Feminism

lgt

Collin wrote:

Ok, forget it. I see you won't answer it. It's a hypothetical situation (hypothetical: "imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true" cambridge online dictionary), so you're right it's not what happens in reality hence the adjective hypothetical.

I just wanted to have your opinion about it, to see where you stand in that situation.

But I did give you my answer and position on this issue with the proviso on your original hypothetical question because I felt the way you posed your question was already loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair - which you then stated by telling me that I was being hypocritical.

That's why I said also it is a "necessary evil" because until you achieve true equality you must redress the balance to achieve an equal playing field by what I claim is restoring justice and equality, which you instead claim is perpetuating inequality and being hypocritical.

The phrase "necessary evil" indicates the differrent perceptions of that measure according to the opposite viewpoint.

Basically, I say it's not so black and white, while you seem to believe that the female quota would just perpetuate inequality by promoting different treatment between genders.

Collin

lgt wrote:

But I did give you my answer and position on this issue with the proviso on your original hypothetical question because I felt the way you posed your question was already loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair - which you then stated by telling me that I was being hypocritical.

You did not answer my question. And you still haven't.

Why was the original hypothetical question "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair" ?

That's why I said also it is a "necessary evil" because until you achieve true equality you must redress the balance to achieve an equal playing field by what I claim is restoring justice and equality, which you instead claim is perpetuating inequality and being hypocritical.

The phrase "necessary evil" indicates the differrent perceptions of that measure according to the opposite viewpoint.

Basically, I say it's not so black and white, while you seem to believe that the female quota would just perpetuate inequality by promoting different treatment between genders.

If a woman gets the job through the female quota even though she's not the most qualified for the job, it's injustice. Someone has been wronged, like women have been wronged for so many years.

If you want fair treatment and you impose a system treats people unfairly because of their gender then you are being a hypocrite.

Jeanie

Ok, so I'm a little confused now. We're saying that women have to compete as being the best person for the job even though the total number of people included are over represented by men?

There shouldn't be such a thing as a "quota". No matter what you're voting for, in terms of a group of candidates it should always be taken from an equal representation of men and women. So as far as I can see if you have 50 representatives 25 of them should be men, 25 of them should be women. You get the best 25 men for the job and the best 25 women. Men can only compete for one of 25 places and women can only compete for one of 25 places. This best person, or best candidate business is flawed from the outset because different genders offer different perspectives and as far as I'm concerned any group of elected officials should always be a true representation of the demographic they are representing.

lgt

Collin wrote:

You did not answer my question. And you still haven't.

Why was the original hypothetical question "loaded with an obvious accusation of being unfair" ?


If a woman gets the job through the female quota even though she's not the most qualified for the job, it's injustice. Someone has been wronged, like women have been wronged for so many years.

If you want fair treatment and you impose a system treats people unfairly because of their gender then you are being a hypocrite.

I have answered your question. Please re-read my previous posts.

But to finish this, as I said, we do not have a de facto equal level playing field and that's why such measures the female quota provide a guarantee and safeguard for women and are a "necessary evil" to restore justice, and that's why it's not hypocritical.

From what you say it seems that you believe that the current system is already equal and fair and just, both de jure and de facto.

I disagree, because while it is de jure, de facto it is not still. And that's why these measures even if they may appear unfair to some are necessary n certain situations, to redress the balance.

So we disagree, as I thought it was fairly obvious, different starting point and different conclusions, and so let's agree to disagree on this.

angelica

lgt wrote:

I agree that as women got more rights they got more choices as they were no more confined to the private family world as it were, but could become financially independent on their own.

And I agree you cannot paint all women with the same brush; same as men, of course.

But that's why one must have equal rights for all.

Agreed! I think where we see differently is what those "rights" are.

Man is a social animal so one needs rules and laws agreed by all.

I see that some humans want laws and rules agreed by all. However, I don't at all see that we need them. We all exist and thrive quite nicely without laws and rules agreed by all.

If I understand your point correctly about enpowerment, responsibility and consciousness awareness this is on a more individual and personal level. And I agree with that.

However, for me that is not the whole picture, because of the inherent diversity in human beings - not all men/women are the same or have the same abilities intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.

And that's precisely why we need external rules to ensure a level playing field for all. This of course would extend to rights for all groups that have been subjected to abuses, constraints, etc.

I can understand that people want to bring about an even playing field in life. I am so for that. I live to embody balance, and the even playing-field personified. I also live to create the even playing field wherever I can. What I cannot support is creating an even playing field at the expense of someone else. That is not the even-playing field at all. That is an illusion. If we create fairness for one person, while creating oppression and control with another, I see a power struggle. And I see the justification for that power struggle to be an emotional argument removed from a whole-brain argument. The reason I see that is because such a contradiction, logical fallacy or hypocrisy cannot be justified. Therefore, I see that when holding this flawed and/or incomplete argument one is doing the best they know how, without sound principles as a foundation. And when one knows better, they will do better.

It is the human ego that believes it can fairly and equitable quantify the unquantifiable vast differences you speak of. The only entity capable of fully appreciating such diversity and acting accordingly is nature herself. 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.

This is why as long as women continue to play a mans game they will continue to lose. We are not men. Our true power is in being all we can be. Not trying to outdo patriarchy with more patriarchy. Our actual power is in developing our power, so that it emerges to balance and complement patriarchy in our individual lives, and on the world scale. This will bring our birthright equality into being politically and structurally.

In this sense I disagree with your assertion that the law and government are used to take away rights to give them to women - if that's what you mean - because it's not a question of taking away rights but extending rights to those who have been excluded before.

I'm all for creating any equality for women that doesn't infringe on someone else. Once that "equality" infringes on someone else, the logic and the argument for doing so reveals itself as unsound. Again, it shows we are trying to win at the man's game that we know causes our problems. Women's evolution and empowerment is in owning and expanding upon our power, and creating our own equality from being all we can be from within. When a system does not work, we don't go into it and try to force it, like patriarchy dictates. We create a system from what we, with our wonderful strengths (if we can remember them, outside what we've been taught to patriarchically value) inherently know is amazing. We don't use male dominant force in male systems that we don't like. That's self-destructive for us as women and as humans. It's like the cancer cell eating up the cell next to it at the ultimate expense of the body.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by natural law. In philosophical terms, it was used in contradiction to the laws of society in the sense that man in the state of nature behaved in a certain manner [and according to your philosophical viewpoint could be good, in harmony with each other, or bad as in struggle with each other]

Cheers

To me, natural laws are the laws which everything exists within, physically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, scientifically, etc. These laws keep all of nature thriving and recycling in perfection, at all times, independent of our human conflict with it.

lgt

angelica wrote:

Agreed! I think where we see differently is what those "rights" are.

I am thinking of basic human rights supported by the rule of law to be observed by all, so as to especially protect minorities, the weak, etc.

Women rights are a sub-set of these because there is still de facto inequality.

angelica wrote:

I see that some humans want laws and rules agreed by all. However, I don't at all see that we need them. We all exist and thrive quite nicely without laws and rules agreed by all.

I agree that some may be able to live in harmony and without conflict without rules and laws, but that cannot be extended to society as a whole because there is always the risk of exploitation of the weaker. The rule of law should prevent that and guarantee an equal playing field for all. So, additional external protection, as it were.

angelica wrote:

I can understand that people want to bring about an even playing field in life. I am so for that. I live to embody balance, and the even playing-field personified. I also live to create the even playing field wherever I can. What I cannot support is creating an even playing field at the expense of someone else. That is not the even-playing field at all. That is an illusion. If we create fairness for one person, while creating oppression and control with another, I see a power struggle. And I see the justification for that power struggle to be an emotional argument removed from a whole-brain argument. The reason I see that is because such a contradiction, logical fallacy or hypocrisy cannot be justified. Therefore, I see that when holding this flawed and/or incomplete argument one is doing the best they know how, without sound principles as a foundation. And when one knows better, they will do better..

That's the crux of the matter. How would you be able to create a level playing field when the current field is unfair and unbalanced per se?

More on a societal level than just individual basis, I mean.

Would you say it would be an accumulation of single individual behaviour perpetuating fairness that will bring it about? without resorting to external helps, such as specific laws to protect minorities, etc? so as not perpetuate unfairness and get involved in a power struggle with the same behaviours.

And on an individual basis, I would agree it could be possible because one can choose how to behave according to their views, awareness levels, etc, but not every one is the same in society so you will still encounter some inequalities.

angelica wrote:

It is the human ego that believes it can fairly and equitable quantify the unquantifiable vast differences you speak of. The only entity capable of fully appreciating such diversity and acting accordingly is nature herself. 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.

This is why as long as women continue to play a mans game they will continue to lose. We are not men. Our true power is in being all we can be. Not trying to outdo patriarchy with more patriarchy. Our actual power is in developing our power, so that it emerges to balance and complement patriarchy in our individual lives, and on the world scale. This will bring our birthright equality into being politically and structurally.

I'm all for creating any equality for women that doesn't infringe on someone else. Once that "equality" infringes on someone else, the logic and the argument for doing so reveals itself as unsound. Again, it shows we are trying to win at the man's game that we know causes our problems. Women's evolution and empowerment is in owning and expanding upon our power, and creating our own equality from being all we can be from within. When a system does not work, we don't go into it and try to force it, like patriarchy dictates. We create a system from what we, with our wonderful strengths (if we can remember them, outside what we've been taught to patriarchically value) inherently know is amazing. We don't use male dominant force in male systems that we don't like. That's self-destructive for us as women and as humans. It's like the cancer cell eating up the cell next to it at the ultimate expense of the body.

I definitely can see your point, and I agree one does not have to play the man's game. However, when you suggest to create a system of our own, different from patriarchy, wouldn't that be creating a new different imbalance? even if paradoxically and in theory based in fairness?

I think it would be a combination of the two different approaches: at individual level but also societal levels. And that's where we disagree because for me it means getting involved and changing the current system from within.

angelica wrote:

To me, natural laws are the laws which everything exists within, physically, emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, scientifically, etc. These laws keep all of nature thriving and recycling in perfection, at all times, independent of our human conflict with it.

So in your definition, there is no distinction between nature and society, nature and man/woman, animals? there's an underlying universal natural law?

Thanks for clarifying your points and the reasoned debate

angelica

lgt wrote:

I am thinking of basic human rights supported by the rule of law to be observed by all, so as to especially protect minorities, the weak, etc.

Women rights are a sub-set of these because there is still de facto inequality.

okay.

I agree that some may be able to live in harmony and without conflict without rules and laws, but that cannot be extended to society as a whole because there is always the risk of exploitation of the weaker. The rule of law should prevent that and guarantee an equal playing field for all. So, additional external protection, as it were.

I realize most people are out of synch with life, in their perception of it. Most people are at odds with and experience conflict in life. That's the nature of life! We experience challenges and learning experiences as a way of adapting and evolving. Or we maladapt. The system works perfectly, including there being a lot of fallout for choices that don't work for people. And yet, each diverse individual, in each moment chooses: to progress, regress or to stagnate. It's universal. It applies to man/woman/child/transvestite (and any other sex I may miss out on....)

Sure people get angry about their life circumstances. sure human perception and human ego is indignant at the state of natural evolution. And yet, natural evolution works perfectly, for it's own evolutionary purposes, regardless of our ignorance. And that perfection includes our heart-based desires to make a difference in wonderful ways.

That's the crux of the matter. How would you be able to create a level playing field when the current field is unfair and unbalanced per se?

There are multi-facets here. "The" current field is not imbalanced. Aspects of it are. When we hook into and embody imbalance, we perpetuate the cycles. If all individuals became empowered, in their power, they would know to focus on what they want to create more of. What we focus on expands. If we focus on lack, we create more of it. If we focus on empowerment and power, we create more of it. If all became theoretially empowered, each lacking aspect of the system would fall away, due to lack of use/need/attention on it. As it is, everyone...man/woman/feminist continue to happily and willfully feed energy and power into these flawed systems, with our added flaws, thusly showing a current and apparently unconscious need for the use of flaw and of flawed systems. It is us who sustain them! It's not someone "out there".

What this ultimately means is that anywhere we can create positive change (without also creating it's backlash through inauthentic power, control, and other maladaptive patriarchical ways) we are creating the even playing field.

Part of the problem is the human ego. We don't understand that our only and immense power is in creating progress. We try to create an illusory finished product, which is a product of our patriarchically based ego (in men AND women). We won't have the wisdom to design the ideal outcome until we are closing in on the outcome. Our ideas at this point come from our patriarchically developed brains that are in the infancy of our power. We want to fix things, as patriarchy dictates, thereby overstepping our actual power, willfully walzing into the realm of distortion and abuse of power. And then, in true masculine-detached-of-the-whole-of-life patriarchy, we want to then justify our abuses of power. I must forgive people for not knowing what they do. And I trust that when they know better, they will do better.

More on a societal level than just individual basis, I mean.

It is imperative that we raise our consciousness individually, so we can see how to do this. When we allow ourselves the luxury of "creating" in abusive, invasive ways, we are not operating from a place of power. They key to making the big changes...like those in authentic power do, is in raising our consciousness...this means resolving our inner emotional issues. It means seeking letting go of the false filters that we've internalized, in search of the Truth, and true empowerment, and not accepting the illusion of both.

Would you say it would be an accumulation of single individual behaviour perpetuating fairness that will bring it about? without resorting to external helps, such as specific laws to protect minorities, etc? so as not perpetuate unfairness and get involved in a power struggle with the same behaviours.

At the risk of being redundant...yes!! When we tap our true inner power, and do everything we can to always choose authentic empowerment, and to resolve it when we err, we will evolve into our own dream life and Self, including being empowered in ways we cannot imagine!!

And on an individual basis, I would agree it could be possible because one can choose how to behave according to their views, awareness levels, etc, but not every one is the same in society so you will still encounter some inequalities.

Not only is it possible, it's happening all around us! There is so much evolution happening. It's beautiful. There are many who still live out and justify maladaptation. And yet the evolution happens anyway! The authentic empowerment is on the side of adaptation, without any doubht. In evolution there is always lack and room for improvement so we learn to accept the inequities as we continue to do all in our power to progress..

And eventually, on this road of empowerment, one comes to a place beyond evolution. One comes to a centered place of pure potentiality.

I definitely can see your point, and I agree one does not have to play the man's game. However, when you suggest to create a system of our own, different from patriarchy, wouldn't that be creating a new different imbalance? even if paradoxically and in theory based in fairness?

We are only responsible for each thing we create. If we create according to our ideals without compromising them we create ideally, never imbalanced. Realistically, we are human and make mistakes. We learn to resolve our mistakes into the bigger picture of the ideal. This is why we cannot justify mistakes...or we justify creating in a flawed manner. We justify not resolving our problems and errors, which is the imbalance we create. So creating from the ideal is the opposite of creating imbalance.

I think it would be a combination of the two different approaches: at individual level but also societal levels. And that's where we disagree because for me it means getting involved and changing the current system from within.

I do just this in each day. I am in the world. I am within this partriarchical system. The key is I am not OF it. What I mean is, I create from ideals, not from the flaws that already exists. Yet I am always creating interactively within this system. For example, my purpose is in creating an even playing field in the mental health system. Where do I do this? Within the mental health system where I work. However, I don't perpetuate the flaws I see in the system and call it necessary. I don't use male power to abuse. I've raised my awareness enough to integrate my own male and female power into a synergistic potential, which is beyond what most have done. In order to do this, I have to embrace male power fully, and forgive the errors of male power that others perpetuate, and that I've perpetuated daily for over 40 years. Again, this is in the system, but not of it.

Let me tell you, this energy is infectious for men, too. Humans are invigorated and enlivened by Truth and by true empowerment. Men are as much a "victim" of patriarchy as women are. Men are as unconscious of this ugliness they perpetuate as we are unconscious of our own creation of it. Men seek transcendence of our human issues, too. Just not at their expense. They seek balance, as well. And gravitate towards it unconsciously, where they are aligned with their natural evolution. When we come from a place of ideals, the men cannot help but join in, as key to the "male-intelligence ideal" they've been conditioned with is the awareness of the brilliance of the Light of beautiful reason, or "enlightenment".

So in your definition, there is no distinction between nature and society, nature and man/woman, animals? there's an underlying universal natural law?

There is a distinction in the context that we create it for theoretical purposes, to understand dynamics that we experience or see. In the big picture, it's all energy.

Thanks for clarifying your points and the reasoned debate

thank YOU. There is a wonderful synergy between laterally discussing these subjects in the "feminine" sense and integrating that with "male" reason and the natural hierarchies of natural law. The synergy of the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. This type of conversation excites me, and is an example of this greater potential I love so much. And of the beauty of the balance of complementary ways. I'm seeing much of it in these threads where women-potential (including as inherent to men) is being truly acknowledged. Peace.

Collin

lgt wrote:

I have answered your question. Please re-read my previous posts.

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.

But to finish this, as I said, we do not have a de facto equal level playing field and that's why such measures the female quota provide a guarantee and safeguard for women and are a "necessary evil" to restore justice, and that's why it's not hypocritical.

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.

From what you say it seems that you believe that the current system is already equal and fair and just, both de jure and de facto.

"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.

So we disagree, as I thought it was fairly obvious, different starting point and different conclusions, and so let's agree to disagree on this.

Oh, I definitely disagree with you.

edit: I forgot the blatant hypocrisy in claiming you want the best people for the job and imposing a female quota.

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

Ok, so I'm a little confused now. We're saying that women have to compete as being the best person for the job even though the total number of people included are over represented by men?

There shouldn't be such a thing as a "quota". No matter what you're voting for, in terms of a group of candidates it should always be taken from an equal representation of men and women. So as far as I can see if you have 50 representatives 25 of them should be men, 25 of them should be women. You get the best 25 men for the job and the best 25 women. Men can only compete for one of 25 places and women can only compete for one of 25 places. This best person, or best candidate business is flawed from the outset because different genders offer different perspectives and as far as I'm concerned any group of elected officials should always be a true representation of the demographic they are representing.

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?

Collin

angelica wrote:

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?

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

angelica

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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."

angelica

Collin wrote:

angelica wrote:

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

I don't have anything against you.

Good! Glad we've cleared that up because I starting to feel pretty attacked from the tone of your posts.

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin wrote:

So the answer is yes. Good, I'm glad to finally get some clarity.

I thought I gave you the answer on that first post you edited!

Collin wrote:

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.

angelica

lgt wrote:

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 thought Collin was saying the female quota is intrinsically unfair when unjustness is justified in the name of being just.

I agree with this.

Collin

lgt wrote:

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.

Well, I completely disagree with that.

angelica

lgt wrote:

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.

Do you give yourself permission to do wrong in the now, for a future result?

Collin

angelica wrote:

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".

Jeanie

Collin wrote:

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?