Feminism

decides2dream

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.......

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

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.

angelica

Collin wrote:

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".

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

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.

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.

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin wrote:

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.

Are you against Affirmative Action too?

edit to fix quote marks

lgt

angelica wrote:

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.

lgt

triple post!

angelica

Saturnal wrote:

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).

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.

angelica

lgt wrote:

But I would not be doing wrong though, of course.

What I mean is are you willing to act unjustly for future gain?

Collin

lgt wrote:

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?

Are you against Affirmative Action too?

Yes.

Collin

lgt wrote:

But I would not be doing wrong though, of course.

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.

_

Collin wrote:

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?

writersu

scb wrote:

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."

Jeanie

writersu wrote:

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?

Collin

scb wrote:

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.

angelica

Collin wrote:

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.

angelica

writersu wrote:

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.

writersu

Collin wrote:

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.

angelica

writersu wrote:

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!

writersu

angelica wrote:

Well said!

Thanks! Ditto to you.

For a moment I felt like Miss North Carolina while I read your post....(I am thread hopping;sorry).......