Feminism

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

You're viewing this in absolutist abstract terms so in this sense yes, it can be viewed as perpetuating an injustice and hypocritical because you're in a sense promoting a group at the expense of another, while you claim to be a proponent of equal rights.

But the female quota was introduced - as far as I know, in very limited cases for top level jobs - as an admission that true equality is still not here, and therefore taking into account historical and socio-economic factors still at play that make women still a disadvantaged group when compared to their demographic representation in society. So under this viewpoint, it would not be considered hypocritical but seen as redressing the balance and restoring justice and an equal level playing field.

When we get to a point that the appointment of a woman as Defence Minister in the Spanish government or indeed that the majority of the Zapatero government is female will no longer make headline news the need for female quota would disappear.

So, that's the whole point of my argument - I do see the rationale behind the introduction of female quota and I am open to other alternative measures that could be pursued to make it easier for women to compete for the top jobs.

lgt

angelica wrote:

okay.



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.

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.


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.

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!!

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.

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 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".



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.

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.

Hi Angelica,

I agree on an individual level one must act fairly, etc. BUT in society not all human beings are the same in abilities [intellectual, emotional, etc] or situation [due to economic, political or social constraints] and that's why you NEED external factors to protect those who are weaker and at a disadvantage due to internal or external circumstances.

And your argument rests on the premise that all can raise their consciousness and awareness, and evolve and so achieve empowerment and this is done on an individual level but that it is not the case. Not just because of people having different abilities and views, cultures, etc, but also in the sense that evolution is not always the certain outcome because there is also involution and regression.
You also talk of Truth. What Truth though? Take even a random sample of people and you will get different views of what Truth is for them, and some will even deny there is such Truth! You are assuming your viewpoint is the Truth - that everyone can raise their consciousness, etc. You may be right, but you might not be.

And that's why you need a framework - by definition external - that allows for all the different individuals with all their different abilities, concepts of Truth, beliefs etc to live as harmoniously as possible. The rule of law is what enables this framework as well as a system of checks and balances.

Sure, you can implement change and influence those around you with your behaviour and doing good in your own microcosm. And I totally agree with that. However, I also take the less insular and more outward-looking view into account.

You say that you only have responsibility for what you create. I disagree with that in the sense it is not just that, because others feel responsibility for other people too, that for whatever reason [historically, phisically, intellectually, economically] are at a disadvantage and their well-being and therefore act in consideration of their benefit too, and redress the injustice.

I also don't make much distinction between a male and female mind because in practical terms it is just too nuanced [you have males exhibiting more female traits, or females male] - what I am interested in is a system fair for ALL and that can be done in the practical world via a legal framework and political negotiation and compromise.

So, I am looking at the more mundane level and its practical considerations, if you will - the applications of ideals and principles in real life.

Cheers!

lgt

Collin wrote:

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.

Sure, and likewise talking of different viewpoints...

By the same token, your position could also be considered similarly hypocritical because you claim to be a proponent of gender equality while in reality you object to measures aimed at introducing de facto equality.

Also, in the case of female quota you would have one less male EU commissioner - there are victims and victims.

I prefer to have a less black and white outlook on life, in general.

Collin

lgt wrote:

Sure, and likewise talking of different viewpoints...

By the same token, your position could also be considered similarly hypocritical because you claim to be a proponent of gender equality while in reality you object to measures aimed at introducing de facto equality.

Also, in the case of female quota you would have one less male EU commissioner - there are victims and victims.

I prefer to have a less black and white outlook on life, in general.

I am definitely a proponent of gender equality but not at the expense of someone else. I'm not a proponent of injustice.

The female quota assures, rightly or wrongly, that a woman is appointed to a position.

My support of gender equality fits into a broader philosophy, a philosophy in which I think all people should be treated fairly and equally. If your female quota creates an injustice, which it does, it goes against this philosophy. I don't think I'm being hypocritical. But like I said, I'm not a feminist but a humanitarian... that is if I really cared about labeling myself.

You can argue that women have historically been denied such positions and even today it is still hard, and perhaps in some sectors nearly impossible, yet I don't think that justifies stepping on somebody.

It's exactly this, this stepping on women, this oppression of women, which you are fighting against and you're doing it by stepping on men and oppressing men. What's more, you actually believe it's justice, it's right. The treatment you are fighting against becomes "right", "necessary" or even "justice" when you employ it.

I'm against terrorism too. That doesn't mean I approve of torturing terrorists, though. The US (and other countries as well) have justified torture and abuse again and again and said it was "necessary" or the "right" thing to do because lives were at stake, because innocent people could get killed or hurt.

I'm against crime, against murder. But I don't support the death penalty. Yet again, the death penalty has been justified. The death penalty is according to some justice. The man is a monster, he killed five children... he deserves to die. I think that is hypocritical. I'm against capital punishment, but I do want to see the man punished for his actions.

lgt

Collin wrote:

I am definitely a proponent of gender equality but not at the expense of someone else. I'm not a proponent of injustice.

The female quota assures, rightly or wrongly, that a woman is appointed to a position.

My support of gender equality fits into a broader philosophy, a philosophy in which I think all people should be treated fairly and equally. If your female quota creates an injustice, which it does, it goes against this philosophy. I don't think I'm being hypocritical. But like I said, I'm not a feminist but a humanitarian... that is if I really cared about labeling myself.

You can argue that women have historically been denied such positions and even today it is still hard, and perhaps in some sectors nearly impossible, yet I don't think that justifies stepping on somebody.

It's exactly this, this stepping on women, this oppression of women, which you are fighting against and you're doing it by stepping on men and oppressing men. What's more, you actually believe it's justice, it's right. The treatment you are fighting against becomes "right", "necessary" or even "justice" when you employ it.

I'm against terrorism too. That doesn't mean I approve of torturing terrorists, though. The US (and other countries as well) have justified torture and abuse again and again and said it was "necessary" or the "right" thing to do because lives were at stake, because innocent people could get killed or hurt.

I'm against crime, against murder. But I don't support the death penalty. Yet again, the death penalty has been justified. The death penalty is according to some justice. The man is a monster, he killed five children... he deserves to die. I think that is hypocritical. I'm against capital punishment, but I do want to see the man punished for his actions.

But Collin, a female quota would not be a means to oppress men - men would not be prevented from holding a position or barred en masse [as it happened instead to women in the past]. It is a way to give women access they wouldn't otherwise have and men will also have representation.

Again, it's the whole issue - you view it as creating injustice I view as amending injustice.

Collin

lgt wrote:

But Collin, a female quota would not be a means to oppress men - men would not be prevented from holding a position or barred en masse [as it happened instead to women in the past]. It is a way to give women access they wouldn't otherwise have and men will also have representation.

Again, it's the whole issue - you view it as creating injustice I view as amending injustice.

I agree it wouldn't oppress men as a whole, but it can oppress a single person.

You justify that injustice by saying you amend justice. You amend one justice but at the same time you create an injustice too.

Either way, I'm not sure women and men should be represented equally.

angelica

lgt wrote:

Hi Angelica,

I agree on an individual level one must act fairly, etc. BUT in society not all human beings are the same in abilities [intellectual, emotional, etc] or situation [due to economic, political or social constraints] and that's why you NEED external factors to protect those who are weaker and at a disadvantage due to internal or external circumstances.

The "need" to control life rather than live in understanding, acceptance and harmony of it is patriarchical. What we "need" is the actual manifestation the feminine, not more external control.

And your argument rests on the premise that all can raise their consciousness and awareness, and evolve and so achieve empowerment and this is done on an individual level but that it is not the case.

Developmental psychology shows that this is in fact the case. We all move through natural developmental phases all the time. This natural growth may not conform to our ideas (which are linear/masculine ) of the way things "should" be. And further ideas of controlling it is, again, patriarchical, and missing balance and the realism of balanced intelligences.

Not just because of people having different abilities and views, cultures, etc, but also in the sense that evolution is not always the certain outcome because there is also involution and regression.

When one becomes balanced and aligned/harmonious with life, one finds that these so called "flawed" aspects of life and the very same features that hone our abilitities evolutionarily. When we come from a patriarchical, rational view, at the expense of feminine intelligences, we literally cannot understand that.

You also talk of Truth. What Truth though? Take even a random sample of people and you will get different views of what Truth is for them, and some will even deny there is such Truth! You are assuming your viewpoint is the Truth - that everyone can raise their consciousness, etc. You may be right, but you might not be.

My framework includes all frameworks. The Truth is the Truth, independent of yours, or my opinion of it. Natural laws of reality exist and as we raise our awareness, we uncover what they are.

And that's why you need a framework - by definition external - that allows for all the different individuals with all their different abilities, concepts of Truth, beliefs etc to live as harmoniously as possible. The rule of law is what enables this framework as well as a system of checks and balances.

It is insecurity that seeks to create security. Natural evolution evolves all of us through experiences. As writersu sort of said, it is the weak who seek to control others. It's part of learning adaptation. I don't accept justification of this control. I don't enable it. I allow those who seek to control learn by the consequences of their actions. As we stand we have more than enough base laws to "protect" people. We are not lacking law. What I say is that we need to head off laterally, and balance that external control with the feminine.

Sure, you can implement change and influence those around you with your behaviour and doing good in your own microcosm. And I totally agree with that. However, I also take the less insular and more outward-looking view into account.

I've been honing my awareness and abilities for 14 years in order to write a book to influence and create sweeping change. Those who create the mindsets that influence millions must have a mindset capable of doing so.

You say that you only have responsibility for what you create. I disagree with that in the sense it is not just that, because others feel responsibility for other people too, that for whatever reason [historically, phisically, intellectually, economically] are at a disadvantage and their well-being and therefore act in consideration of their benefit too, and redress the injustice.

If we have two different views, you want to legislate how I act upon that difference?

I also don't make much distinction between a male and female mind because in practical terms it is just too nuanced [you have males exhibiting more female traits, or females male] - what I am interested in is a system fair for ALL and that can be done in the practical world via a legal framework and political negotiation and compromise.

When you actually mean this, I support it 100%. When you justify injustice to get this, your own philosophy self-destructs.

So, I am looking at the more mundane level and its practical considerations, if you will - the applications of ideals and principles in real life.

Cheers!

Cheers.

angelica

Collin wrote:

I agree it wouldn't oppress men as a whole, but it can oppress a single person.

You justify that injustice by saying you amend justice. You amend one justice but at the same time you create an injustice too.

Either way, I'm not sure women and men should be represented equally.

It not only backfires for the candidates for whatever positions, but also it takes away the freedoms of the business owner who is forced to choose inauthentically. It infringes on the business owner by controlling options, (which the ideal of feminism says is unfair) rather than allowing him/her to choose based on merit and freedom, naturally.

Collin

angelica wrote:

It not only backfires for the candidates for whatever positions, but also it takes away the freedoms of the business owner who is forced to choose inauthentically. It infringes on the business owner by controlling options, (which the ideal of feminism says is unfair) rather than allowing him/her to choose based on merit and freedom, naturally.

Exactly. A man I know lets (rents) out an apartment, when he was looking for new renters there were three candidates, a young couple, a young gay couple and an old couple. The gay couple offered the most money, but this man prefered the old couple and let it out to them. The gay couple actually threatened to sue him for discrimination. Can you believe that? Anyway, this man's a judge and when they found out they decided not to sue

Heineken Helen

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 dunno... I'd like to get the job cos I'm the most qualified... NOT cos they HAVE to give it to me cos I'm a woman... that's a GREAT way to win respect

Heineken Helen

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."

I AGREE COMPLETELY!

The reason there aren't more women in power is cos it simply doesn't come natural to us to WANT to be in charge. That's more of a male trait. The quicker people accept the differences between men and women and work together to balance everything out, the better. There's no point forcing any issue!

writersu

Heineken Helen wrote:

I AGREE COMPLETELY!

The reason there aren't more women in power is cos it simply doesn't come natural to us to WANT to be in charge. That's more of a male trait. The quicker people accept the differences between men and women and work together to balance everything out, the better. There's no point forcing any issue!

Yeah, I agree completely, Helen.

Many times my thoughts have been accused of being "sexist" in terms of woman vs man, but that is truly not at all the reasoning behind my thoughts regarding men and women. Women produce and bear children, perform tasks of different natures at the same time, nurture, hold, and set forth life, and think in a different thought process than men do. There are strengths in each and just as no man should castrate himself to be more understanding, persay, no woman should "strap one one" (sorry) to be more successful.

I don't know, I am by far no expert but I observe a lot of things and that is what the things I have seen have left me with.

We all see different things though in our lives. No better or worse.

Heineken Helen

writersu wrote:

Yeah, I agree completely, Helen.

Many times my thoughts have been accused of being "sexist" in terms of woman vs man, but that is truly not at all the reasoning behind my thoughts regarding men and women. Women produce and bear children, perform tasks of different natures at the same time, nurture, hold, and set forth life, and think in a different thought process than men do. There are strengths in each and just as no man should castrate himself to be more understanding, persay, no woman should "strap one one" (sorry) to be more successful.

I don't know, I am by far no expert but I observe a lot of things and that is what the things I have seen have left me with.

We all see different things though in our lives. No better or worse.

well obviously there are quite a few women who want to be in power... and I'm not knocking them at all. If you don't want kids or if your kids are raised then by all means, go for it. But obviously there will not be as many women applying for those kinds of jobs as men... so if the applications are say 3 or 4 to 1 in favour of men, chances are a male candidate will get it. It's maths... not sexism.

BUT there has been far too much pressure on women over the past couple of decades to simply do everything and it's gotten out of control. You only need to look at the state of adolescents these days to realise something's wrong... my guess is it's cos their parents simply don't have the time or don't know what they're up to much of the time.

bgivens33

lgt wrote:

But Collin, a female quota would not be a means to oppress men - men would not be prevented from holding a position or barred en masse [as it happened instead to women in the past]. It is a way to give women access they wouldn't otherwise have and men will also have representation.

Again, it's the whole issue - you view it as creating injustice I view as amending injustice.

What about Title IX in college sports? It's a bit vague but it essentially requires universities to offer the same amount of sports scholarships to women as men. So, a typically division 1 football school has 85 scholarships... and there is no womens football so the university will have to cut at least one(at a minimum) mens sports program. So you have a sport that only has a mens side and these schools get punished because because they offer it... making them cancel another male program. I just can't buy into that.

writersu

Heineken Helen wrote:

well obviously there are quite a few women who want to be in power... and I'm not knocking them at all. If you don't want kids or if your kids are raised then by all means, go for it. But obviously there will not be as many women applying for those kinds of jobs as men... so if the applications are say 3 or 4 to 1 in favour of men, chances are a male candidate will get it. It's maths... not sexism.

BUT there has been far too much pressure on women over the past couple of decades to simply do everything and it's gotten out of control. You only need to look at the state of adolescents these days to realise something's wrong... my guess is it's cos their parents simply don't have the time or don't know what they're up to much of the time.

Yeah, and I was just thinking how strange it is that so many times when you have a group that is claiming to be a minority, the whole cause ends up more of a mess than when it started.

I'm not sure why, but I kind of think that being strong is more about quietly being strong and not stamping your foot at injustice or waving a finger at others.

But it has taken me a very very long time to see that.

Heineken Helen

bgivens33 wrote:

What about Title IX in college sports? It's a bit vague but it essentially requires universities to offer the same amount of sports scholarships to women as men. So, a typically division 1 football school has 85 scholarships... and there is no womens football so the university will have to cut at least one(at a minimum) mens sports program. So you have a sport that only has a mens side and these schools get punished because because they offer it... making them cancel another male program. I just can't buy into that.

why is there no womens football? :eek:

Heineken Helen

writersu wrote:

Yeah, and I was just thinking how strange it is that so many times when you have a group that is claiming to be a minority, the whole cause ends up more of a mess than when it started.

I'm not sure why, but I kind of think that being strong is more about quietly being strong and not stamping your foot at injustice or waving a finger at others.

But it has taken me a very very long time to see that.

I know what ya mean... I've started to see it the past couple of years. Don't get me wrong, fair play to any woman who goes for what she wants... BUT if Hillary thought she'd be voted in simply cos she's a woman :eek: well that's ridiculous. If you go for the job, you should only expect to get it cos you're the best candidate. If you're female, the best candidate and DON'T get the job... well THEN bring up sexism. But it just sounds like sour grapes and an easy excuse otherwise.

If you stamp your feet and wave your finger, people soon get sick of you and just want you to shut the fuck up. It's pretty simple! You don't demand respect, you earn it.

I've mentioned before Mary Robinson, former Irish President. She's a great example of a woman who got a 'mans job' and turned it into a womans job so much so that the following election, 4 out of the 5 candidates were women

Collin

Heineken Helen wrote:

why is there no womens football? :eek:

Why should there be? They have cheerleading, right.

Heineken Helen

Collin wrote:

Why should there be? They have cheerleading, right.

sport is leisure, fun, recreation, a hobby... it's not like it's a life choice... but it should be open to everyone. I played football (the real one) and camogie and rounders when I was in school... cos everyone played and we could play whichever sport we liked. Wow they're so backwards in the states

writersu

Heineken Helen wrote:

I know what ya mean... I've started to see it the past couple of years. Don't get me wrong, fair play to any woman who goes for what she wants... BUT if Hillary thought she'd be voted in simply cos she's a woman :eek: well that's ridiculous. If you go for the job, you should only expect to get it cos you're the best candidate. If you're female, the best candidate and DON'T get the job... well THEN bring up sexism. But it just sounds like sour grapes and an easy excuse otherwise.

If you stamp your feet and wave your finger, people soon get sick of you and just want you to shut the fuck up. It's pretty simple! You don't demand respect, you earn it.

I've mentioned before Mary Robinson, former Irish President. She's a great example of a woman who got a 'mans job' and turned it into a womans job so much so that the following election, 4 out of the 5 candidates were women

That is so cool ---about Mary Robinson, I mean. See, that is the answer. We all bring the best to the table as they say, if we don't get caught up in the crap...

here is my vote for a black man candidate like this man,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Lt5LihES0


and for a woman, well I don't know, but I will be busy thinking...