Too much testosterone!

gue_barium

lucylespian wrote:

Gender issues aren't false. The feminists of teh 70's and 80's treid to assert this, and did a lotof harm in teh process. The trick is to allow equality while repecting gender differences. Equating equality with sameness is a mistake.

John Lennon sang that "woman is the nigger of the world", and he was onto something. He was speaking of the oppression of women in the vein that he could speak that way, he had a voice that could transcend, like eddie's, and tell a story, make a statement. I saw it myself, personally, in the way my father treated my mother, as a subordinate, it was pathetic, even through my child's eyes.
Yet, the oppression I saw, in retrospect, was of one personality over another. It was the personality over the gender.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I gave you my response on how I see it. You are free to not like my response.

Well, you are calling gender roles, "false". I tend to agree with you, at least in the puritan victorian sense, but, we don't really come from that period.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

John Lennon sang that "woman is the nigger of the world", and he was onto something. He was speaking of the oppression of women in the vein that he could speak that way, he had a voice that could transcend, like eddie's, and tell a story, make a statement. I saw it myself, personally, in the way my father treated my mother, as a subordinate, it was pathetic, even through my child's eyes.
Yet, the oppression I saw, in retrospect, was of one personality over another. It was the personality over the gender.

The question is,
how did this personality come to be?

Part nature, part nuture (to be sure), but exclusive to a gender?
I think not.

lucylespian

Hey kids, my working week is at an end, so has been nice to chat, whiling away the hours, but it's roger and out for a few days for me now.

Ciao babes !!!!!!!

gue_barium

lucylespian wrote:

Hey kids, my working week is at an end, so has been nice to chat, whiling away the hours, but it's roger and out for a few days for me now.

Ciao babes !!!!!!!

Chow.

hahaha.

enjoy.

Jeanie

lucylespian wrote:

I'm gogin to postulate that this is because of sex segregation at high school level. Politicians often come from private schools, and they tend not to be co-ed. So boys do not learn to interact with girls in an intelectual setting in those formative years. The female associate schools are primarily seen as sources of sexual conquest and those attitudes carry over into the business world............................
OR.............


Women are too smart to be politicians !!!!!

Actually, that's an interesting thought lucy. And I can see that it could have merit. Although it does sound like more of a Liberal party thing. And perhaps the Nationals. Doesn't really explain Labor or the Greens. And well to be honest I'm still trying to work out what the hell happened the Democrats and I reckon if Don was alive he would be too!

Well women are smart, that's for sure. But surely smart women could see that a more equatable input into the running of the country could only really benefit all?

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Actually, that's an interesting thought lucy. And I can see that it could have merit. Although it does sound like more of a Liberal party thing. And perhaps the Nationals. Doesn't really explain Labor or the Greens. And well to be honest I'm still trying to work out what the hell happened the Democrats and I reckon if Don was alive he would be too!

Well women are smart, that's for sure. But surely smart women could see that a more equatable input into the running of the country could only really benefit all?

Lucy and Jeanie, you two are very good.

I'm glad you two post here.

I'll never say another bad thing about Australia as long as you do.

lucylespian

Jeanie wrote:

Actually, that's an interesting thought lucy. And I can see that it could have merit. Although it does sound like more of a Liberal party thing. And perhaps the Nationals. Doesn't really explain Labor or the Greens. And well to be honest I'm still trying to work out what the hell happened the Democrats and I reckon if Don was alive he would be too!

Well women are smart, that's for sure. But surely smart women could see that a more equatable input into the running of the country could only really benefit all?

Labor, ya gotta be a timeserver, preferably from a union background, and I ceratinly don't have the temperament for that and probably very few women do.
From a tribal perspective, men were teh defenders of the tribe, so it actually makes sense that they are our leaders today without it necessarily being "right", or having to be right.

As for the Greens, well maybe they are not the perfect little angels they make themselves out to be, maybe the people there are flawed like th rest of us, or maybe it is a temperament thing again. Men are maybe more suited to the thick-skinned hardness you need to succeed in politics.

MAybe smart women do contribute. In fact I garuntee they do, otherwise we would have one of those cultures you see in teh news where there is little or no female influence in government. Which brings us back to all yang, no yin and balance really is the most important thisn in this world.
Maybe we can nhave that withour having a female PM, only time will tell.
I'm not going to bat for Julia Gillard, purely because I don't want a Labor federal govt.

Jeanie

lucylespian wrote:

Hey kids, my working week is at an end, so has been nice to chat, whiling away the hours, but it's roger and out for a few days for me now.

Ciao babes !!!!!!!

avagoodweekend lucy! And don't forget the aeroguard!

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

Lucy and Jeanie, you two are very good.

I'm glad you two post here.

I'll never say another bad thing about Australia as long as you do.

Why thank you gue!

I've actually being saying a lot less bad things about America since I have been posting here myself!!

You're not so bad yourself! So does that mean I'm "in"?

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Why thank you gue!

I've actually being saying a lot less bad things about America since I have been posting here myself!!

You're not so bad yourself! So does that mean I'm "in"?

hmmm...
can i see a picture first?

full body, not just a picture portrait.

gue_barium

hey, we need to start a new topic. "gender issues on message boards".

You know?

the anonimity of such a thing.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

There are big differences between men and women that result in big differences between males dealing with assault from women and women dealing with it from men.

I am an "aggressive/assertive" female. I've always been much more aggressive than most women I know. I find the majority of women I've known have been conditioned to be coy and more manipulative in meeting their needs than assertive. One night I was at a bar with a bunch of females. A guy walked in that we all knew. We all saw him. As he was walking towards us, each of the 3 girls I was with started pretending to not see the guy! They were "playing" hard to get! I thought "forget this" and just walked right up to the guy and started talking to him, and he and I hung out. I get surprised at the things women do that are so not assertive. One of the girls is a really dominant type, too, and she liked this guy, and her first response was to play a role rather than assert her true view. I've found that to be fairly normal. And I'm fully aware there is a distinct fringe of assertive women, too.

Men are not trained to be unassertive like women are, for the most part.

Right, and my point was that statistically men are no more innately aggressive than women are. They both share the same intent to harm, but anatomical differences and social conditioning are determining factors in the overall damage caused by the intent. As you've laid out in your post, I likewise think society in general is to blame for the state of society. Which means that each one of us plays a role. Knowing this, my person has attempted to look at all situations from a different perspective than the way it is perceived through my eyes. For example, go outside and take a look, the earth is flat.

Jeanie

lucylespian wrote:

Labor, ya gotta be a timeserver, preferably from a union background, and I ceratinly don't have the temperament for that and probably very few women do.
From a tribal perspective, men were teh defenders of the tribe, so it actually makes sense that they are our leaders today without it necessarily being "right", or having to be right.

As for the Greens, well maybe they are not the perfect little angels they make themselves out to be, maybe the people there are flawed like th rest of us, or maybe it is a temperament thing again. Men are maybe more suited to the thick-skinned hardness you need to succeed in politics.

MAybe smart women do contribute. In fact I garuntee they do, otherwise we would have one of those cultures you see in teh news where there is little or no female influence in government. Which brings us back to all yang, no yin and balance really is the most important thisn in this world.
Maybe we can nhave that withour having a female PM, only time will tell.
I'm not going to bat for Julia Gillard, purely because I don't want a Labor federal govt.

Ah yes, that's true about Labor. God help us then if we have to suffer Sharon Burrow on the backbench at some point in the future! :eek:
Perhaps this is correct about men being thick skinned luce. Or maybe it's the system that is flawed, in that it seems to be so adversorial, and I can't really see the benefits of that. Perhaps a more unifying system would work better? And attract more women to the job? Just musing.

Well I'm not that keen on a Labor Federal government either lucy, because I really can't see that there'll be that much of a difference. Although I do want change. I'm tired of the Liberals. Tired, tired, tired of them.
I'd like to see a group of people running the country that were all balanced, well rounded, experts in their fields, and I'd like them to take up the positions that their expertise is in. Of course I'm quite sure that's not democracy and I've just described some heinous form of government that is abhorent to the rest of the population. But it's what I'd like to see. A united, forward moving Australia, governed for all Australians.

I like Julia. I like her alot. Except for the fact that she's Kev baby's patsy and will probably get shafted for Petey Garrett at some point.

I do so love yin and yang. The beauty and the simplicity of it.
Looks so pretty tattooed on my foot.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

hmmm...
can i see a picture first?

full body, not just a picture portrait.

haha!! It all gets down to a girls body in the end, don't it??!

I think there's a pic on the show your face thread, BUT I did just "show my face"

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

hey, we need to start a new topic. "gender issues on message boards".

You know?

the anonimity of such a thing.

Wouldn't it be cool to hide here under an assumed identity?

I mean, imagine if you had another log on and you made a whole persona the opposite of your actual gender? Now that could be a lot of fun!!

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Right, and my point was that statistically men are no more innately aggressive than women are. They both share the same intent to harm, but anatomical differences and social conditioning are determining factors in the overall damage caused by the intent. As you've laid out in your post, I likewise think society in general is to blame for the state of society. Which means that each one of us plays a role. Knowing this, my person has attempted to look at all situations from a different perspective than the way it is perceived through my eyes. For example, go outside and take a look, the earth is flat.

To enforce that cause you have to abide by the idea that the public education system has superseded the role of parenthood, and I find that a hard pill to swallow, at least for the majority.

gue_barium

Jeanie wrote:

Wouldn't it be cool to hide here under an assumed identity?

I mean, imagine if you had another log on and you made a whole persona the opposite of your actual gender? Now that could be a lot of fun!!

More than once people have accused me of being ahnimus.

I can't really figure that one out, but I do like the fellow, and share some common thoughts with him.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

To enforce that cause you have to abide by the idea that the public education system has superseded the role of parenthood, and I find that a hard pill to swallow, at least for the majority.

No the public education system is a goulag of everything that is wrong with society. School is where children get their social identities from.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

More than once people have accused me of being ahnimus.

I can't really figure that one out, but I do like the fellow, and share some common thoughts with him.

I always found that humorous as well. It was common opinion here that I was the only person remotely intrigued by the idea of determinism, so any 3rd party interest, simply, must be me posing as a 3rd person. In actuality, the concept of determinism is quite popular amongst philosophical and scientific groups.