most peripheral, the housewives, are at the very heart of their class — raising children, holding together families, maintaining the cultural and social networks of the community.

We are coming out of a kind of feminism and a kind of Marxism whose interests quite naturally flow together. I think we are in a position now to see why it is that socialist feminism has been so mystified: The idea of socialist feminism is a great mystery or paradox, so long as what you mean by socialism is really what I have called “mechanical Marxism” and what you mean by feminism is an ahistorical kind of radical feminism. These things just don’t add up; they have nothing in common.

But if you put together another kind of socialism and another kind of feminism, as I have tried to define them, you do get some common ground and that is one of the most important things about socialist feminism today. It is a space-free from the constrictions of a truncated kind of feminism and a truncated version of Marxism — in which we can develop the kind of politics that addresses the political/economic/cultural totality of monopoly capitalist society. We could only go so far with the available kinds of feminism, the conventional kind of Marxism, and then we had to break out to something that is not so restrictive and incomplete in its view of the world. We had to take a new name, “socialist feminism,” in order to assert our determination to comprehend the whole of our experience and to forge a politics that reflects the totality of that comprehension.

However, I don’t want to leave socialist feminist theory as a “space” or a common ground. Things are beginning to grow in that “ground.” We are closer to a synthesis in our understanding of sex and class, capitalism and male domination, than we were a few years ago. Here I will indicate only very sketchily one such line of thinking:

1. The Marxist/feminist understanding that class and sex domination rest ultimately on force is correct, and this remains the most devastating critique of sexist/capitalist society. But there is a lot to that “ultimately.” In a day to day sense, most people acquiesce to sex and class domination without being held in line by the threat of violence, and often without even the threat of material deprivation.

2. It is very important, then, to figure out what it is, if not the direct application of force, that keeps things going. In the case of class, a great deal has been written already about why the US working class lacks militant class consciousness. Certainly ethnic divisions, especially the black/white division, are a key part of the answer. But I would argue, in addition to being divided, the working class has been socially atomized. Working class neighborhoods have been destroyed and are allowed to decay; life has become increasingly privatized and inward-looking; skills once possessed by the working class have been expropriated by the capitalist class; and capitalist controlled “mass culture” has edged out almost all indigenous working class culture and institutions. Instead of collectivity and self-reliance as a class, there is mutual isolation and collective dependency on the capitalist class.

3. The subjugation of women, in the ways which are characteristic of late capitalist society, has been key to this process of class atomization. To put it another way, the forces which have atomized working class life and promoted cultural/material dependence on the capitalist class are the same forces which have served to perpetuate the subjugation of women. It is women who are most isolated in what has become an increasingly privatized family existence (even when they work outside the home too). It is, in many key instances, women’s skills (productive skills, healing, midwifery, etc.) which have been discredited or banned to make way for commodities. It is, above all, women who are encouraged to be utterly passive/uncritical/dependent (i.e. “feminine") in the face of the pervasive capitalist penetration of private life. Historically, late capitalist penetration of working class life has singled out women as prime targets of pacification/"feminization” — because women are the culture-bearers of their class.

4. It follows that there is a fundamental interconnection between women’s struggle and what is traditionally conceived as class struggle. Not all women’s struggles have an inherently anti-capitalist thrust (particularly not those which seek only to advance the power and wealth of special groups of women), but all those which build collectivity and collective confidence among women are vitally important to the building of class consciousness. Conversely, not all class struggles have an inherently anti-sexist thrust (especially not those that cling to pre-industrial patriarchal values) but all those which seek to build the social and cultural autonomy of the working class are necessarily linked to the struggle for women’s liberation.

This, in very rough outline, is one direction which socialist feminist analysis is taking. No one is expecting a synthesis to emerge which will collapse socialist and feminist struggle into the same thing. The capsule summaries I gave earlier retain their “ultimate” truth: there are crucial aspects of capitalist domination (such as racial oppression) which a purely feminist perspective simply cannot account for or deal with — without bizarre distortions, that is. There are crucial aspects of sex oppression (such as male violence within the family) which socialist thought has little insight into — again, not without a lot of stretching and distortion. Hence the need to continue to be socialists and feminists. But there is enough of a synthesis, both in what we think and what we do for us to begin to have a self-confident identity as socialist feminists.

This "marxist feminist" think is a bit opaque

 

[muir]

Yes there is differences between men and women. There is also differences between a woman/woman and man/man. Let me quote you on where exactly we disagree:

"This is what I'm trying to say...naturaly, the physical consitution of the man is stronger. And this is not just with regard to the physical aspect, but also to the mental aspect." Lucyjr

Not all men are naturally mentally stronger than women. This is absurd. Yes, some are but some are not. Therefore, naturally you are incorrect. No matter how ugly that sounds to you. And if you can't understand this simple ideal then I really do believe you to be intellectually stunted. I'm describing you, not insulting you.

Women are mentally tough no doubt

There are also different types of toughness so i think its a difficult and frankly pointless debate to say that one gender is mentally tougher than the other

Women can be tough as nails mentally...i know..i've seen it

I also think it's possible for women to be tough and still to remain women (as opposed to trying to be macho)

Also female strength has had a binding effect on communities and families for millenia; they are often the social glue and should be credited as such

 

[La Sagna]

To me this is an interesting point. It made me wonder (and this is not aimed at you specifically, but both genders and anyone reading or participating in this thread): Does it matter more how your SO is with YOU, or how they are with OTHER people? In this example, do you want him to be warm and nurturing across the board in all situations? Is that advantageous as a male? Or is it more important that he just shows this side in his intimate relationships?

Pondering this for myself, I am currently with someone who has a tendency to have a harder edge towards MOST things. Emotion does not come into play with any of his decision making. He does not feel a lot of emotions within himself and if those feelings come up, he will acknowledge them, process them and move on. At no point do they have an influence in how he behaves or interacts. Every decision he makes is run through fairly strict logic and the choice to act depends on how efficient that action is and whether or not it's worth it. Seeing how he operates in the outside world, in his job, in his day to day life and even in his friendships can be vastly different to how he is with me. So for myself, I am attracted to the typical "manly" behaviour of making very solid and sound decisions that are thoroughly thought through. However, that is separate from how he is with me when we are together, which is a lot warmer and "nurturing" in the sense that he cares of my well being. This is not to say he is a different person when I am not around, but that that particular ASPECT of him comes through when we are together.

I myself tend to be a lot harder of a person overall, but tend to be very mushy in my personal relationships. However, I also consider myself to be a feminine person. It brings me satisfaction to nurture to a certain degree though my version of nurturing looks more like tough love than hugs and "sharing feelings." But the tendency is still there to want to nurture a person to be a better version of themselves and to be a companion and a shoulder to cry on. I don't really feel anything about what other people are feeling, but I do recognize that I play a certain role to people that might be considered "typically" female. It's just that I don't reciprocate in sharing feelings, that is where a line is drawn.

Now, to touch on the subject of manipulation, I do think women are naturally manipulative. I do NOT infuse that word with negative connotations. I DO think that women have a natural tendency to manipulate because they are more driven for social control. When you are driven to maintaining a certain social harmony I do think that there is a sort of push to draw people into a certain idea or a certain way of being. It's not that women are malicious about it (though some ABSOLUTELY are), but I do think that many women have a certain awareness of what is ideal for the group as a whole so that the community can remain solid. This goes for small and large groups alike and is something that I have witnessed in a lot of environments I've worked in and even social environments. To me, manipulation can be trying to draw something out of someone to help weave them into the fabric of the social environment. That can be trying to pull information to assess where a certain person stands on something, it could be bringing up subject matter which others are familiar with in the hopes of fostering conversation and bonding... That sort if thing. It is manipulating conversation or circumstances in order to kind of create a certain closeness. Now, SOME women will do this in a more selfish way that benefits them or people they care about specifically and lose sight of what is best for everyone as a whole. It's not about enriching a social environment but extracting from it to suit themselves. And this isn't even touching on romantic relationships. That is a whole other ball game.

Manipulation is results driven. It's about doing A to bring about/create B. I think with men the tendency to manipulate is much less on a SOCIAL level but more in an environmental sense. I also thing with men it's more of Start from A, get to B. It's a lot more linear.

Personally I like men that are nurturing and caring openly and don't feel threatened by the idea of being perceived as less manly. To me that is strength of character, to be able to be yourself and not cater to what others want you to be. I believe I come to this attraction for very particular reasons. First of all my father and both my brothers are all very caring and nurturing men and aren't afraid to show it. My brothers are amazing dads and husbands and both their wives say that they are lucky to have them and I agree. So, in that sense I don't have the same idea that some people have of what men are supposed to be like. Secondly, I was in a relationship with a very macho and typically male estp for 26 years. You could argue that I was attracted to that in the first place but I've given a lot of thought to this and I was 17 at the time we got together and wasn't too popular in general and having somebody who obviously liked me was the attraction and then I got pregnant and I just did my best to keep the relationship together because I believed it was the right thing to do. If anything, I think being with a cold and insensitive man has led me to be even more attracted to men who are softer and more emotional. The two men that I have had any level of attraction to since both described themselves basically as women with men parts which I thought was kind of funny, and neither of them felt negatively about that. That's a huge turn-on for me. Physically they are both very masculine but they are both strong feelers and not ashamed of it. They also both have daughters which I wonder if that could contribute to the fact that they are comfortable being emotional.

As for your comments about women being manipulative, it seems to me that your description about how women are is more of the need to create social harmony which I do think women try to create more than men and are better at it generally but I wouldn't call that manipulative. Here is the definition of manipulation : Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. I don't think that trying to help bring harmony amongst people would be considered underhanded or abusive.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Personally I like men that are nurturing and caring openly and don't feel threatened by the idea of being perceived as less manly. To me that is strength of character, to be able to be yourself and not cater to what others want you to be. I believe I come to this attraction for very particular reasons. First of all my father and both my brothers are all very caring and nurturing men and aren't afraid to show it. My brothers are amazing dads and husbands and both their wives say that they are lucky to have them and I agree. So, in that sense I don't have the same idea that some people have of what men are supposed to be like. Secondly, I was in a relationship with a very macho and typically male estp for 26 years. You could argue that I was attracted to that in the first place but I've given a lot of thought to this and I was 17 at the time we got together and wasn't too popular in general and having somebody who obviously liked me was the attraction and then I got pregnant and I just did my best to keep the relationship together because I believed it was the right thing to do. If anything, I think being with a cold and insensitive man has led me to be even more attracted to men who are softer and more emotional. The two men that I have had any level of attraction to since both described themselves basically as women with men parts which I thought was kind of funny, and neither of them felt negatively about that. That's a huge turn-on for me. Physically they are both very masculine but they are both strong feelers and not ashamed of it. They also both have daughters which I wonder if that could contribute to the fact that they are comfortable being emotional.

As for your comments about women being manipulative, it seems to me that your description about how women are is more of the need to create social harmony which I do think women try to create more than men and are better at it generally but I wouldn't call that manipulative. Here is the definition of manipulation : Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. I don't think that trying to help bring harmony amongst people would be considered underhanded or abusive.

Well, I really wonder where this idea of "what men are supposed to be like" comes from. I just see men as human beings. I think often men have the same end goal as women in many aspects but expectations are in place for them to be unfeeling or to not acknowledge or deal with emotions or whatever. I think it's very sad that the expectation exists. That said, I do think that there are men who embody stereotypical manliness, whatever that is, and can acknowledge their emotions without fear.

Your experience with your ESTP ex is very interesting to me as I am currently with an ESTP (pretty sure). He is not the type of person who would hide feelings or anything like that, it just doesn't come into his life. However, I see how he is with his family and how he is with me and there is a LOT of warmth and love there. There is tenderness and care and affection. Even though he is "cold" in that he doesn't empathize or whatever a lot, he is very solutions drive and feels very compelled to help people. I know a lot of times he can't exactly relate to my emotions, but he does try very hard to be there for me and to do what he can to help me in my life and make things easier for me. So that is how he shows his care. It's not as overt as others would be or what they would like.

If I compare that to my parents... It's kind of night and day. There was no verbal or physical affection in my family. I don't feel that I was particularly nurtured at all. When I see my boyfriend's family and how close and loving they are (They hug each other!) it's crazy to me. It's just out of my realm of experience. This is not exclusive to my parents, but extends from their parents and grandparents. I am not very physically or emotionally affectionate with ANYONE except my boyfriend. I also think this is why I come off as not emapthizing or sympathizing with people a lot and why some people think I am sociopathic.

For manipulation I tend to fall in line more with this definition:

ma·nip·u·late
məˈnipyəˌlāt/Submit
verb
1.
handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
"he manipulated the dials of the set"
synonyms: operate, work; More
alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.
examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand.
"a system of healing based on manipulating the ligaments of the spine"
synonyms: massage, rub, knead, feel, palpate
"she manipulated the muscles of his back"
2.
control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
"the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
synonyms: control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, exploit, maneuver, engineer, steer, direct, gerrymander; twist someone around one's little finger
"the government tried to manipulate the situation"

I DO think that the term "manipulation" can have very negative connotations and that is kind of how most people see it. I don't really see it that way but do acknowledge that people CAN manipulate by the definition you used, so I think maybe that is where some confusion comes in when I talk about manipulation. I use it a bit more dryly lol.

 

[muir]

Everything is energy, energy is information- it is consciousness. Everything vibrates at a particular frequency and has a specific 'tone' or 'song'

We make our own reality according to our beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and values. The inner reality is projected outward into the material flesh physical external world.
We attract situations, events, objects, circumstances, and people that resonate with our personal 'tone', or vibration. As the inner reality changes the external reality follows suit.
We see with our eyes, but we cannot see our eyes.... unless we look at a mirror...in this case we see a reflection of what we believe...on the inner level... we think we are.
We can only perceive that which we are prepared to see. There is a lot of information, but we can only 'recognise' what we are tuned into.
What we choose to think about is what we actually value. Often our desires and our thoughts contradict, sometimes because of fear. For example, someone might say they want peace, but they may focus instead on criticising war, and think about war and how bad it is...in this case, the person values conflict and is choosing to focus on war rather than peace. The external reality will then reflect this inner state, and the person will 'recognise' war.



Most fast food has a low vibration (not all of it). Much of it is produced unethically for unethical purposes. The question is, why are people attracted to fast food?
There are many different reasons people eat fast food - they are short on time, they are too busy to prepare food, they have limited resouces, they have limited options in their particular environment, easy accessiblity, saturation of fast food in that persons mindest/environment, conditioning from advertising, they dont like to prepare food, they dont know how to prepare food, they are disconnected from food, they are disconnected from their body, they dont think about food all that much, they dont value food, they are not concerned about where their food comes from, they are not concerned about nutritional value, they may be ambivalent towards their body, they are not concerned about health, they may be feeling low energy and are attracted to high sugar foods, they dont feel connected to the world around them...etc

Some people will eat fast food simply it is in front of them and they are hungry. But there are reasons why the fast food is in front of them.
The 'reason' we do something is very important. Finding the 'reason' is simple self awareness and self questioning. Its taking personal responsibility and empowering oneself.
We dont just do things 'just because'. We do them for a reason. We dont just like things for no reason. We are attracted to things according to our personal vibration.
We like things that resonate with us. What we 'like' says a lot about what we believe and what we value.
All this comes back to vibration. Some kids are brainwashed with fast food advertsing from within the womb...others are not....and it is likely that as adults they will make different choices for different reasons.

Not everyone wants to eat fast food, and many people do not eat it or even come across it. They will walk straight past it. And if they do try it, they may have no desire to eat it again. People value food for different reasons- taste, nutrition, beliefs etc. some people are so connected to their body and the world that the concept of eating unmindfully wouldnt even occur to them.

But some people can eat low vibration things and not get effected at all because of other factors, such as gratitude, and the firm belief in health, and in one's personal power.
What we think and feel about food is very important. When we are grateful and mindful of what we eat, we effect the vibration of the food to suit us, and our purposes through our intentions.

I stopped eating many things long ago because i hated 'corporations'. I was obsessed with corporations and how awful they were and how injust it was, and how i wanted them to change it, and how much i wanted people to understand this and stop.
And then i stopped. I started focusing on what i wanted rather than what i hated. I started taking pleasure in growing my own food, and appreciating anyone and anything that produced food according to my values. More of what i wanted started becoming available. Much of it was already available, but i didnt 'recognise' it before. The more i recognised it, the more i saw, and presently, i dont think about corporations anymore, i think about all the yummy locally grown, gourment goodness that is available to me.

Money is information, it is energy. Spending money is spending energy. Taking responsibility for our choices, and what we choose to support through our dollars is key to changing our cultural and economic landscape.




No fear- no harm. Love is always the only answer. Love releases all...Love release people from the past, and their fears. When we forgive people of their past, it allows them to forgive their past as well...and begin anew. It is hard for people to change when we keep reaffirming and concreting all the negative aspects we dont like about them. Forgiveness gives people permission to be something different than who they thought they were.
I'm not concerned about protecting myself and my family. I would rather live a full, rich, and open life. I would rather equip myself, and help others equip themselves with self Love, self awareness, self worth, understanding of how we form reality, understanding that we are One, and understanding how to take responsibilty and accept our own power.
We make our own reality. What we think is what we make. What we focus on is what we recognise. What we value is what we manifest.
There are a lot of people in this world living beautiful and free lives. This Earth is full of beauty and potential. Life is brilliant, magical, miraculous. There is infinite joy and peace, when we so choose it.

I'm not afraid of anyone, because I am not afraid of myself. I know who they really are, and I who I am. And I love. I couldnt have said that a couple of months ago, but I can safely say that in truth now. I believe in the force that created us, and I believe in myself, and I believe in life.




Once again this comes back to vibration and the 'why'.
A vibration of fear manifests hellish conditions. The way of out fear is foward, to Love.

Many people choose to use water filters, drink from their own rain water or other fresh water available, and dont use certain toothpastes.
I first stopped using commercial toothpaste because i hated multinational corporations. I then started using different herbal formulations and even making my own sometimes. I dont do this because im afraid of my pineal gland getting calcified, i did it because i wanted to be responsible. I did it because my vibration changed and therefore what i wanted in my life changed.

Rather than focussing on gmo food, lets focus on good locally grown and ethically produced food. Lets waste less food.

Lets concentrate on treating the people around us with Love, respect and good faith. Lets take responsiblity for our Self, and the world we make. Lets be mindful of our thoughts. Lets be mindful of what we choose to have in our lives and environment, in our bodies, and in our minds. Lets focus on what we want, rather than what we fear. Lets focus on our own thoughts and actions, rather than 'theirs'. Lets create happier selfs, happier families, happier communities, a happy world.

If people want to stop seeing violence, they should stop focussing on it.
I used to enjoy a certain level of violence in movies, and even now i can be ambivalent avout seeing violence sometimes in movies. But my friend is completely different. He abhors violence, and cannot stand to watch violence, rape, torture, or cruelty in a movie, videogame, or otherwise. He will walk away, leave the room, switch the channel. He says he doesnt like having those images in his head...once its there...its there...in his space...and effecting his mind space. He refuses to accept 'entertainment' of a violent nature. Despite being an incredibly extraverted, confident, social and in some ways 'aggressive' person, he has never been in a physical altercation, or been threatend by the one.

I have read the novels in the 'A song of fire and ice' series. I've watched some of the series. But the last time i watched it, i couldnt stand to look at large chunks of it, i skipped though a lot of it. It seemed like violence simply for the sake of violence and i felt queasy. Why should i put those images in my head? I choose not to. I havent watched any more since then. A lot of shows and movies i liked have started to lose their appeal. I can still appreciate them, for many reasons...but i dont want a lot of those images in my head. I dont want to choose violence, and....essentially, what we give our time to is what we choose.

Two and half months ago I had an experience with Shekinah, and she said that i was using the word 'zombie' too much and She asked why i chose to use that word. After i thought about it i realised the word wasnt something i really wanted to use. She then said it would be best to keep zombie related movies and videogames out of the house. Ironically, i had purcahsed 'the walking dead' series for my friends whom i live with a week ago. I dont watch zombie movies (i just find zombies stupid and unentertaining), but one of my housemates really enjoys them. I didnt want to tell them to stop watching it, but i wanted to share what i had experienced. Before i had a chance to speak with them about it, they approached me the next day and said 'thanks for buying that dvd, but its pretty boring, cant watch any more of it, its too crap to sell or give to charity..lol. Out of our life....unfortunately into landfill as we didnt recycle it.

The things we choose to focus on are very important. Im not saying that once you have a negative thought or image you then inevitably manifest it. It is more complex than that, it depends on all our other beliefs, the strength of the focus, the clarity of the intention, and the matrix of our mind system. But the question once again is 'why'...what is the reason we have chosen to focus on something? Do we like it? Do we value it? Do we want to see more of it in our world?


And also, i dont agree with black and white conceptions about men and women. I have explained my thoughts comprehensively in my previous posts

And...men have worn cosmetics in different periods of history. I dont understand why it is wrong to do this, or worse for a man to do this than a woman. Why cant a guy wear make up?

I think men have been hurt by our history and culture just as much as women have, and still are. People have been hurt because we put cultural constructions ahead of people. We put profit ahead of people, we put 'propriety' ahead of people, we put fear ahead of people, we put culture, society, and institutions before people, we put the status quo before people, we put survival and conformity ahead of life, freedom, and creativity.

When i was pregnant i hoped to have a girl, because i believe that in my culture, where i live, women potentially have it much easier. Women can wear pants or a skirt, shorts, or a dress. Women dont have to worry about being 'macho', or hiding their feelings, or being tough, or dealing with physical aggression as much as men do. Women only have to worry about hiding their nipples lol. Women can do much of what men do, and be respected and appreciated and honoured for it. They can be a 'tomboy' or be feminine, and are accepted either way. Yes, some fuckwits will call women 'bitchy', or 'slut', or 'butch' or some other ignorant term for expressing her creativity in the way she chooses...but most will accept her. And when people are given free license by the majority of people within a culture to explore their psyche and express their creativity, they can realise an 'ignorant' opinion and dismiss it.

Men, on the other hand...when a man does what 'women' do, that is completely different. Then its called...by many people both men and women- gay, effeminate, girly, pussy, not a real man, weak...boys are supposed to be tough, boys are not supposed to show affection, boys shouldnt care about their appearance, boys are supposed to compete, boys are supposed to fight, boys have to fight for dominance, boys dont hug, boys dont feel pain, ...men should know how to fix things...he's not a real man...real men are 'strong'?...boys dont cry. Seriously, boys dont cry? What the fuck. Boys and girls are humans, and humans cry, but sometimes cultures are fucked up and condition people to think being alive means conforming to other peoples unhealthy norms and values. Gay men are often stigmatised more than gay women. For some people, its sexy if girls kiss, its disgusting if boys kiss.
Men are much more limited in the freedom of their creative expression than women are. I believe that is changing. I know several families that have little boys, and those boys are being raised to honour themselves and their creative expression, and are given free reign compared to what my generation and my parents had.

Less people are caring about 'boys' and 'girls' games. A lot of parents i know simply want their kids to be 'happy', rather than to grow up and be a 'good man', or 'good woman'.

Do you know that pink used to be considered a masculine colour? None of this cultural shit is real. Yes penises and vaginas are real, tits and balls are real, sperm and wombs are real, eostrogen and testosterone is real, birth and death is real... but most of the shit that is ascribed to 'man' or 'woman' is a pile of bullshit so fucking high that we can barely recognise that we are human rather than characters playing cultural roles in a shitty play that hardly anyone likes or wants to watch. Cant we look past our genitals? Why should our genitalia dictate so much of our life?

So what if people are coming to understand that being a man or woman doesnt limit them from expressing their feminine and masculine energy? So what if people are allowing their humanity and personal expression of creativity to come before their gender?
Are many people happy with life as it stands? Are many people happy?
So what if society is crumbling apart, what the fuck are we trying to conserve and protect and save? Some miserable crumbling outdated institutions and cultural values?

Why is it a competion between the capitalist fascists and the communists facists....seriously, why is fascism our only supposed option?
Why not reject it and fuck it off. Why buy into these peoples shit and spread their fear mongering propaganda of doom and gloom and disempowerment and hatred and violence and disease?

Live your own life, your way. Concentrate on the energy of Love and what you want to create

And on the level of 'manipulating' energy and reality, it all happens on the mind level.
Someone could spend all day training physically, strengthening and enlargening their body. Someone could spend all day meditiating, strengthening and enlargening their psychic power.
Both these unbalanced dingalings would be at a disadvantage and probably quite disconnected and frustrated and constipated. The someone that used their energy and time in a balanced way, looking after their mind and body would be at an advanatge, because they would be spiritually connected and grounded, and more able to enjoy and clearly manifest their desired experience on Earth.

True 'strength' and power is not about gorillas banging their chests or people punching on, shooting guns at other people...who has the biggest stick and the most coconuts. It is going to bed everynight feeling peaceful, content, and satisfied, having a good rest, and waking up in the morning, completely refreshed, at peace with your being, empowered, excited, full of energy and joy, ready to experience another day flowing where ever your creativity takes you. Strength and Power belong to the heart and the mind. Psychic power is what decides the events of the day, our lives, and our world. And unconditional Love, the power of the heart is all encompassing, it is All That Is.

People feeling empowered is what changes culture and history, not weapons and brute strength.

I think we agree on a lot of stuff

I also agree on the need to take responsibility and like yourself i see how i spend my money as a vote for the world i want to see (energy flows where attention goes)

Like yourself i eat organic and i use non flouride toothpaste etc

But the only reason i know to do these things was because i became consciously aware of whats going on in the world and that means engaging with the negative as well as the positive

If we blind ourselves to the negative then we are ignoring an entire half of the experience and at some point it will blindside us as the reality train comes steaming into our reality!

I too see that we are all consciousness emanating froma single source and that the source is a source of love devoid of judgement

However we are here in this world to experience the full experience

The harsh reality of why you are here alive today is not because your female ancestors were able to imagine the psychopaths and the wolves away through compassion the reason you are alive today and able tio express such sentiments is because of the strong arm of your female ancestors fella

The psychopaths are a reality of our world and they will impinge on your reality whether you think of them or not. that doesn't mean you have to give power to their various machinations but in the past when the psychopaths came knocking at the door what protected women was the strength and martial ability of their menfolk

You ask what the problem with men wearing makeup is? Nothing in and of itself but in the context of todays culture where makeup is perceived as a female thing it is an indicator and the indicator is not just of a change of culture it is an indicator that men are being altered by chemicals put into the environment by the psychopathic corporatocracy

If women were being engineered to be more butch how would you feel about that? Now translate that into the situation that men are in

The psychopaths know it is men who can physicaly resist them and it is the martial strength and potency of men that they are targetting and we let them do it at our peril because when those wolf in sheeps clothing come knocking at your door it will be the physical strength of your fella that will save you...it has always been thus for as long as the psychopaths have been around

And for you to tell me to put make up on, wear a dress and put flowers in my hair and to weaken my defences is because you have been lulled into a false sense of security by the psychopaths into thinking that there is no more threat; history says otherwise

The 'new age' movement has some good stuff in it but largely it is a psyops operation like marxist feminism designed to weaken opposition to the new world order

That said i am all for positive thought and putting positive energies out there but at the same time my shield is up because i have no illusions about what the game is and how it is being played

 

[cvp12gh5]

Lucyjr comes from a traditionally conservative culture and he seems to view the majority of women as manipulative. The more I think about it, the more I think he may be right. He is only going by what he sees right before his eyes-in his culture. But in their defense, if this is all they have to work with to try and get a little of what they want then I don't see it as a negative. It shows intelligence. It's a great example of life giving a woman lemons and her making it into the best lemonade possible. I don't assume that every woman in every culture should have the same wants and needs as me, but I can tell you that I don't know of any man or woman that wants to be considered beneath another man or woman, especially when that is the furthest thing from the truth. There are going to be men that are mentally stronger than women and women that are mentally stronger than men. Just let it be.

 

[muir]

This "marxist feminist" think is a bit opaque

There's nothing opaque about it when you see the whole picture and understand the vision of the people behind it

 

[muir]

Lucyjr comes from a traditionally conservative culture and he seems to view the majority of women as manipulative. The more I think about it, the more I think he may be right. He is only going by what he sees right before his eyes-in his culture. But in their defense, if this is all they have to work with to try and get a little of what they want then I don't see it as a negative. It shows intelligence. It's a great example of life giving a woman lemons and her making it into the best lemonade possible. I don't assume that every woman in every culture should have the same wants and needs as me, but I can tell you that I don't know of any man or woman that wants to be considered beneath another man or woman, especially when that is the furthest thing from the truth. There are going to be men that are mentally stronger than women and women that are mentally stronger than men. Just let it be.

Are you saying that men are more given to using overt aggression whilst women are more given to using covert aggression?

(poison has always been seen as a womans weapon!)

 

[muir]

The comment wasn't aimed at you but other posters who make this erroneous claim.

I have to admit that I am not schooled in marxist feminism but I have no issue with saying that there are problems with some groups and schools of thought that call themselves feminist.

As for differences between the sexes I agree with most of what you are saying but I also don't think that it is as black and white as some people would have us think. There are some general tendencies in each sex but there are also huge variations within each sex and my wish is for everyone to not be pigeon-holed into any particular role so that we can all be free.

I am personally a very feminine person but I am also more attracted to men that are more nurturing and caring rather than the supposedly more typical male characteristics. Personal characteristics as well as personal preferences are all very individual and the generalizations that some people like to make are constrictive and inaccurate.

Yeah absolutely if there is one thing coming over loud and clear from this thread it is that there is variety within the sexes and that for any of us it is a case of finding the right combination in a partner that works for us

There is however enough truth in certain generalisations to make a discussion on the matter worthwhile...for example the central premise of this thread which is that there is more pressure on guys to initiate then women

It's not always the case that the guy initiates but we can all recognise the generalisation that men are under more pressure to be able to dig into why that is

my personal view concerning people and relationships and life in general is that people should do whatever they want to do as long as they aren't hurting others

People should do what works for them and makes them happy...there is no one size fits all answer for human behaviours because there is massive diversity out there

The main thing is that we are all accomodating of each other (as long as no one is being hurt)