I re-read all your post. You did not answer my question (it was a yes or no question, there are only a restricted number of answers possible).
You did, however, avoid answering my question by saying it was not a good question. Your argument was that the hypothetical (imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true) situation was not based on reality. So you "answered" my question by defining my question i.e. not necessarily real or true.
You gave me a reason why you didn't answer my question. So, in fact you leave me no choice but to extrapolate from your posts what your answer could be and when I do so you claim I jump to conclusions, make assumptions.
From your posts I gather you would agree. So, I'll take that as your answer to my question.
Well, I think you can try to justify your unfair treatment of others all you want, the facts remain.
If you deny a man a position he deserves and give it to a woman who does not deserve it because of her gender, the female quota, you are not restoring justice.
First of all, that woman does not deserve the position. How is it just she should get it anyway solely based on the fact that she's a woman?
That fact that women have been oppressed is not a reason to oppress other people.
Secondly, not only do you give someone a position they do not deserve, you deny someone a position he does deserve.
I think it's fairly obvious why this isn't justice or a restoration of justice either.
I think justifying this and agree with it is highly hypocritical.
"It seems to me ... that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate."
Never have I said that in this entire thread, and if you will go back and read my posts, you'll see I have said the exact opposite.
Oh, I definitely disagree with you.
I have to say, I do not understand why you appear to have such a beef with me... I also do not understand why you edited one of my posts when quoting me, without saying so, and making the whole conversation even more confusing...
"Originally Posted by lgt
I see what you mean - the female quota by law (= this goes against the notion that the most qualified should get the job <=this you have added and you should have clarified) - and I can see both sides of the argument.
In theory yes, you want the best person for the job, regardless of sex but when you consider the bigger picture with discrimination in the workplace I understand this request for at least one top job to be assigned to a female.
I guess, it's a necessary evil until true equality is reached. "
I answered your question extensively and not in a simple yes or no manner. Why is that a problem? And I also explained why I did that - in light of your question that posits already that the woman would be undeserving for the post. Your point that the female quota reward undeserving women - which is what I object to, as I explained already.
I re-read all your post. You did not answer my question (it was a yes or no question, there are only a restricted number of answers possible).
You did, however, avoid answering my question by saying it was not a good question. Your argument was that the hypothetical (imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true) situation was not based on reality. So you "answered" my question by defining my question i.e. not necessarily real or true.
You gave me a reason why you didn't answer my question. So, in fact you leave me no choice but to extrapolate from your posts what your answer could be and when I do so you claim I jump to conclusions, make assumptions.
From your posts I gather you would agree. So, I'll take that as your answer to my question.
Well, I think you can try to justify your unfair treatment of others all you want, the facts remain.
If you deny a man a position he deserves and give it to a woman who does not deserve it because of her gender, the female quota, you are not restoring justice.
First of all, that woman does not deserve the position. How is it just she should get it anyway solely based on the fact that she's a woman?
That fact that women have been oppressed is not a reason to oppress other people.
Secondly, not only do you give someone a position they do not deserve, you deny someone a position he does deserve.
I think it's fairly obvious why this isn't justice or a restoration of justice either.
I think justifying this and agree with it is highly hypocritical.
"It seems to me ... that you either make a lot of assumptions about what I think or say or just simply jump to conclusions. Either way, you don't seem to understand what I write and communicate."
Never have I said that in this entire thread, and if you will go back and read my posts, you'll see I have said the exact opposite.
Oh, I definitely disagree with you.
Hi Collin. I agree with you that creating non-justice is unethical, and to do it in the name of restoring justice is flat-out a flawed premise and therefore does not work. It is about something else entirely.
Ultimately, those who do this don't realize how they get themselves caught in ineffective power struggles, where things move along at almost less than a snail's pace. This is why feminism that is based on flawed premises still must operate within natural laws, and if it's maladaptive, it will continually move towards weeding itself out. People can keep reviving these invalid ideas and practices, and over-exert themselves to keep perpetuating them...but at huge energy expenses. Empowerment is something else. Empowerment for women is something very, very different. And because true empowerment is adaptive, it goes with all of life's natural forces. When one perpetuates empowerment, all the other arguments against it or for holding someone back are going against natural evolution, and will eventually fall away. This is why we cannot get away with our false premises of justifying maladaptive choice -- we create our own sludge to live and move in. When one is a feminist looking to justify the unjustifiable, one will deal with the sludge unconsciously, blaming others for what one has created, and one's own lack of power.
The problem comes in when people are perpetuating emotional arguments and trying to dress them up logically -- trying to justify what cannot be justified. Then, when they don't make logical sense, and they set off alarm bells for others who see the flawed premises, such arguments draw huge resistance. Which gives feminism a bad name. Men who see a woman coming using flawed premises, even if they talk a good game (justification) those coming from a logical (associated with male intelligence) place see where that is heading...into fallacy and self-destruct. And again, the ideals of feminism are given a bad name, as women reveal themselves as emotional, and unable to balance that with logic. They reveal themselves as unable to run companies, and as unempowered for competitive job positions relying on base logic.
And again, while the conditioned male logic is quite honed in the male world...the patriarchical imbalances we live in are not due to logic at all...they are due to the fact that logic isn't balanced with intuition and emotion, in a whole-brain sense.
One can use inauthentic power and get counter-movements going in order to gain political and social power for women. and I can understand why this has happened, as a way to get people such as myself to the place I am right now, where I have the same options men have. I can understand what people do to fight back from oppression (even though the costs of doing so were very high). However, that was then, this is now. It is time for new ways.
It is time for human beings to become whole-brained. It is time to resolve the inner conflicts and have our emotional, intuitive AND logical intelligences line up into one consolidated power. It's time to create synergistic connections in our brains, and with the women AND men all around us for the purposes of refining the rudimentary ways we've been using, and to move into our birthright power. And to round out the imbalanced powers on the world stage with balance, bringing this globalization we are heading into, in to a place of beauty. We don't do this by fighting where the male-dominant ways are going adding more male-dominance, but we do so in creating the balance through embodying the brilliance of the female based ways. Evolution is taking us there. It's our choice whether we'll align adaptively, or if we'll over-expend ourselves maladaptively.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have to say, I do not understand why you appear to have such a beef with me... I also do not understand why you edited one of my posts when quoting me, without saying so, and making the whole conversation even more confusing...
I don't have anything against you.
this you have added and you should have clarified.
I thought it was self-explanatory. On that website they claimed they wanted the most competent people for the job. If you have a female quota it means you have to appoint at least one woman, for example. It could very well be, however, that this woman was not one of the most competent and that the most competent are all male.
I answered your question extensively and not in a simple yes or no manner. Why is that a problem?
So the answer is yes. Good, I'm glad to finally get some clarity.
And I also explained why I did that - in light of your question that posits already that the woman would be undeserving for the post. Your point that the female quota reward undeserving women - which is what I object to, as I explained already.
If a teacher gives an exam and says the top four students get to go to Hawaii on a field trip, and the top four students are male. How is the girl who ended up fifth also deserving? Even more why the hell should she get to go instead of one of the top four students.
That is the very essence of the hypothetical question I posed. In fact, it's the exact same question.
I also asked you if you could clarify what you meant with "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair."
The concept of exacting external rules is authoritarian, and it's male-based dominance. It's the opposite to living in the femine-based harmony with nature.
Angelica, you really have a talent for explaining things clearly and patiently, but I struggle a bit with this part. Could you explain what you mean exactly?
I'm referring to the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around, rather than live in harmony with it.
For example, rather than accept life and watch it unfold, in terms of elections and feminism, people want to add in rules to "even the playing field". I am 100% on board with evening the playing field because I have a high emotional intelligence. I undertand equity and fairness and it's validity in reality. And yet, if I seek to even the playing field in a way that creates unfairness and inequity, I've crossed the line. The minute we can no longer make progress in a fair balanced way, if we are whole-brained, and use our emotional/intuitive/logical intelligences in concert, we stay in harmony with nature and we pause. We stop, keeping in harmony. If we follow the patriarchical and imbalanced way, we would continue to follow what we want at the expense of balance and equity by imposing external force by law, etc. Instead, once we choose to stop, and opt to stay in synch with life, we may get an intuitive insight, or an emotional one, or a logical one for that matter, in harmony with life, and we will begin to see what is possible in terms of actual evolutionary adaptation.
We shift from the imbalance of conquering nature, which has been historically "male", into balance, which entails integrating male/female dichotomies.
What I'm saying is that when we continue to use government or law, or authority to overstep our bounds, we continue to stay out of harmony with nature. And we continue to cripple the necessary balancing intelligences.
I'm open to more specific questions, Collin, if this has not clarified what you were looking for.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I thought it was self-explanatory. On that website they claimed they wanted the most competent people for the job. If you have a female quota it means you have to appoint at least one woman, for example. It could very well be, however, that this woman was not one of the most competent and that the most competent are all male.
Yes, she may not be the most competent of all candidates but she would still be competent in order for her to apply in the first place.
Not that I would personally be happy to use it and istinctively I would object to a female quota in principle because in theory there shouldn't be any need, but the reality is different - there is still female discrimation and that's why there must be some safeguards. The whole restoring justice and balance to a level playing field. And that's why I said I could see both sides of the argument. But to clarify even further, the only application of female quota that I could see is in political representations, or - as I think it happens in Scandinavia [can't remember whether it's Finland or Norway] - in top business world.
If a teacher gives an exam and says the top four students get to go to Hawaii on a field trip, and the top four students are male. How is the girl who ended up fifth also deserving? Even more why the hell should she get to go instead of one of the top four students.
That is the very essence of the hypothetical question I posed. In fact, it's the exact same question.
I also asked you if you could clarify what you meant with "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair."
Because you view the notion of the female quota as intrinsically unfair as it rewards the undeserving.
Whereas I see it as a way to redress the unfairness and I dispute that it is unfair per se because of its purpose to achieve fairness.
Yes, she may not be the most competent of all candidates but she would still be competent in order for her to apply in the first place.
But there you said it, why say you want the most competent of all candidates if this is not so.
Not that I would personally be happy to use it and istinctively I would object to a female quota in principle because in theory there shouldn't be any need, but the reality is different - there is still female discrimation and that's why there must be some safeguards. The whole restoring justice and balance to a level playing field. And that's why I said I could see both sides of the argument. But to clarify even further, the only application of female quota that I could see is in political representations, or - as I think it happens in Scandinavia [can't remember whether it's Finland or Norway] - in top business world.
I could see a "female quota" in political functions, if their function is to represent the people. But I'm not entirely sure if I agree with that, I'd need to think about it. But either way, I would not consider it a female quota but rather a more realistic representation of the population.
I don't agree with a female quota or any quota as a matter of fact in any other field.
Because you view the notion of the female quota as intrinsically unfair as it rewards the undeserving.
Whereas I see it as a way to redress the unfairness and I dispute that it is unfair per se because of its purpose to achieve fairness.
I'm referring to the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around, rather than live in harmony with it.
For example, rather than accept life and watch it unfold, in terms of elections and feminism, people want to add in rules to "even the playing field". I am 100% on board with evening the playing field because I have a high emotional intelligence. I undertand equity and fairness and it's validity in reality. And yet, if I seek to even the playing field in a way that creates unfairness and inequity, I've crossed the line. The minute we can no longer make progress in a fair balanced way, if we are whole-brained, and use our emotional/intuitive/logical intelligences in concert, we stay in harmony with nature and we pause. We stop, keeping in harmony. If we follow the patriarchical and imbalanced way, we would continue to follow what we want at the expense of balance and equity by imposing external force by law, etc. Instead, once we choose to stop, and opt to stay in synch with life, we may get an intuitive insight, or an emotional one, or a logical one for that matter, in harmony with life, and we will begin to see what is possible in terms of actual evolutionary adaptation.
We shift from the imbalance of conquering nature, which has been historically "male", into balance, which entails integrating male/female dichotomies.
What I'm saying is that when we continue to use government or law, or authority to overstep our bounds, we continue to stay out of harmony with nature. And we continue to cripple the necessary balancing intelligences.
I'm open to more specific questions, Collin, if this has not clarified what you were looking for.
I understand the gist of it, I think.
But do you consider "the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around" a male aspect and "living in harmony with nature" a female aspect?
Or what exactly do you mean by "male-based dominance" and living in the "female-based harmony with nature".
Too bad those feminists (from that website) can't figure out something so simple, eh?
When it comes to positions where the people in those positions need to represent the people, it would seem more logical to have a an equal representation of men and women. Although, I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the part I put in bold, could you elucidate?
Simply put, and I am a plain speaker , I meant that if you're voting in a council election and the demographic for the area is mostly an older population then one would expect the "quota" (and I hate that word but I can't deny it applies) would be representative of that. In an area where there are a greater number of homosexuals then I think the "quota" should be representative of that. When it comes to things like the EU then obviously I'd like to see the representation split 50/50 along gender lines BUT I believe we must always factor in a true representation of the demographic of any given situation. So 50/50 along gender lines but we also need to consider other representations of the demographic in order to be fair. So if an area is predominantly white males then I guess the true representation of the demographic would reflect that. I hope I'm making sense here?
it really is too bad that there simply isn't some *test* to take to see who is THE most qualified leader, and take it from there. no matter the credentials, there are ALWAYS lots of intangibles...and i hazard and guess to say quite often 'the very BESt candidate for the job'....doesn't always get in, not by a long shot. beyond that, the BESt may not even try for it. so while i am against quotas and such, and i firmly believe in going for the most qualified candidates....in all honesty there is just NO way that i think the ONLY best 4 people for the job of EU leader would all be men. i just don't. so asking for support to try and rally for a qualified female candidate to get one of those positions....just seems a-ok with me. no one is demanding it happen, no is asking for a quota to be filled...simply saying, yes...i'd like to see a female in a position of leadership. it may or may not happen.....but people untiing to TRY to see it happen, may make it happen now...or down the road....open up the collective conscious to the idea of it happening....also open the minds of some women to see people can and will support them, etc. it's the root of change...get the ideas out there.......
Simply put, and I am a plain speaker , I meant that if you're voting in a council election and the demographic for the area is mostly an older population then one would expect the "quota" (and I hate that word but I can't deny it applies) would be representative of that. In an area where there are a greater number of homosexuals then I think the "quota" should be representative of that. When it comes to things like the EU then obviously I'd like to see the representation split 50/50 along gender lines BUT I believe we must always factor in a true representation of the demographic of any given situation. So 50/50 along gender lines but we also need to consider other representations of the demographic in order to be fair. So if an area is predominantly white males then I guess the true representation of the demographic would reflect that. I hope I'm making sense here?
I completely understand what you mean. I'm just not sure where I stand on this, though. I'll have to think about it.
But do you consider "the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around" a male aspect and "living in harmony with nature" a female aspect?
Or what exactly do you mean by "male-based dominance" and living in the "female-based harmony with nature".
What is linear is associated with males. And what is non-linear is associated with females. For example: logic and emotions, respectively. This happens even though males and females both have and use logic and emotions and all the non-linear and linear traits. The way we are conditioned now, males tend to have logic strengths and women emotional strengths.
In linearity, one thing follows after another, like these letters and words I write, or like in math equations. In non-linearity, things like imagery, and visualization exist...where one sees the big picture at once, or where one can understand the even playing field and the equality of diverse views. Linearity and non-linearity is imbalanced without the other.
With linearity, we get the idea that right and wrong can't exist at the same time. And in non-linearity, we see how they can. With linearity we think of something as better OR worse. Up or down. we see a contradiction with both existing harmoniously. So it's a linear type system that people use when raping and pillaging the earth. When we act in this way, our ideas are about betterment, rather than acceptance. On the other hand, the non-linear view naturally accepts as is, hence female/non-linear/harmony being associated.
In the western world, most of us lean towards linear systems and avoid non-linear ones because we think they are untrustable and irrational, since we cannot quantify them. We therefore miss out on a large part of the complementary intelligences that allow us to see and live with balance, due to our patriarchical linear bias.
Both non-linear and linear must be integrated before we can see realistically. And when we integrate them, and see the whole, we tap the vast potential that is our birthright.
This is why male or female are incomplete without the other. Inside each of us. Within any debate, etc. And further, each incomplete will gravitate towards it's opposite in conflict. Such as the west representing linear intelligence, colliding with the middle east representing non-linear intelligence.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm referring to the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around, rather than live in harmony with it.
So true... Another example:
When a girl tells her boyfriend about a problem she's having, what does he do? He tries to solve it with some rational procedure (rational in his mind anyways). When she tells her female friend about the problem, what does she do? She'll mainly provide feedback indicating that she understands how the girl is feeling. She may also give advice, but it'll probably be advice on how to deal with the problem, not necessarily how to solve it.
But there you said it, why say you want the most competent of all candidates if this is not so.
I did not say that in this instance I would have wanted the most competent job because other factors would have been at play.
I never claimed that instrument is perfect and indeed I admit it has its flaws , but it's a safeguard too. What I said was that she may not be the most competent but competent enough to still do the job.
I could see a "female quota" in political functions, if their function is to represent the people. But I'm not entirely sure if I agree with that, I'd need to think about it. But either way, I would not consider it a female quota but rather a more realistic representation of the population.
I don't agree with a female quota or any quota as a matter of fact in any other field.
Do you give yourself permission to do wrong in the now, for a future result?
But I would not be doing wrong though, of course.
It all depends on which standpoint you have.
So, for you and Colin I would be perpetuating the unjustice/unfairness, I would see it as a way to redress the balance, until true equality and a level playing field is available for all.
When a girl tells her boyfriend about a problem she's having, what does he do? He tries to solve it with some rational procedure (rational in his mind anyways).
I have many, many experiences of this happening...where the "solving" of my problem by my boyfriend, by being imbalanced in that it was logical yet insensitive, actually created new problems with my boyfriend and I.
When she tells her female friend about the problem, what does she do? She'll mainly provide feedback indicating that she understands how the girl is feeling. She may also give advice, but it'll probably be advice on how to deal with the problem, not necessarily how to solve it.
Yes, supportive advice on coping, more than on resolution.
Coping with problems is great. ultimately, there is also a natural hierarchical validity to resolving things.
So, again, ultimately with the goal of integration, we:
1) are able to equally use any technique, given the needs of the situation rather than act upon our own bias that may worsen things
2) and we are able to use more than one method at any given time in concert with others.
We can use lateral and hierarchical ways, depending on what our needs are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I did not say that in this instance I would have wanted the most competent job because other factors would have been at play.
Well, there would not haven been other factors at play because it was a hypothetical situation.
I never claimed that instrument is perfect and indeed I admit it has its flaws , but it's a safeguard too. What I said was that she may not be the most competent but competent enough to still do the job.
Well, do you at least admit that it's hypocritical to say you want the best if you actually believe less than the best will sufficient if it's a woman?
I've said it before, this is the exact same rhetoric as "war is necessary to achieve peace"
It indeed depends on how you look at it. As is everything. I tend to look at the victims of your actions as well and there are victims, there's no denying that, no matter how noble or just you claim your motives are.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. It may be one step in making it more equal, but it's a step of dishonesty and contradictory to feminist beliefs, I think.
So then are you saying it's not true that feminism seeks to do injustice to men?
What does it mean to you and, if you're not a feminist, does your view matter anyway? Meaning, if you're not part of a group, is it your place or within your power to represent/define that group and what they stand for?
I think feminism should be represented in the core of the word; as in "feminine". To me, that means that as a woman, and as women in general, we have many strengths, and we should build on them and appreciate them for their differences they bring. Whether you believe in God, or just believe that our differences are for a reason, then you may see that we (of both sexes) have our own strengths that should not compete but complement one another.
But personally, I think of the women's movement as a major f---over for most women. Like a big, fat guy with a cigar that says, "ok, sweetie, you go work; and then you can come home and cook, clean, have sex, look good....I'll be on the couch, manning the remote."
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I think feminism should be represented in the core of the word; as in "feminine". To me, that means that as a woman, and as women in general, we have many strengths, and we should build on them and appreciate them for their differences they bring. Whether you believe in God, or just believe that our differences are for a reason, then you may see that we (of both sexes) have our own strengths that should not compete but complement one another.
But personally, I think of the women's movement as a major f---over for most women. Like a big, fat guy with a cigar that says, "ok, sweetie, you go work; and then you can come home and cook, clean, have sex, look good....I'll be on the couch, manning the remote."
HA!!! That's exactly my take on it too su! It's like women said WE CAN HAVEIT ALL and men took that to mean, SURE HONEY, YOU CAN DO IT ALL. :rolleyes:
Ultimately I think feminism has done sweet F.A. for women of low socio-economic backgrounds and let's face it that pretty much means it's doing sweet F.A. for the majority of women. So yeah, feminism is great in theory if you have the luxury of living that life and adhering to the core principles and striving for that level of autonomy for all. Having said that though, I will always dream of the day when we do have true equality between the sexes worldwide, I'm just not sure we're any closer to it now than we were back when the suffragettes were pushing for the vote over 100 years ago. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of things moving so slowly?
So then are you saying it's not true that feminism seeks to do injustice to men?
I think feminist beliefs are about equal opportunities, equal rights, equal pay... I think you can achieve those things without doing injustice to men.
But from the debate with lgt I've come to realize or rather what I thought has been confirmed, that there are feminists (as I imagine she's not alone in her beliefs) that do think it's right or necessary to do injustice to men in the name of feminism, in the name of creating justice. And it's this hypocrisy I don't like or support.
But then again, I believe there are plenty of women, feminists, who see the hypocrisy of it, who see that those methods are unfair, that those methods are opposite to the core beliefs of feminism.
I think feminist beliefs are about equal opportunities, equal rights, equal pay... I think you can achieve those things without doing injustice to men.
But from the debate with lgt I've come to realize or rather what I thought has been confirmed, that there are feminists (as I imagine she's not alone in her beliefs) that do think it's right or necessary to do injustice to men in the name of feminism, in the name of creating justice. And it's this hypocrisy I don't like or support.
But then again, I belief there are plenty of women, feminists, who see the hypocrisy of it, who see that those methods are unfair, that those methods are opposite to the core beliefs of feminism.
I totally agree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But personally, I think of the women's movement as a major f---over for most women. Like a big, fat guy with a cigar that says, "ok, sweetie, you go work; and then you can come home and cook, clean, have sex, look good....I'll be on the couch, manning the remote."
This is so true! This brings me to another reason why imposing external rules doesn't solve the problem. I agree that there are some rules we can exact that are universal, and do not infringe on others, and yet that empower women. And yet, if women remain personally unempowered from within, as this example points out, it can be more confusing, strenuous and taxing for women having so much choice. To me, this doesn't warrant limiting choice, or taking it away. It rather shows how important personal empowerment is...personal inner strength, balance and wisdom.
Due to the patriarchical way we all live/d under, where authoratative, externally powered action "rules", we've been taught to stifle our intuitive and emotional intelligences. We've also been taught to stifle our subjective awareness. Over and over and over and over again, on this board, people have belittled personal experience, because it cannot be "proven"! We devalue the inner world of the individual. This devaluing is an offshoot of this patriarchical approach. And feminism, when it seeks external power, through external power structures (governments, laws) is again acting out the patriarchy it emerged out of, and that it has obviously internalized, as shown by actions.
On the other hand, what is necessary to create balance and wholeness for women and men, and to honour the feminine, is to return subjective, inner experience to it's place of immense value in the human experience. This is the starting measure of true empowerment for all individuals -- the degree that we are attuned within to our own consciousness, signals etc.
As an offshoot of us being personally unempowered and detached of our feminine power, men and women alike devalue their own thoughts/feelings/intuitions...we devalue our inner perception, as we're taught to value what we're "taught" externally by select few, who continue to wield power over millions. Not only do we devalue our own inner feedback, and the inner perception and our own consciousness, but in order to keep this imbalance in place, we must develop addictions, disorders and illness to do so. And then we reinforce this imbalance by perpetuating the patriarchy of socially muscling others into giving up their perceptions and adhering to this tunnel vision.
Then we wonder why everyone takes some kind of medication and is at the mercy of pharmaceutical companies. Again, we look externally to solve our problems, because that's what we know and that's what we willfully perpetuate in our dogmatic "i'm right, you're wrong" patriarchical/linear way. And yet, the psychiatric/medical professions which dole out the prescriptions for our "illnesses", by being patriarchical and linear, only understand in terms of illness and health. Again, we need the feminine intelligences to continue to awaken to restore such "insanity" to our birthright of vibrant health. Although I've been villified (and even literally censored!!!) on this board for speaking to prevention, even while being completely reasoned as I always am, that is exactly what we need right now! We need to open to prevention and to all the other lateral, complementary health practices. It's time to step out of seeing in terms of black and white, to see and open to all possibilities, including the vast shades and textures around us that we widespread currently overlook. When we do so, and when it's socially acceptable to own this balance individually and in a widespread fashion, dysfunction and illness evaporate.
As we argue for limitation and the linear small-mindedness, we ensure our own self-fulfilling prophecy of unconsciousness -- of willful blind unawareness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think feminist beliefs are about equal opportunities, equal rights, equal pay... I think you can achieve those things without doing injustice to men.
But from the debate with lgt I've come to realize or rather what I thought has been confirmed, that there are feminists (as I imagine she's not alone in her beliefs) that do think it's right or necessary to do injustice to men in the name of feminism, in the name of creating justice. And it's this hypocrisy I don't like or support.
But then again, I belief there are plenty of women, feminists, who see the hypocrisy of it, who see that those methods are unfair, that those methods are opposite to the core beliefs of feminism.
I agree as well. It baffles me that so many causes are so hypocritical. If we are saying that the rights of one group need to be protected, then we need to respect that others as well should.
Weak people attack others and many use it as a ploy to get what they want. They should really look at their own selves.
My biggest issue is people who give rules to others they don't follow themselves.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I agree as well. It baffles me that so many causes are so hypocritical. If we are saying that the rights of one group need to be protected, then we need to respect that others as well should.
Weak people attack others and many use it as a ploy to get what they want. They should really look at their own selves.
My biggest issue is people who give rules to others they don't follow themselves.
Well said!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I have to say, I do not understand why you appear to have such a beef with me... I also do not understand why you edited one of my posts when quoting me, without saying so, and making the whole conversation even more confusing...
"Originally Posted by lgt
I see what you mean - the female quota by law (= this goes against the notion that the most qualified should get the job <=this you have added and you should have clarified) - and I can see both sides of the argument.
In theory yes, you want the best person for the job, regardless of sex but when you consider the bigger picture with discrimination in the workplace I understand this request for at least one top job to be assigned to a female.
I guess, it's a necessary evil until true equality is reached. "
I answered your question extensively and not in a simple yes or no manner. Why is that a problem? And I also explained why I did that - in light of your question that posits already that the woman would be undeserving for the post. Your point that the female quota reward undeserving women - which is what I object to, as I explained already.
Ultimately, those who do this don't realize how they get themselves caught in ineffective power struggles, where things move along at almost less than a snail's pace. This is why feminism that is based on flawed premises still must operate within natural laws, and if it's maladaptive, it will continually move towards weeding itself out. People can keep reviving these invalid ideas and practices, and over-exert themselves to keep perpetuating them...but at huge energy expenses. Empowerment is something else. Empowerment for women is something very, very different. And because true empowerment is adaptive, it goes with all of life's natural forces. When one perpetuates empowerment, all the other arguments against it or for holding someone back are going against natural evolution, and will eventually fall away. This is why we cannot get away with our false premises of justifying maladaptive choice -- we create our own sludge to live and move in. When one is a feminist looking to justify the unjustifiable, one will deal with the sludge unconsciously, blaming others for what one has created, and one's own lack of power.
The problem comes in when people are perpetuating emotional arguments and trying to dress them up logically -- trying to justify what cannot be justified. Then, when they don't make logical sense, and they set off alarm bells for others who see the flawed premises, such arguments draw huge resistance. Which gives feminism a bad name. Men who see a woman coming using flawed premises, even if they talk a good game (justification) those coming from a logical (associated with male intelligence) place see where that is heading...into fallacy and self-destruct. And again, the ideals of feminism are given a bad name, as women reveal themselves as emotional, and unable to balance that with logic. They reveal themselves as unable to run companies, and as unempowered for competitive job positions relying on base logic.
And again, while the conditioned male logic is quite honed in the male world...the patriarchical imbalances we live in are not due to logic at all...they are due to the fact that logic isn't balanced with intuition and emotion, in a whole-brain sense.
One can use inauthentic power and get counter-movements going in order to gain political and social power for women. and I can understand why this has happened, as a way to get people such as myself to the place I am right now, where I have the same options men have. I can understand what people do to fight back from oppression (even though the costs of doing so were very high). However, that was then, this is now. It is time for new ways.
It is time for human beings to become whole-brained. It is time to resolve the inner conflicts and have our emotional, intuitive AND logical intelligences line up into one consolidated power. It's time to create synergistic connections in our brains, and with the women AND men all around us for the purposes of refining the rudimentary ways we've been using, and to move into our birthright power. And to round out the imbalanced powers on the world stage with balance, bringing this globalization we are heading into, in to a place of beauty. We don't do this by fighting where the male-dominant ways are going adding more male-dominance, but we do so in creating the balance through embodying the brilliance of the female based ways. Evolution is taking us there. It's our choice whether we'll align adaptively, or if we'll over-expend ourselves maladaptively.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't have anything against you.
I thought it was self-explanatory. On that website they claimed they wanted the most competent people for the job. If you have a female quota it means you have to appoint at least one woman, for example. It could very well be, however, that this woman was not one of the most competent and that the most competent are all male.
So the answer is yes. Good, I'm glad to finally get some clarity.
If a teacher gives an exam and says the top four students get to go to Hawaii on a field trip, and the top four students are male. How is the girl who ended up fifth also deserving? Even more why the hell should she get to go instead of one of the top four students.
That is the very essence of the hypothetical question I posed. In fact, it's the exact same question.
I also asked you if you could clarify what you meant with "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair."
naděje umírá poslední
I'm referring to the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around, rather than live in harmony with it.
For example, rather than accept life and watch it unfold, in terms of elections and feminism, people want to add in rules to "even the playing field". I am 100% on board with evening the playing field because I have a high emotional intelligence. I undertand equity and fairness and it's validity in reality. And yet, if I seek to even the playing field in a way that creates unfairness and inequity, I've crossed the line. The minute we can no longer make progress in a fair balanced way, if we are whole-brained, and use our emotional/intuitive/logical intelligences in concert, we stay in harmony with nature and we pause. We stop, keeping in harmony. If we follow the patriarchical and imbalanced way, we would continue to follow what we want at the expense of balance and equity by imposing external force by law, etc. Instead, once we choose to stop, and opt to stay in synch with life, we may get an intuitive insight, or an emotional one, or a logical one for that matter, in harmony with life, and we will begin to see what is possible in terms of actual evolutionary adaptation.
We shift from the imbalance of conquering nature, which has been historically "male", into balance, which entails integrating male/female dichotomies.
What I'm saying is that when we continue to use government or law, or authority to overstep our bounds, we continue to stay out of harmony with nature. And we continue to cripple the necessary balancing intelligences.
I'm open to more specific questions, Collin, if this has not clarified what you were looking for.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Good! Glad we've cleared that up because I starting to feel pretty attacked from the tone of your posts.
Yes, she may not be the most competent of all candidates but she would still be competent in order for her to apply in the first place.
Not that I would personally be happy to use it and istinctively I would object to a female quota in principle because in theory there shouldn't be any need, but the reality is different - there is still female discrimation and that's why there must be some safeguards. The whole restoring justice and balance to a level playing field. And that's why I said I could see both sides of the argument. But to clarify even further, the only application of female quota that I could see is in political representations, or - as I think it happens in Scandinavia [can't remember whether it's Finland or Norway] - in top business world.
I thought I gave you the answer on that first post you edited!
Because you view the notion of the female quota as intrinsically unfair as it rewards the undeserving.
Whereas I see it as a way to redress the unfairness and I dispute that it is unfair per se because of its purpose to achieve fairness.
I agree with this.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But there you said it, why say you want the most competent of all candidates if this is not so.
I could see a "female quota" in political functions, if their function is to represent the people. But I'm not entirely sure if I agree with that, I'd need to think about it. But either way, I would not consider it a female quota but rather a more realistic representation of the population.
I don't agree with a female quota or any quota as a matter of fact in any other field.
Well, I completely disagree with that.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I understand the gist of it, I think.
But do you consider "the dominance of trying to conquer nature and the circumstances we live in and around" a male aspect and "living in harmony with nature" a female aspect?
Or what exactly do you mean by "male-based dominance" and living in the "female-based harmony with nature".
naděje umírá poslední
Simply put, and I am a plain speaker
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I completely understand what you mean. I'm just not sure where I stand on this, though. I'll have to think about it.
naděje umírá poslední
In linearity, one thing follows after another, like these letters and words I write, or like in math equations. In non-linearity, things like imagery, and visualization exist...where one sees the big picture at once, or where one can understand the even playing field and the equality of diverse views. Linearity and non-linearity is imbalanced without the other.
With linearity, we get the idea that right and wrong can't exist at the same time. And in non-linearity, we see how they can. With linearity we think of something as better OR worse. Up or down. we see a contradiction with both existing harmoniously. So it's a linear type system that people use when raping and pillaging the earth. When we act in this way, our ideas are about betterment, rather than acceptance. On the other hand, the non-linear view naturally accepts as is, hence female/non-linear/harmony being associated.
In the western world, most of us lean towards linear systems and avoid non-linear ones because we think they are untrustable and irrational, since we cannot quantify them. We therefore miss out on a large part of the complementary intelligences that allow us to see and live with balance, due to our patriarchical linear bias.
Both non-linear and linear must be integrated before we can see realistically. And when we integrate them, and see the whole, we tap the vast potential that is our birthright.
This is why male or female are incomplete without the other. Inside each of us. Within any debate, etc. And further, each incomplete will gravitate towards it's opposite in conflict. Such as the west representing linear intelligence, colliding with the middle east representing non-linear intelligence.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When a girl tells her boyfriend about a problem she's having, what does he do? He tries to solve it with some rational procedure (rational in his mind anyways). When she tells her female friend about the problem, what does she do? She'll mainly provide feedback indicating that she understands how the girl is feeling. She may also give advice, but it'll probably be advice on how to deal with the problem, not necessarily how to solve it.
I did not say that in this instance I would have wanted the most competent job because other factors would have been at play.
I never claimed that instrument is perfect and indeed I admit it has its flaws , but it's a safeguard too. What I said was that she may not be the most competent but competent enough to still do the job.
Are you against Affirmative Action too?
edit to fix quote marks
But I would not be doing wrong though, of course.
It all depends on which standpoint you have.
So, for you and Colin I would be perpetuating the unjustice/unfairness, I would see it as a way to redress the balance, until true equality and a level playing field is available for all.
Yes, supportive advice on coping, more than on resolution.
Coping with problems is great. ultimately, there is also a natural hierarchical validity to resolving things.
So, again, ultimately with the goal of integration, we:
1) are able to equally use any technique, given the needs of the situation rather than act upon our own bias that may worsen things
2) and we are able to use more than one method at any given time in concert with others.
We can use lateral and hierarchical ways, depending on what our needs are.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, there would not haven been other factors at play because it was a hypothetical situation.
Well, do you at least admit that it's hypocritical to say you want the best if you actually believe less than the best will sufficient if it's a woman?
Yes.
naděje umírá poslední
No?
I've said it before, this is the exact same rhetoric as "war is necessary to achieve peace"
It indeed depends on how you look at it. As is everything. I tend to look at the victims of your actions as well and there are victims, there's no denying that, no matter how noble or just you claim your motives are.
naděje umírá poslední
So then are you saying it's not true that feminism seeks to do injustice to men?
I think feminism should be represented in the core of the word; as in "feminine". To me, that means that as a woman, and as women in general, we have many strengths, and we should build on them and appreciate them for their differences they bring. Whether you believe in God, or just believe that our differences are for a reason, then you may see that we (of both sexes) have our own strengths that should not compete but complement one another.
But personally, I think of the women's movement as a major f---over for most women. Like a big, fat guy with a cigar that says, "ok, sweetie, you go work; and then you can come home and cook, clean, have sex, look good....I'll be on the couch, manning the remote."
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
HA!!!
Ultimately I think feminism has done sweet F.A. for women of low socio-economic backgrounds and let's face it that pretty much means it's doing sweet F.A. for the majority of women. So yeah, feminism is great in theory if you have the luxury of living that life and adhering to the core principles and striving for that level of autonomy for all. Having said that though, I will always dream of the day when we do have true equality between the sexes worldwide, I'm just not sure we're any closer to it now than we were back when the suffragettes were pushing for the vote over 100 years ago. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of things moving so slowly?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I think feminist beliefs are about equal opportunities, equal rights, equal pay... I think you can achieve those things without doing injustice to men.
But from the debate with lgt I've come to realize or rather what I thought has been confirmed, that there are feminists (as I imagine she's not alone in her beliefs) that do think it's right or necessary to do injustice to men in the name of feminism, in the name of creating justice. And it's this hypocrisy I don't like or support.
But then again, I believe there are plenty of women, feminists, who see the hypocrisy of it, who see that those methods are unfair, that those methods are opposite to the core beliefs of feminism.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Due to the patriarchical way we all live/d under, where authoratative, externally powered action "rules", we've been taught to stifle our intuitive and emotional intelligences. We've also been taught to stifle our subjective awareness. Over and over and over and over again, on this board, people have belittled personal experience, because it cannot be "proven"! We devalue the inner world of the individual. This devaluing is an offshoot of this patriarchical approach. And feminism, when it seeks external power, through external power structures (governments, laws) is again acting out the patriarchy it emerged out of, and that it has obviously internalized, as shown by actions.
On the other hand, what is necessary to create balance and wholeness for women and men, and to honour the feminine, is to return subjective, inner experience to it's place of immense value in the human experience. This is the starting measure of true empowerment for all individuals -- the degree that we are attuned within to our own consciousness, signals etc.
As an offshoot of us being personally unempowered and detached of our feminine power, men and women alike devalue their own thoughts/feelings/intuitions...we devalue our inner perception, as we're taught to value what we're "taught" externally by select few, who continue to wield power over millions. Not only do we devalue our own inner feedback, and the inner perception and our own consciousness, but in order to keep this imbalance in place, we must develop addictions, disorders and illness to do so. And then we reinforce this imbalance by perpetuating the patriarchy of socially muscling others into giving up their perceptions and adhering to this tunnel vision.
Then we wonder why everyone takes some kind of medication and is at the mercy of pharmaceutical companies. Again, we look externally to solve our problems, because that's what we know and that's what we willfully perpetuate in our dogmatic "i'm right, you're wrong" patriarchical/linear way. And yet, the psychiatric/medical professions which dole out the prescriptions for our "illnesses", by being patriarchical and linear, only understand in terms of illness and health. Again, we need the feminine intelligences to continue to awaken to restore such "insanity" to our birthright of vibrant health. Although I've been villified (and even literally censored!!!) on this board for speaking to prevention, even while being completely reasoned as I always am, that is exactly what we need right now! We need to open to prevention and to all the other lateral, complementary health practices. It's time to step out of seeing in terms of black and white, to see and open to all possibilities, including the vast shades and textures around us that we widespread currently overlook. When we do so, and when it's socially acceptable to own this balance individually and in a widespread fashion, dysfunction and illness evaporate.
As we argue for limitation and the linear small-mindedness, we ensure our own self-fulfilling prophecy of unconsciousness -- of willful blind unawareness.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I agree as well. It baffles me that so many causes are so hypocritical. If we are saying that the rights of one group need to be protected, then we need to respect that others as well should.
Weak people attack others and many use it as a ploy to get what they want. They should really look at their own selves.
My biggest issue is people who give rules to others they don't follow themselves.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thanks! Ditto to you.
For a moment I felt like Miss North Carolina while I read your post....(I am thread hopping;sorry).......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........