Female Politicians

Do Female Politicians Represent an ‘Ethical and Pure’ Force?

Okay, we all know the answer to that, but it’s a fairly interesting editorial anyway, despite silly statements such as, “There’s no doubt that women bring a valuable perspective to the political arena.” It lists many of Hilary Clinton’s well-known lies and crimes and Nancy Pelosi’s broken campaign promises. And it has this keen insight:

A February 5 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor announced grandly that “a woman leader governs differently than a man, bringing new perspectives and helping other women.” That’s a rather bizarre claim in light of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, multi-billion dollar programs that were enacted by men and designed to benefit mostly women.

Advertisements

57 Responses to “Female Politicians”

  1. Querus Abuttu Says:

    I’m wondering, MCW, after reading your posts, what it is you feel women as a whole CAN do? When there is such a negative approach, I have to question it. I can see, from what I’ve read so far, that women have strengths and abilities that are different to men. I can see that the ‘system’ is broken, in that it allows for women (and men) to be doing jobs that they are not qualified for, and excludes those that are qualified based on gender, race/ethnicity, social status…but I guess I have to wonder what your foundational perspective is, and where you are coming from…because your postings sound to me like women aren’t qualified to do anything other than stay at home and raise children. I don’t mean to be attacking your stance, I just want to understand it.

  2. Querus Abuttu Says:

    I’m wondering, MCW, after reading your posts, what it is you feel women as a whole CAN do? When there is such a negative approach, I have to question it. I can see, from what I’ve read so far, that women have strengths and abilities that are different to men. I can see that the ‘system’ is broken, in that it allows for women (and men) to be doing jobs that they are not qualified for, and excludes those that are qualified based on gender, race/ethnicity, social status…but I guess I have to wonder what your foundational perspective is, and where you are coming from…because your postings sound to me like women aren’t qualified to do anything other than stay at home and raise children. I don’t mean to be attacking your stance, I just want to understand it.

  3. Querus Abuttu Says:

    I’m wondering, MCW, after reading your posts, what it is you feel women as a whole CAN do? When there is such a negative approach, I have to question it. I can see, from what I’ve read so far, that women have strengths and abilities that are different to men. I can see that the ‘system’ is broken, in that it allows for women (and men) to be doing jobs that they are not qualified for, and excludes those that are qualified based on gender, race/ethnicity, social status…but I guess I have to wonder what your foundational perspective is, and where you are coming from…because your postings sound to me like women aren’t qualified to do anything other than stay at home and raise children. I don’t mean to be attacking your stance, I just want to understand it.

  4. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I welcome honest questions. You’ve been very non-hostile, which is creditable considering that our beliefs are pretty much opposite from what I can tell. Not to mention that I admit I’m pretty negative on this blog; in addition to sharing information with other MRAs, it’s also for me to vent feelings I have to hide most of the time. I’ve seen people have hysterics just because I suggested that “some” women might be happier as stay-at-home moms than as wage slaves, so you’re doing great. 😉

    So yes, I do think that the majority of women would be happiest and most useful as full time wives and mothers. This itself is not misogynist; homemaking is a vitally important profession. The happiness of everyone depends on having a home, a family, a refuge from the rest of the world. Children learn better, behave better, and grow up to be noticeably more happy, productive and law-abiding if they have affectionate, full-time mothers. In addition, many of today’s skyrocketing health problems are caused by bad diet, which wasn’t a problem when women cooked for their families. Cooking healthy meals takes more time and energy than a working mother has.

    If I had any hope of a lasting relationship in this era of casual divorce, I would want to commit for life to a woman whose idea of a fulfilling career was raising our children. So it’s hardly derogatory, quite the contrary.

    The major thing is, very few women are qualified to wield power beyond their own homes. This whole blog and all the links on my sidebar are exploring the reasons why this is, but it is rooted in evolutionary necessity, and centuries of civilization haven’t changed it a jot. When women have power in society, the result is socialism, appeasement foreign policy, a switch from an industrial economy to a service economy, an increase in crime, etc. etc. The book Sex And Culture by J. D. Unwin documents this more exhaustively than any other work I know of. More recently, Freedomnomics demonstrated conclusively that when women can vote, the result is more socialism, more government interference in people’s lives, and higher taxes.

    There are rare exceptions – see Margaret Thatcher. Also, before democracy and women’s suffrage, there were actually more female heads of state than there are now, i.e. queens. But queens have never promoted feminist measures.

    Women are capable of doing most jobs that don’t require brute strength and for which they have the right level of intelligence and training. However, very few women have the temperament for serious work. Evolution designed women to get other people, mostly their mates, to work for them while they made sure their children weren’t being eaten by saber-toothed tigers.

    An example: in the UK, the taxpayer usually picks up the tab to train doctors. The majority of the women who go through medical school only work at it for a few years before getting married and giving it up or going part time, and some of them never practice medicine at all. Hardly a good return on the taxpayers’ investment. Aside from the taxpayer funding, there is a similar trend in America, and it’s found in law schools too. There are a lot more women who are smart enough to pass the exams than there are women with the discipline to work for years at difficult professions. Though statistically there are far, far more male geniuses. There are plenty of women able to go through medical school, but men discovered germs, penicillin, morphine, microscopes, forceps (not invented by the thousands of female midwives through human history, but by a male doctor), etc. Most female minds don’t have that sort of strategic, problem-solving approach. And when we are geniuses, we rarely turn our genius to the physical sciences.

    And it isn’t just those challenging professions. It’s my observation that a *lot* of the women in the workplace find ways, probably unconsciously, to get other people (usually men) to do their work for them. They’re obeying programming designed for Australopithecines. High-ranking women, such as executives in major corporations, often get where they want by suing or threatening to sue for “discrimination”. (http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2006/10/feminists-lying-about-female-ceos-in.html)

    In my opinion, we came the closest to getting it right in 1900-1960. It was taken for granted that most women would marry and be full-time homemakers. People did not pretend that there weren’t many things women just weren’t qualified to do, ranging from soldiering to sitting on murder juries. But women could own and control their own property, and virtually all professions were open to them – but to succeed in them, they had to work hard instead of accusing anyone who pointed out their failures and mistakes of “sexism”. Most women worked for a few years while they were young before marrying and having children.

    Those few women who really were designed to both be able to devote their lives to a demanding profession, and to be happy doing so, had the option open to them. Feminist propaganda claims that discrimination made this almost impossible, but books like LaGraglia’s Domestic Tranquility debunk this.

    There are exceptions, but that’s what the majority of women are suited for. Most of the exceptions, incidentally, are lesbians. This is getting off topic and it’s definitely not approved wisdom, but the truth is that lesbians are in fact biologically different from straight women; our neural structure and hormones are more similar to men’s than those of straight women (to varying degrees).

    There is one major exception, just one field in which we are superior to men and always will be: writing fiction. All of the greatest authors are women and always will be. There are great male writers, but all of them have crippling flaws in scope or technique; for example, Tolstoy, who used his masterful technique to depict the folly of neurotic rich people.

  5. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I welcome honest questions. You’ve been very non-hostile, which is creditable considering that our beliefs are pretty much opposite from what I can tell. Not to mention that I admit I’m pretty negative on this blog; in addition to sharing information with other MRAs, it’s also for me to vent feelings I have to hide most of the time. I’ve seen people have hysterics just because I suggested that “some” women might be happier as stay-at-home moms than as wage slaves, so you’re doing great. 😉

    So yes, I do think that the majority of women would be happiest and most useful as full time wives and mothers. This itself is not misogynist; homemaking is a vitally important profession. The happiness of everyone depends on having a home, a family, a refuge from the rest of the world. Children learn better, behave better, and grow up to be noticeably more happy, productive and law-abiding if they have affectionate, full-time mothers. In addition, many of today’s skyrocketing health problems are caused by bad diet, which wasn’t a problem when women cooked for their families. Cooking healthy meals takes more time and energy than a working mother has.

    If I had any hope of a lasting relationship in this era of casual divorce, I would want to commit for life to a woman whose idea of a fulfilling career was raising our children. So it’s hardly derogatory, quite the contrary.

    The major thing is, very few women are qualified to wield power beyond their own homes. This whole blog and all the links on my sidebar are exploring the reasons why this is, but it is rooted in evolutionary necessity, and centuries of civilization haven’t changed it a jot. When women have power in society, the result is socialism, appeasement foreign policy, a switch from an industrial economy to a service economy, an increase in crime, etc. etc. The book Sex And Culture by J. D. Unwin documents this more exhaustively than any other work I know of. More recently, Freedomnomics demonstrated conclusively that when women can vote, the result is more socialism, more government interference in people’s lives, and higher taxes.

    There are rare exceptions – see Margaret Thatcher. Also, before democracy and women’s suffrage, there were actually more female heads of state than there are now, i.e. queens. But queens have never promoted feminist measures.

    Women are capable of doing most jobs that don’t require brute strength and for which they have the right level of intelligence and training. However, very few women have the temperament for serious work. Evolution designed women to get other people, mostly their mates, to work for them while they made sure their children weren’t being eaten by saber-toothed tigers.

    An example: in the UK, the taxpayer usually picks up the tab to train doctors. The majority of the women who go through medical school only work at it for a few years before getting married and giving it up or going part time, and some of them never practice medicine at all. Hardly a good return on the taxpayers’ investment. Aside from the taxpayer funding, there is a similar trend in America, and it’s found in law schools too. There are a lot more women who are smart enough to pass the exams than there are women with the discipline to work for years at difficult professions. Though statistically there are far, far more male geniuses. There are plenty of women able to go through medical school, but men discovered germs, penicillin, morphine, microscopes, forceps (not invented by the thousands of female midwives through human history, but by a male doctor), etc. Most female minds don’t have that sort of strategic, problem-solving approach. And when we are geniuses, we rarely turn our genius to the physical sciences.

    And it isn’t just those challenging professions. It’s my observation that a *lot* of the women in the workplace find ways, probably unconsciously, to get other people (usually men) to do their work for them. They’re obeying programming designed for Australopithecines. High-ranking women, such as executives in major corporations, often get where they want by suing or threatening to sue for “discrimination”. (http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2006/10/feminists-lying-about-female-ceos-in.html)

    In my opinion, we came the closest to getting it right in 1900-1960. It was taken for granted that most women would marry and be full-time homemakers. People did not pretend that there weren’t many things women just weren’t qualified to do, ranging from soldiering to sitting on murder juries. But women could own and control their own property, and virtually all professions were open to them – but to succeed in them, they had to work hard instead of accusing anyone who pointed out their failures and mistakes of “sexism”. Most women worked for a few years while they were young before marrying and having children.

    Those few women who really were designed to both be able to devote their lives to a demanding profession, and to be happy doing so, had the option open to them. Feminist propaganda claims that discrimination made this almost impossible, but books like LaGraglia’s Domestic Tranquility debunk this.

    There are exceptions, but that’s what the majority of women are suited for. Most of the exceptions, incidentally, are lesbians. This is getting off topic and it’s definitely not approved wisdom, but the truth is that lesbians are in fact biologically different from straight women; our neural structure and hormones are more similar to men’s than those of straight women (to varying degrees).

    There is one major exception, just one field in which we are superior to men and always will be: writing fiction. All of the greatest authors are women and always will be. There are great male writers, but all of them have crippling flaws in scope or technique; for example, Tolstoy, who used his masterful technique to depict the folly of neurotic rich people.

  6. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I welcome honest questions. You’ve been very non-hostile, which is creditable considering that our beliefs are pretty much opposite from what I can tell. Not to mention that I admit I’m pretty negative on this blog; in addition to sharing information with other MRAs, it’s also for me to vent feelings I have to hide most of the time. I’ve seen people have hysterics just because I suggested that “some” women might be happier as stay-at-home moms than as wage slaves, so you’re doing great. 😉

    So yes, I do think that the majority of women would be happiest and most useful as full time wives and mothers. This itself is not misogynist; homemaking is a vitally important profession. The happiness of everyone depends on having a home, a family, a refuge from the rest of the world. Children learn better, behave better, and grow up to be noticeably more happy, productive and law-abiding if they have affectionate, full-time mothers. In addition, many of today’s skyrocketing health problems are caused by bad diet, which wasn’t a problem when women cooked for their families. Cooking healthy meals takes more time and energy than a working mother has.

    If I had any hope of a lasting relationship in this era of casual divorce, I would want to commit for life to a woman whose idea of a fulfilling career was raising our children. So it’s hardly derogatory, quite the contrary.

    The major thing is, very few women are qualified to wield power beyond their own homes. This whole blog and all the links on my sidebar are exploring the reasons why this is, but it is rooted in evolutionary necessity, and centuries of civilization haven’t changed it a jot. When women have power in society, the result is socialism, appeasement foreign policy, a switch from an industrial economy to a service economy, an increase in crime, etc. etc. The book Sex And Culture by J. D. Unwin documents this more exhaustively than any other work I know of. More recently, Freedomnomics demonstrated conclusively that when women can vote, the result is more socialism, more government interference in people’s lives, and higher taxes.

    There are rare exceptions – see Margaret Thatcher. Also, before democracy and women’s suffrage, there were actually more female heads of state than there are now, i.e. queens. But queens have never promoted feminist measures.

    Women are capable of doing most jobs that don’t require brute strength and for which they have the right level of intelligence and training. However, very few women have the temperament for serious work. Evolution designed women to get other people, mostly their mates, to work for them while they made sure their children weren’t being eaten by saber-toothed tigers.

    An example: in the UK, the taxpayer usually picks up the tab to train doctors. The majority of the women who go through medical school only work at it for a few years before getting married and giving it up or going part time, and some of them never practice medicine at all. Hardly a good return on the taxpayers’ investment. Aside from the taxpayer funding, there is a similar trend in America, and it’s found in law schools too. There are a lot more women who are smart enough to pass the exams than there are women with the discipline to work for years at difficult professions. Though statistically there are far, far more male geniuses. There are plenty of women able to go through medical school, but men discovered germs, penicillin, morphine, microscopes, forceps (not invented by the thousands of female midwives through human history, but by a male doctor), etc. Most female minds don’t have that sort of strategic, problem-solving approach. And when we are geniuses, we rarely turn our genius to the physical sciences.

    And it isn’t just those challenging professions. It’s my observation that a *lot* of the women in the workplace find ways, probably unconsciously, to get other people (usually men) to do their work for them. They’re obeying programming designed for Australopithecines. High-ranking women, such as executives in major corporations, often get where they want by suing or threatening to sue for “discrimination”. (http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2006/10/feminists-lying-about-female-ceos-in.html)

    In my opinion, we came the closest to getting it right in 1900-1960. It was taken for granted that most women would marry and be full-time homemakers. People did not pretend that there weren’t many things women just weren’t qualified to do, ranging from soldiering to sitting on murder juries. But women could own and control their own property, and virtually all professions were open to them – but to succeed in them, they had to work hard instead of accusing anyone who pointed out their failures and mistakes of “sexism”. Most women worked for a few years while they were young before marrying and having children.

    Those few women who really were designed to both be able to devote their lives to a demanding profession, and to be happy doing so, had the option open to them. Feminist propaganda claims that discrimination made this almost impossible, but books like LaGraglia’s Domestic Tranquility debunk this.

    There are exceptions, but that’s what the majority of women are suited for. Most of the exceptions, incidentally, are lesbians. This is getting off topic and it’s definitely not approved wisdom, but the truth is that lesbians are in fact biologically different from straight women; our neural structure and hormones are more similar to men’s than those of straight women (to varying degrees).

    There is one major exception, just one field in which we are superior to men and always will be: writing fiction. All of the greatest authors are women and always will be. There are great male writers, but all of them have crippling flaws in scope or technique; for example, Tolstoy, who used his masterful technique to depict the folly of neurotic rich people.

  7. Artfldgr Says:

    no time… day over… will comment later… here is a read..

    Are girls wired not to win?
    http://blogwonks.com/2008/02/12/are-girls-wired-not-to-win/

    In a controversial new book, psychologist Susan Pinker uncovers the workings of the hormone oxytocin, which she claims explains why females are biologically driven to nurture their young rather than climb the corporate ladder

    Q just remember one thing. women of feminism spent a lot of time falsely declaring that the kind of work men do is most important and the kind of work women do is not important. or rather, not important because she doesnt get paid by her husband or the state.

    everything is power based, and money is power to them. it doesnt matter that he earns 100k and gets to spend little of it while she dicatates most spending.

  8. Artfldgr Says:

    no time… day over… will comment later… here is a read..

    Are girls wired not to win?
    http://blogwonks.com/2008/02/12/are-girls-wired-not-to-win/

    In a controversial new book, psychologist Susan Pinker uncovers the workings of the hormone oxytocin, which she claims explains why females are biologically driven to nurture their young rather than climb the corporate ladder

    Q just remember one thing. women of feminism spent a lot of time falsely declaring that the kind of work men do is most important and the kind of work women do is not important. or rather, not important because she doesnt get paid by her husband or the state.

    everything is power based, and money is power to them. it doesnt matter that he earns 100k and gets to spend little of it while she dicatates most spending.

  9. Artfldgr Says:

    no time… day over… will comment later… here is a read..

    Are girls wired not to win?
    http://blogwonks.com/2008/02/12/are-girls-wired-not-to-win/

    In a controversial new book, psychologist Susan Pinker uncovers the workings of the hormone oxytocin, which she claims explains why females are biologically driven to nurture their young rather than climb the corporate ladder

    Q just remember one thing. women of feminism spent a lot of time falsely declaring that the kind of work men do is most important and the kind of work women do is not important. or rather, not important because she doesnt get paid by her husband or the state.

    everything is power based, and money is power to them. it doesnt matter that he earns 100k and gets to spend little of it while she dicatates most spending.

  10. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks, MSW. That was helpful for my understanding. I guess I understand how some people would be antagonistic, or hostile. I’ve found this happens a lot when people want to be so justified that they are right in their opinions, and are afraid to venture into unknown waters. It’s easier to stay on your favorite part of the beach than to venture into the dark rocky water. I tend to be a little biased, and view things more critically and suspiciously when they are vented with a negative slant or a high degree of emotion. It’s harder for me to see past the emotion, and find the real issue that way, so I appreciate knowing where you are coming from.

    Yes…I think we have some differing opinions, and some we have are on more even ground. Others, I haven’t formed yet…since my learning curve is taking a new route. People ask me if I believe in Feminism. I have to tell them I honestly don’t know. Being a woman in the military, they give me strange looks…but I still don’t know. I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time. I would have gone stir crazy, personally. I do think that society today has unglamourized staying at home, and made being a housewife or househusband seem lowly in some way, and that is unfortunate. For me, roles were reversed in my life.

    I grew up in basic “white trash” world in Virginia, just a little to the side of the other side of the tracks. I wasn’t destitute, but my clothes came from thrift stores. I later left home when I wasn’t cutting college combined with a full time job and supporting a boyfriend, …and joined the military. I was a product of an unstable home, divorced mother (x2), parental (father and mother) abuse. I did 5 years active duty as an electrician and aircrewman, and sent myself to school afterwards, for a degree in nursing. Afterwards, I worked for U.S. Public Health/Indian Health Services, first as a Labor and Delivery nurse..(worked full time and went to Midwifery grad school full time both online and on-site at Hyden Kentucky later) then as a midwife, and got frustrated with the Public Health/IHS nepotism system and went back to the military. The choice was more survival related. I wanted to keep providing for the family, and I wanted government retirement benefits. (All of my time enlisted, then in PHS/IHS and Navy all adds together.)

    My husband was the stay-at-home parent, and took care of the kids. After I gave birth to them, he would bring them to work for me to breastfeed, and we worked well together figuring out how to coordinate parental care. He was never sure what he wanted to do in life (a single child, product of a single mother whose husband had left her and committed criminal activity…). He never had ambitions to “be” anything. He has always been good with the kids, and despite our mobile family, we’ve never had day care, and I can count on one hand the time we’ve had a non-family baby sitter. Our kids have grown into some beautiful people, who are intelligent and conscientious. They are so much more self assured than I ever was, and their ability to absorb knowledge is greater than it was for me at their age. I attribute a lot of that to them always having a parent at home.

    Do I think women can always do the same things as a man? No. Jobs such as Navy Diver, Seal, EOD take a ton of physical strength, stamina, and a lot more male traits that most women (if any) just don’t have. Should women always have the same opportunities as men if they can fulfill the requirements of the job? I think “yes” and “no”. If a woman can do the job, just as a man can…and meets the requirements, she should have the opportunity. There should be no quarter in the standards/requirements though, and being given the job shouldn’t be part of a need to fill a ‘quota’. Not every woman is cut out to be at home and raise kids. But it goes against my grain when women say they want the same opportunities, and then cry discrimination when they don’t make the cut. The only thing worse is the “system” (men and women) that allow it to happen.
    In the military, there are circumstances where having a woman present may compromise the success of the mission. I don’t just mean war fighting. Oddly, I’m Navy, but I dislike war fighting. I’d rather see us work more on the humanitarian, peace building, health-caring issues. I never think that war/killing is the answer. I’d rather see leaders throw down the gauntlet and battle it out one on one, settling it with a composite of mental and physical tests designed to come out with the winner. Then our leaders would be chosen based on their intelligence, wisdom and strength. What a world that would be.

    When I went through Aircrew School, the O-course was set up to be different for me, than it was for the men (I was the only woman)…modified to capitalize on my lower body strength. I was never given the opportunity to try the men’s O-Course. The only difference was the rope wall, and once I learned the principles of climbing it, I think I would have done it…the hardest part being going from the rope to pulling over the wall. I would have liked to have tried. The guys were great to work with, and we all helped eachother to pass that obstacle course. There were several other guys who had a harder time than me.

    I did notice other differences, though, like my ability to not panic turned upside down underwater the Dilbert dunker, even with blind folds on. I know my spacial orientation pretty well, even with my eyes closed, and back then I had good command of my lung/air capacity. I also excelled at the academics, and some of the survival requirements that were not as easy for men. This was where my female body fat actually helped. Some of the guys went into hypothermia after being tossed in the ocean when the air temp was below 40. My more insulated body did better. In addition, we each had our own skills that we relied on as a team to get through.

    Art pointed out something earlier about how men don’t complain when women are carrying their load of work. There is some basic truth to that. I busted my butt, and worked hard, and in general never got grief. I did get grief in some instances, because (at the time) I was not that bad looking. Oddly, my worst enemies were often other women. I don’t usually get along with women, and I never understood the mindset. I’ve almost always preferred the company of men.

    So, am I a hypocrite if I say I’m not feminist, but I want the opportunities to do the things that interest me, that I’m qualified for regardless of my gender? Am I a hypocrite, because I was a mother who worked and went to school full time, and had a husband who primarily raised our kids? Maybe, by some people’s standards, but I don’t care. My kids always have a parent at home, and that was something we worked on together to insure.

    On another entirely different note, other things I wonder…since there are people like you, and Art who are of similar mind… Have others come together in groups who have the same knowledge, philosophy, ideas? Are there ‘schools’ and educational groups dedicated to sharing what you believe? Or is it a concept against what you believe/stand for? I was going through a lot of what you and Art discussed…and thought, “Man…this would be a great online class…hell, a group of classes…and even a degree…” 🙂
    What would you call it…’Reality Studies?’

    I’m being a little off kilter here…not enough sleep (I wish I was like you Art…) and procrastinating my ‘traditional’ university work so I can sit here and read and look up the issues you both have presented…but my mind is ticking. So, where is the “Underground” of other people who have individually and collectively put this intelligent realization all together, and why doesn’t more of a movement exist?

  11. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks, MSW. That was helpful for my understanding. I guess I understand how some people would be antagonistic, or hostile. I’ve found this happens a lot when people want to be so justified that they are right in their opinions, and are afraid to venture into unknown waters. It’s easier to stay on your favorite part of the beach than to venture into the dark rocky water. I tend to be a little biased, and view things more critically and suspiciously when they are vented with a negative slant or a high degree of emotion. It’s harder for me to see past the emotion, and find the real issue that way, so I appreciate knowing where you are coming from.

    Yes…I think we have some differing opinions, and some we have are on more even ground. Others, I haven’t formed yet…since my learning curve is taking a new route. People ask me if I believe in Feminism. I have to tell them I honestly don’t know. Being a woman in the military, they give me strange looks…but I still don’t know. I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time. I would have gone stir crazy, personally. I do think that society today has unglamourized staying at home, and made being a housewife or househusband seem lowly in some way, and that is unfortunate. For me, roles were reversed in my life.

    I grew up in basic “white trash” world in Virginia, just a little to the side of the other side of the tracks. I wasn’t destitute, but my clothes came from thrift stores. I later left home when I wasn’t cutting college combined with a full time job and supporting a boyfriend, …and joined the military. I was a product of an unstable home, divorced mother (x2), parental (father and mother) abuse. I did 5 years active duty as an electrician and aircrewman, and sent myself to school afterwards, for a degree in nursing. Afterwards, I worked for U.S. Public Health/Indian Health Services, first as a Labor and Delivery nurse..(worked full time and went to Midwifery grad school full time both online and on-site at Hyden Kentucky later) then as a midwife, and got frustrated with the Public Health/IHS nepotism system and went back to the military. The choice was more survival related. I wanted to keep providing for the family, and I wanted government retirement benefits. (All of my time enlisted, then in PHS/IHS and Navy all adds together.)

    My husband was the stay-at-home parent, and took care of the kids. After I gave birth to them, he would bring them to work for me to breastfeed, and we worked well together figuring out how to coordinate parental care. He was never sure what he wanted to do in life (a single child, product of a single mother whose husband had left her and committed criminal activity…). He never had ambitions to “be” anything. He has always been good with the kids, and despite our mobile family, we’ve never had day care, and I can count on one hand the time we’ve had a non-family baby sitter. Our kids have grown into some beautiful people, who are intelligent and conscientious. They are so much more self assured than I ever was, and their ability to absorb knowledge is greater than it was for me at their age. I attribute a lot of that to them always having a parent at home.

    Do I think women can always do the same things as a man? No. Jobs such as Navy Diver, Seal, EOD take a ton of physical strength, stamina, and a lot more male traits that most women (if any) just don’t have. Should women always have the same opportunities as men if they can fulfill the requirements of the job? I think “yes” and “no”. If a woman can do the job, just as a man can…and meets the requirements, she should have the opportunity. There should be no quarter in the standards/requirements though, and being given the job shouldn’t be part of a need to fill a ‘quota’. Not every woman is cut out to be at home and raise kids. But it goes against my grain when women say they want the same opportunities, and then cry discrimination when they don’t make the cut. The only thing worse is the “system” (men and women) that allow it to happen.
    In the military, there are circumstances where having a woman present may compromise the success of the mission. I don’t just mean war fighting. Oddly, I’m Navy, but I dislike war fighting. I’d rather see us work more on the humanitarian, peace building, health-caring issues. I never think that war/killing is the answer. I’d rather see leaders throw down the gauntlet and battle it out one on one, settling it with a composite of mental and physical tests designed to come out with the winner. Then our leaders would be chosen based on their intelligence, wisdom and strength. What a world that would be.

    When I went through Aircrew School, the O-course was set up to be different for me, than it was for the men (I was the only woman)…modified to capitalize on my lower body strength. I was never given the opportunity to try the men’s O-Course. The only difference was the rope wall, and once I learned the principles of climbing it, I think I would have done it…the hardest part being going from the rope to pulling over the wall. I would have liked to have tried. The guys were great to work with, and we all helped eachother to pass that obstacle course. There were several other guys who had a harder time than me.

    I did notice other differences, though, like my ability to not panic turned upside down underwater the Dilbert dunker, even with blind folds on. I know my spacial orientation pretty well, even with my eyes closed, and back then I had good command of my lung/air capacity. I also excelled at the academics, and some of the survival requirements that were not as easy for men. This was where my female body fat actually helped. Some of the guys went into hypothermia after being tossed in the ocean when the air temp was below 40. My more insulated body did better. In addition, we each had our own skills that we relied on as a team to get through.

    Art pointed out something earlier about how men don’t complain when women are carrying their load of work. There is some basic truth to that. I busted my butt, and worked hard, and in general never got grief. I did get grief in some instances, because (at the time) I was not that bad looking. Oddly, my worst enemies were often other women. I don’t usually get along with women, and I never understood the mindset. I’ve almost always preferred the company of men.

    So, am I a hypocrite if I say I’m not feminist, but I want the opportunities to do the things that interest me, that I’m qualified for regardless of my gender? Am I a hypocrite, because I was a mother who worked and went to school full time, and had a husband who primarily raised our kids? Maybe, by some people’s standards, but I don’t care. My kids always have a parent at home, and that was something we worked on together to insure.

    On another entirely different note, other things I wonder…since there are people like you, and Art who are of similar mind… Have others come together in groups who have the same knowledge, philosophy, ideas? Are there ‘schools’ and educational groups dedicated to sharing what you believe? Or is it a concept against what you believe/stand for? I was going through a lot of what you and Art discussed…and thought, “Man…this would be a great online class…hell, a group of classes…and even a degree…” 🙂
    What would you call it…’Reality Studies?’

    I’m being a little off kilter here…not enough sleep (I wish I was like you Art…) and procrastinating my ‘traditional’ university work so I can sit here and read and look up the issues you both have presented…but my mind is ticking. So, where is the “Underground” of other people who have individually and collectively put this intelligent realization all together, and why doesn’t more of a movement exist?

  12. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks, MSW. That was helpful for my understanding. I guess I understand how some people would be antagonistic, or hostile. I’ve found this happens a lot when people want to be so justified that they are right in their opinions, and are afraid to venture into unknown waters. It’s easier to stay on your favorite part of the beach than to venture into the dark rocky water. I tend to be a little biased, and view things more critically and suspiciously when they are vented with a negative slant or a high degree of emotion. It’s harder for me to see past the emotion, and find the real issue that way, so I appreciate knowing where you are coming from.

    Yes…I think we have some differing opinions, and some we have are on more even ground. Others, I haven’t formed yet…since my learning curve is taking a new route. People ask me if I believe in Feminism. I have to tell them I honestly don’t know. Being a woman in the military, they give me strange looks…but I still don’t know. I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time. I would have gone stir crazy, personally. I do think that society today has unglamourized staying at home, and made being a housewife or househusband seem lowly in some way, and that is unfortunate. For me, roles were reversed in my life.

    I grew up in basic “white trash” world in Virginia, just a little to the side of the other side of the tracks. I wasn’t destitute, but my clothes came from thrift stores. I later left home when I wasn’t cutting college combined with a full time job and supporting a boyfriend, …and joined the military. I was a product of an unstable home, divorced mother (x2), parental (father and mother) abuse. I did 5 years active duty as an electrician and aircrewman, and sent myself to school afterwards, for a degree in nursing. Afterwards, I worked for U.S. Public Health/Indian Health Services, first as a Labor and Delivery nurse..(worked full time and went to Midwifery grad school full time both online and on-site at Hyden Kentucky later) then as a midwife, and got frustrated with the Public Health/IHS nepotism system and went back to the military. The choice was more survival related. I wanted to keep providing for the family, and I wanted government retirement benefits. (All of my time enlisted, then in PHS/IHS and Navy all adds together.)

    My husband was the stay-at-home parent, and took care of the kids. After I gave birth to them, he would bring them to work for me to breastfeed, and we worked well together figuring out how to coordinate parental care. He was never sure what he wanted to do in life (a single child, product of a single mother whose husband had left her and committed criminal activity…). He never had ambitions to “be” anything. He has always been good with the kids, and despite our mobile family, we’ve never had day care, and I can count on one hand the time we’ve had a non-family baby sitter. Our kids have grown into some beautiful people, who are intelligent and conscientious. They are so much more self assured than I ever was, and their ability to absorb knowledge is greater than it was for me at their age. I attribute a lot of that to them always having a parent at home.

    Do I think women can always do the same things as a man? No. Jobs such as Navy Diver, Seal, EOD take a ton of physical strength, stamina, and a lot more male traits that most women (if any) just don’t have. Should women always have the same opportunities as men if they can fulfill the requirements of the job? I think “yes” and “no”. If a woman can do the job, just as a man can…and meets the requirements, she should have the opportunity. There should be no quarter in the standards/requirements though, and being given the job shouldn’t be part of a need to fill a ‘quota’. Not every woman is cut out to be at home and raise kids. But it goes against my grain when women say they want the same opportunities, and then cry discrimination when they don’t make the cut. The only thing worse is the “system” (men and women) that allow it to happen.
    In the military, there are circumstances where having a woman present may compromise the success of the mission. I don’t just mean war fighting. Oddly, I’m Navy, but I dislike war fighting. I’d rather see us work more on the humanitarian, peace building, health-caring issues. I never think that war/killing is the answer. I’d rather see leaders throw down the gauntlet and battle it out one on one, settling it with a composite of mental and physical tests designed to come out with the winner. Then our leaders would be chosen based on their intelligence, wisdom and strength. What a world that would be.

    When I went through Aircrew School, the O-course was set up to be different for me, than it was for the men (I was the only woman)…modified to capitalize on my lower body strength. I was never given the opportunity to try the men’s O-Course. The only difference was the rope wall, and once I learned the principles of climbing it, I think I would have done it…the hardest part being going from the rope to pulling over the wall. I would have liked to have tried. The guys were great to work with, and we all helped eachother to pass that obstacle course. There were several other guys who had a harder time than me.

    I did notice other differences, though, like my ability to not panic turned upside down underwater the Dilbert dunker, even with blind folds on. I know my spacial orientation pretty well, even with my eyes closed, and back then I had good command of my lung/air capacity. I also excelled at the academics, and some of the survival requirements that were not as easy for men. This was where my female body fat actually helped. Some of the guys went into hypothermia after being tossed in the ocean when the air temp was below 40. My more insulated body did better. In addition, we each had our own skills that we relied on as a team to get through.

    Art pointed out something earlier about how men don’t complain when women are carrying their load of work. There is some basic truth to that. I busted my butt, and worked hard, and in general never got grief. I did get grief in some instances, because (at the time) I was not that bad looking. Oddly, my worst enemies were often other women. I don’t usually get along with women, and I never understood the mindset. I’ve almost always preferred the company of men.

    So, am I a hypocrite if I say I’m not feminist, but I want the opportunities to do the things that interest me, that I’m qualified for regardless of my gender? Am I a hypocrite, because I was a mother who worked and went to school full time, and had a husband who primarily raised our kids? Maybe, by some people’s standards, but I don’t care. My kids always have a parent at home, and that was something we worked on together to insure.

    On another entirely different note, other things I wonder…since there are people like you, and Art who are of similar mind… Have others come together in groups who have the same knowledge, philosophy, ideas? Are there ‘schools’ and educational groups dedicated to sharing what you believe? Or is it a concept against what you believe/stand for? I was going through a lot of what you and Art discussed…and thought, “Man…this would be a great online class…hell, a group of classes…and even a degree…” 🙂
    What would you call it…’Reality Studies?’

    I’m being a little off kilter here…not enough sleep (I wish I was like you Art…) and procrastinating my ‘traditional’ university work so I can sit here and read and look up the issues you both have presented…but my mind is ticking. So, where is the “Underground” of other people who have individually and collectively put this intelligent realization all together, and why doesn’t more of a movement exist?

  13. Querus Abuttu Says:

    MCW wrote:”There are exceptions, but that’s what the majority of women are suited for. Most of the exceptions, incidentally, are lesbians. This is getting off topic and it’s definitely not approved wisdom, but the truth is that lesbians are in fact biologically different from straight women; our neural structure and hormones are more similar to men’s than those of straight women (to varying degrees).”

    Hmmm. I’d be interested in seeing the data on that. I agree that the changes in hormonal structure and neural structure can make a big difference in behavior. And I get along better with lesbians than any other women, but in looking for a partner I like men…and I never wanted to stay at home full time with the kids. Maybe I’m somewhere in between.

    My husband has always been the more patient, nurturing one. Me, I was the one who showed the kids how to build things, took them on nature hikes, responded promptly to their emergencies, thought logically about strategic homelife issues, etc. These days, its changing a little for my son (he’s 10). My husband takes him to Cub Scouts, and is starting to do more physical activities with him such as cycling, which I’m really happy about. My daughter is becoming an activist, probably my fault, but she is a nurturing caring sort and different from me in many ways, socially. She’s interested in Human Rights. She bonds well with other women, and has closer personal relationships with her peers than I ever had when I was her age.

    I think that it’s too simple to break things down into basic gender of male/female. As you mentioned, MCW, you note lesbian exceptions, and I’m sure there are homosexual exceptions as well…why can’t there be biological levels in between that predispose us towards certain careers, ways of life? I think part of the issues lie not solely with biology/DNA, but with the way the social systems have been manipulated and by who. The home-life should be valued, and those that stay at home with their kids should have additional opportunities that make it rewarding to do so. For example, government subsidies for online education, perhaps a payment incentive, etc. There are many proposals that would make it rewarding to begin to stay at home with children and take care of the home. Aptitude tests, perhaps, or finding a way to gauge the talents of a child while growing up may assist them in determining their greater predispositions. I remember doing something like that when I was a kid though, and I told them I wanted to be a Forest Ranger. They looked at my scores and told me that I was too smart to be a Forest Ranger, and that I should choose something else. I was never told what “something else” was. That was left up to me to figure out. They only defined for me what I shouldn’t be.

    I can’t believe the way that our social systems have almost made it a crime to be a white male in America. I feel embarrassed to be a woman when I see women’s groups championing women’s issues without considering whether or not the same issues affect men, and how. I understand wanting to end abuse, and suffering, but not at the expense of another race or gender. Ah well…I’ve put off my statistics paper long enough….read more/write more/learn more later.

  14. Querus Abuttu Says:

    MCW wrote:”There are exceptions, but that’s what the majority of women are suited for. Most of the exceptions, incidentally, are lesbians. This is getting off topic and it’s definitely not approved wisdom, but the truth is that lesbians are in fact biologically different from straight women; our neural structure and hormones are more similar to men’s than those of straight women (to varying degrees).”

    Hmmm. I’d be interested in seeing the data on that. I agree that the changes in hormonal structure and neural structure can make a big difference in behavior. And I get along better with lesbians than any other women, but in looking for a partner I like men…and I never wanted to stay at home full time with the kids. Maybe I’m somewhere in between.

    My husband has always been the more patient, nurturing one. Me, I was the one who showed the kids how to build things, took them on nature hikes, responded promptly to their emergencies, thought logically about strategic homelife issues, etc. These days, its changing a little for my son (he’s 10). My husband takes him to Cub Scouts, and is starting to do more physical activities with him such as cycling, which I’m really happy about. My daughter is becoming an activist, probably my fault, but she is a nurturing caring sort and different from me in many ways, socially. She’s interested in Human Rights. She bonds well with other women, and has closer personal relationships with her peers than I ever had when I was her age.

    I think that it’s too simple to break things down into basic gender of male/female. As you mentioned, MCW, you note lesbian exceptions, and I’m sure there are homosexual exceptions as well…why can’t there be biological levels in between that predispose us towards certain careers, ways of life? I think part of the issues lie not solely with biology/DNA, but with the way the social systems have been manipulated and by who. The home-life should be valued, and those that stay at home with their kids should have additional opportunities that make it rewarding to do so. For example, government subsidies for online education, perhaps a payment incentive, etc. There are many proposals that would make it rewarding to begin to stay at home with children and take care of the home. Aptitude tests, perhaps, or finding a way to gauge the talents of a child while growing up may assist them in determining their greater predispositions. I remember doing something like that when I was a kid though, and I told them I wanted to be a Forest Ranger. They looked at my scores and told me that I was too smart to be a Forest Ranger, and that I should choose something else. I was never told what “something else” was. That was left up to me to figure out. They only defined for me what I shouldn’t be.

    I can’t believe the way that our social systems have almost made it a crime to be a white male in America. I feel embarrassed to be a woman when I see women’s groups championing women’s issues without considering whether or not the same issues affect men, and how. I understand wanting to end abuse, and suffering, but not at the expense of another race or gender. Ah well…I’ve put off my statistics paper long enough….read more/write more/learn more later.

  15. Querus Abuttu Says:

    MCW wrote:”There are exceptions, but that’s what the majority of women are suited for. Most of the exceptions, incidentally, are lesbians. This is getting off topic and it’s definitely not approved wisdom, but the truth is that lesbians are in fact biologically different from straight women; our neural structure and hormones are more similar to men’s than those of straight women (to varying degrees).”

    Hmmm. I’d be interested in seeing the data on that. I agree that the changes in hormonal structure and neural structure can make a big difference in behavior. And I get along better with lesbians than any other women, but in looking for a partner I like men…and I never wanted to stay at home full time with the kids. Maybe I’m somewhere in between.

    My husband has always been the more patient, nurturing one. Me, I was the one who showed the kids how to build things, took them on nature hikes, responded promptly to their emergencies, thought logically about strategic homelife issues, etc. These days, its changing a little for my son (he’s 10). My husband takes him to Cub Scouts, and is starting to do more physical activities with him such as cycling, which I’m really happy about. My daughter is becoming an activist, probably my fault, but she is a nurturing caring sort and different from me in many ways, socially. She’s interested in Human Rights. She bonds well with other women, and has closer personal relationships with her peers than I ever had when I was her age.

    I think that it’s too simple to break things down into basic gender of male/female. As you mentioned, MCW, you note lesbian exceptions, and I’m sure there are homosexual exceptions as well…why can’t there be biological levels in between that predispose us towards certain careers, ways of life? I think part of the issues lie not solely with biology/DNA, but with the way the social systems have been manipulated and by who. The home-life should be valued, and those that stay at home with their kids should have additional opportunities that make it rewarding to do so. For example, government subsidies for online education, perhaps a payment incentive, etc. There are many proposals that would make it rewarding to begin to stay at home with children and take care of the home. Aptitude tests, perhaps, or finding a way to gauge the talents of a child while growing up may assist them in determining their greater predispositions. I remember doing something like that when I was a kid though, and I told them I wanted to be a Forest Ranger. They looked at my scores and told me that I was too smart to be a Forest Ranger, and that I should choose something else. I was never told what “something else” was. That was left up to me to figure out. They only defined for me what I shouldn’t be.

    I can’t believe the way that our social systems have almost made it a crime to be a white male in America. I feel embarrassed to be a woman when I see women’s groups championing women’s issues without considering whether or not the same issues affect men, and how. I understand wanting to end abuse, and suffering, but not at the expense of another race or gender. Ah well…I’ve put off my statistics paper long enough….read more/write more/learn more later.

  16. Artfldgr Says:

    Hey Q

    Take a second to read what you wrote, and think about the truth.

    People ask me if I believe in Feminism. I have to tell them I honestly don’t know. Being a woman in the military, they give me strange looks…but I still don’t know. I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time. I would have gone stir crazy, personally. I do think that society today has unglamourized staying at home, and made being a housewife or househusband seem lowly in some way, and that is unfortunate. For me, roles were reversed in my life.

    Are we to believe that the people asking you are average, or feminists testing to see if your on their side? You get strange looks because everyone believes the propaganda that only feminists are in the military, or if not, then they are trapped at home.

    The most telling line in that paragraph. The one that makes me think of that old (and very bad) psych joke; “Madam, your Freudian slip is showing”. Is;

    “I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time.”

    You didn’t even realize that you’re equating no feminism with home imprisonment. Anyone notice that the state is playing the same game when they arrest someone and sentence them to “home”? Eventually being in a barracks will seem better (like the women working for Nike that no one noticed HOW they lived. They lived in barracks, not homes, dorms, not apartments. They could work, but there was nothing to spend the money on or someplace to put it. Since public living naturally kills ownership)

    Women were not relegated to the home. They had choices. They had to work hard to get what they wanted, but they got the same derision that men gave each other (that they assumed men didn’t. mostly because they were too self focused to see how men handled it, and men didn’t take it as personally as they are always striving against everything anyway). Women help each other, men are in competition with each other. when you enter the work force, your not in a quilting club where everyone does work and gets it done in time while enjoying the situation. This is why people that work like that don’t make what they are worth. The men are all trying to get ahead of each other (not so much now), because they have a family to provide for, or if not, they have to collect more to be loved more (not so much now).

    The men are much more competent on average, when they are allowed to compete (otherwise they flake off), because women require it.

    In a funny way, men are better at things in the real world because women wont love someone that isn’t that way. being hypergamous, their status is based on the status of the male and the family they create (ergo hillary not divorcing, or others at a certain level, and women low down divorcing for the BBD).

    Women require the man they can get to be the most competent they can find. So how come there are so many dweebs? Because success builds on success and losers self destruct to free resources for the group. people die of broken hearts because if they lived happy and single they would be a millstone. However if they are part of a family and have that smell and feedback, they can live to their maximum age (which is how we get new organs, and such. old age is because the body or life is an open ended book. Each cell lineage past a certain point hasn’t been written)

    He has to be more competent than he needs to be since that frees her up to do what she does. vegetarianism favors her because that’s what she gets most of and meat favors him because while hunting you eat meat, not gather berries. Men hate going to the store with their wives, because the ladies want them to just stand there. All those poor miserable men, and all those women who don’t realize that they are acting like primitive animals and its all dressed up in fancy stuff so we think its something different. Haven’t you noticed that stores for women are mostly bushes, and vines arranged along meandering trails? The men are there to keep the tigers and wolves from eating her while she gathers stuff for her family (not the tribe. The vegetarian thing is the tribe when all the women go out and gather. This gathering is her special gathering where she knows where plants and things are that others don’t). she feels better when she has him around there because her biology knows that when the attacking world comes he will die for her.

    The men are less instinctual more logical since that favors competency and coolness under pressure. She is less logical and more instinctual, that favors running the heck out of there so that he can deal with it, but not running too far to be totally on your own.

    People who understand evolutionary psychology and implications can give you better explanations than anthro does.

    By the way, her being more instinctual means that his logic works less on her, and balances things. However, he is the one that is more competent, but like the captain, at her service. This is why men make better politicians, and why they don’t nanny. A woman wants to be protected, but not coddled. A child wants both. A man is and has been naturally in charge on her and the childs behalf (or else he flakes), and so when in politics, he protects from the outside, but does not want socialism, because that coddling and he knows that makes incompetent adults. (which is why they want their boys to be men). You can also see a ring here… the family is the outer ring, the male is the next ring, the female is the next, and down the line for older to younger.

    So when left to their own designs and not manipulated, you get medicis, hans, kennedys, etc. the family keeps collecting and holding what it has and becoming more prosperous, that gaims better mates from other families, etc.

    The longer the family can stay cohesive, the more they grow and rise up.

    Sorry… I got carried away there…

  17. Artfldgr Says:

    Hey Q

    Take a second to read what you wrote, and think about the truth.

    People ask me if I believe in Feminism. I have to tell them I honestly don’t know. Being a woman in the military, they give me strange looks…but I still don’t know. I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time. I would have gone stir crazy, personally. I do think that society today has unglamourized staying at home, and made being a housewife or househusband seem lowly in some way, and that is unfortunate. For me, roles were reversed in my life.

    Are we to believe that the people asking you are average, or feminists testing to see if your on their side? You get strange looks because everyone believes the propaganda that only feminists are in the military, or if not, then they are trapped at home.

    The most telling line in that paragraph. The one that makes me think of that old (and very bad) psych joke; “Madam, your Freudian slip is showing”. Is;

    “I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time.”

    You didn’t even realize that you’re equating no feminism with home imprisonment. Anyone notice that the state is playing the same game when they arrest someone and sentence them to “home”? Eventually being in a barracks will seem better (like the women working for Nike that no one noticed HOW they lived. They lived in barracks, not homes, dorms, not apartments. They could work, but there was nothing to spend the money on or someplace to put it. Since public living naturally kills ownership)

    Women were not relegated to the home. They had choices. They had to work hard to get what they wanted, but they got the same derision that men gave each other (that they assumed men didn’t. mostly because they were too self focused to see how men handled it, and men didn’t take it as personally as they are always striving against everything anyway). Women help each other, men are in competition with each other. when you enter the work force, your not in a quilting club where everyone does work and gets it done in time while enjoying the situation. This is why people that work like that don’t make what they are worth. The men are all trying to get ahead of each other (not so much now), because they have a family to provide for, or if not, they have to collect more to be loved more (not so much now).

    The men are much more competent on average, when they are allowed to compete (otherwise they flake off), because women require it.

    In a funny way, men are better at things in the real world because women wont love someone that isn’t that way. being hypergamous, their status is based on the status of the male and the family they create (ergo hillary not divorcing, or others at a certain level, and women low down divorcing for the BBD).

    Women require the man they can get to be the most competent they can find. So how come there are so many dweebs? Because success builds on success and losers self destruct to free resources for the group. people die of broken hearts because if they lived happy and single they would be a millstone. However if they are part of a family and have that smell and feedback, they can live to their maximum age (which is how we get new organs, and such. old age is because the body or life is an open ended book. Each cell lineage past a certain point hasn’t been written)

    He has to be more competent than he needs to be since that frees her up to do what she does. vegetarianism favors her because that’s what she gets most of and meat favors him because while hunting you eat meat, not gather berries. Men hate going to the store with their wives, because the ladies want them to just stand there. All those poor miserable men, and all those women who don’t realize that they are acting like primitive animals and its all dressed up in fancy stuff so we think its something different. Haven’t you noticed that stores for women are mostly bushes, and vines arranged along meandering trails? The men are there to keep the tigers and wolves from eating her while she gathers stuff for her family (not the tribe. The vegetarian thing is the tribe when all the women go out and gather. This gathering is her special gathering where she knows where plants and things are that others don’t). she feels better when she has him around there because her biology knows that when the attacking world comes he will die for her.

    The men are less instinctual more logical since that favors competency and coolness under pressure. She is less logical and more instinctual, that favors running the heck out of there so that he can deal with it, but not running too far to be totally on your own.

    People who understand evolutionary psychology and implications can give you better explanations than anthro does.

    By the way, her being more instinctual means that his logic works less on her, and balances things. However, he is the one that is more competent, but like the captain, at her service. This is why men make better politicians, and why they don’t nanny. A woman wants to be protected, but not coddled. A child wants both. A man is and has been naturally in charge on her and the childs behalf (or else he flakes), and so when in politics, he protects from the outside, but does not want socialism, because that coddling and he knows that makes incompetent adults. (which is why they want their boys to be men). You can also see a ring here… the family is the outer ring, the male is the next ring, the female is the next, and down the line for older to younger.

    So when left to their own designs and not manipulated, you get medicis, hans, kennedys, etc. the family keeps collecting and holding what it has and becoming more prosperous, that gaims better mates from other families, etc.

    The longer the family can stay cohesive, the more they grow and rise up.

    Sorry… I got carried away there…

  18. Artfldgr Says:

    Hey Q

    Take a second to read what you wrote, and think about the truth.

    People ask me if I believe in Feminism. I have to tell them I honestly don’t know. Being a woman in the military, they give me strange looks…but I still don’t know. I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time. I would have gone stir crazy, personally. I do think that society today has unglamourized staying at home, and made being a housewife or househusband seem lowly in some way, and that is unfortunate. For me, roles were reversed in my life.

    Are we to believe that the people asking you are average, or feminists testing to see if your on their side? You get strange looks because everyone believes the propaganda that only feminists are in the military, or if not, then they are trapped at home.

    The most telling line in that paragraph. The one that makes me think of that old (and very bad) psych joke; “Madam, your Freudian slip is showing”. Is;

    “I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time.”

    You didn’t even realize that you’re equating no feminism with home imprisonment. Anyone notice that the state is playing the same game when they arrest someone and sentence them to “home”? Eventually being in a barracks will seem better (like the women working for Nike that no one noticed HOW they lived. They lived in barracks, not homes, dorms, not apartments. They could work, but there was nothing to spend the money on or someplace to put it. Since public living naturally kills ownership)

    Women were not relegated to the home. They had choices. They had to work hard to get what they wanted, but they got the same derision that men gave each other (that they assumed men didn’t. mostly because they were too self focused to see how men handled it, and men didn’t take it as personally as they are always striving against everything anyway). Women help each other, men are in competition with each other. when you enter the work force, your not in a quilting club where everyone does work and gets it done in time while enjoying the situation. This is why people that work like that don’t make what they are worth. The men are all trying to get ahead of each other (not so much now), because they have a family to provide for, or if not, they have to collect more to be loved more (not so much now).

    The men are much more competent on average, when they are allowed to compete (otherwise they flake off), because women require it.

    In a funny way, men are better at things in the real world because women wont love someone that isn’t that way. being hypergamous, their status is based on the status of the male and the family they create (ergo hillary not divorcing, or others at a certain level, and women low down divorcing for the BBD).

    Women require the man they can get to be the most competent they can find. So how come there are so many dweebs? Because success builds on success and losers self destruct to free resources for the group. people die of broken hearts because if they lived happy and single they would be a millstone. However if they are part of a family and have that smell and feedback, they can live to their maximum age (which is how we get new organs, and such. old age is because the body or life is an open ended book. Each cell lineage past a certain point hasn’t been written)

    He has to be more competent than he needs to be since that frees her up to do what she does. vegetarianism favors her because that’s what she gets most of and meat favors him because while hunting you eat meat, not gather berries. Men hate going to the store with their wives, because the ladies want them to just stand there. All those poor miserable men, and all those women who don’t realize that they are acting like primitive animals and its all dressed up in fancy stuff so we think its something different. Haven’t you noticed that stores for women are mostly bushes, and vines arranged along meandering trails? The men are there to keep the tigers and wolves from eating her while she gathers stuff for her family (not the tribe. The vegetarian thing is the tribe when all the women go out and gather. This gathering is her special gathering where she knows where plants and things are that others don’t). she feels better when she has him around there because her biology knows that when the attacking world comes he will die for her.

    The men are less instinctual more logical since that favors competency and coolness under pressure. She is less logical and more instinctual, that favors running the heck out of there so that he can deal with it, but not running too far to be totally on your own.

    People who understand evolutionary psychology and implications can give you better explanations than anthro does.

    By the way, her being more instinctual means that his logic works less on her, and balances things. However, he is the one that is more competent, but like the captain, at her service. This is why men make better politicians, and why they don’t nanny. A woman wants to be protected, but not coddled. A child wants both. A man is and has been naturally in charge on her and the childs behalf (or else he flakes), and so when in politics, he protects from the outside, but does not want socialism, because that coddling and he knows that makes incompetent adults. (which is why they want their boys to be men). You can also see a ring here… the family is the outer ring, the male is the next ring, the female is the next, and down the line for older to younger.

    So when left to their own designs and not manipulated, you get medicis, hans, kennedys, etc. the family keeps collecting and holding what it has and becoming more prosperous, that gaims better mates from other families, etc.

    The longer the family can stay cohesive, the more they grow and rise up.

    Sorry… I got carried away there…

  19. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Querus: “I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time.”

    Art said: “You didn’t even realize that you’re equating no feminism with home imprisonment.”

    Yes, I agree it was poor choice of words, but the words were related to how “I” felt. It would have been imprisonment for ME if I had no other choice than to stay at home. What I was trying to express is, I suppose, my own personal sentiment/preference, which shouldn’t have been put on the whole community of ‘women’ per se.

    I’ll reserve any more comment for later, after further reading, thought and consideration.

  20. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Querus: “I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time.”

    Art said: “You didn’t even realize that you’re equating no feminism with home imprisonment.”

    Yes, I agree it was poor choice of words, but the words were related to how “I” felt. It would have been imprisonment for ME if I had no other choice than to stay at home. What I was trying to express is, I suppose, my own personal sentiment/preference, which shouldn’t have been put on the whole community of ‘women’ per se.

    I’ll reserve any more comment for later, after further reading, thought and consideration.

  21. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Querus: “I don’t think that women should be relegated to the household all of the time.”

    Art said: “You didn’t even realize that you’re equating no feminism with home imprisonment.”

    Yes, I agree it was poor choice of words, but the words were related to how “I” felt. It would have been imprisonment for ME if I had no other choice than to stay at home. What I was trying to express is, I suppose, my own personal sentiment/preference, which shouldn’t have been put on the whole community of ‘women’ per se.

    I’ll reserve any more comment for later, after further reading, thought and consideration.

  22. Artfldgr Says:

    Hey q

    Hmmm. I’d be interested in seeing the data on that. I agree that the changes in hormonal structure and neural structure can make a big difference in behavior.

    Its in front of you staring you in the face. Most female comedians are lesbians, not all of course, but most. Meanwhile from a recent study in Australia, gay and bi only made up around 3-4% of the population (self reporting).

    You will also find that the leaders of the feminist movement and many powerful women as well. you only have to read about their personal lives.

    As an aside I wanted to insert something.

    If you look at the descriptions of feminists describing marriage, if your open enough and can see the pattern, they are describing what its like for a gay woman to be in a heterosexual relationship. And their movement strongly projects that what they experience all women must experience.

    More than once I have hit upon the everyone is gay line, often followed with, let me show you…

    Also, in the perfect world that mcw mentions before the 60s, in order for her to live the way heterosexual women got to live (a life of privilege as if they were wealthy on a trust fund), they had to marry a heterosexual male. Of course these males would cheat more than others because of the horrid way that these women would be during sex. Many would get very frustrated and beat them because they committed all the sex they would ever have to someone, and they lied. Which is why no fault divorce was so desired as in Russia. After all, how could you then stand up to the judge and get your trust fund payments if you had so say “sorry your honor, I am a lesbian, but I wanted to be taken care of, so can I have the money”. This is why all the other forms of divorce was not good enough. None of them let her keep the wealth if he was a decent man.

    If you carefully pay attention you can see that the whole movement is steps towards normalizing that (to them bringing out the real women).

    Lets see, lesbians and sociopaths now get to have a lot more sex
    Lesbians now can marry a hetero, have her sex with her companion, then divorce and keep the money.

    You can go down the list… its all about them… what happens to hetero women and all that is not important.

    Which is why wanting to have a home is not allowed. They are only 2% of the population at most. If it goes back, then 98% of the world will live back in that home situation, and they will be the only ones left. They will be once again in high relief. They will become the spinsters that you can see from arsenic and old lace, and other situations. they only needed regular women as a battering ram to allow them to get the business money without having to be as competent. (that isn’t to say that there aren’t a lot of competent women out there, there are, but from where they started this, they had no way of knowing, and no confidence in that, so they had to set it up so that didn’t matter).

    Of course we are all the same, so that hides the game. Keeps you from thinking that this cadre of women (of course not all lesbians), can have a different agenda. in fact, abortion technically favors heterosexual extermination, no? and middle class extermination, and racial extermination… its like hitting the big three. (however, lack of being folded into the population removes them from the gene pool, which is why ivf is such a key thing. And since, as mcw mentions they have more male like brains, artificial wombs allows them to birth their own genes, but not be icky like a hetero woman. (yes there are lots of lesbians that don’t think that way)).

    That last leading me to

    And I get along better with lesbians than any other women, but in looking for a partner I like men…and I never wanted to stay at home full time with the kids. Maybe I’m somewhere in between.

    No… no woman wants to stay at home full time with the kids. Prior to the myth, no woman did!!!!

    Watch old movies. They seem hoaky because we are that far removed from that kind of life, not because they were hoaky. Ours would give them heart attacks (but that depended on what period in time – look at the 20s, and you wonder why feminism, or any of that).

    Also, prior to feminism, children weren’t constantly at play and needed attending. Children are very competent. That’s why the khmer rouge found them to be really good soldiers. That’s why admiral farragut got his first military commission at 12 years old. That’s why the industrial revolution allowed children to work.

    If you watch shows, you will see that kids were expected to be responsible, capable, do their best, to understand that elders on average knew more and would teach them and help them. they did chores, which is why dad didn’t have to do the work when he got home.

    I grew up at the tail end of that. As I got older, I got to have more and more chores that were harder to do. running errands to the store for mom when she yelled out the window. I had to stop play, run around the block, run up the stairs, burst thorugh the door. She would give me a list. later she would tell me and I had to remember. Then I had to run out, down the stairs, to the stores, shop the isles, learn how compare, get the items, go to the counter and pay. I wasn’t supposed to buy some candy, unless I was told that I could. I was to get the change, and take the package back.

    Can you imagine a 8 year old today doing that? Heck I posted up the 9 third graders that planned to kill their teacher. They made a kill kit and planned to cover windows, brought in knives, etc.

    You don’t get that there were a lot of mothers then… moms would go to the park, sit on a bench, talk and really do nothing, while their kids played.

    Let me give you a typical day. the family would get up, I was older so had to help my sister dress. Mom got dad ready. (mom worked later, then didn’t, then did and never stopped as they couldn’t live like they did). This was the time of the sexual revolution and like most my parents were weekend hippies too.

    Anyway… we would eat breakfast, I would feed my pets, sis would collect her stuff. if mom wasn’t going to be home when we got home, she would say go to your grandparents. Later I had a key.

    Mom would go to the parlor once a week, and have her hair coiffed and styled. Remember I lived in a poor area of the Bronx, not a wealthy area at all.

    When we got home, we had to do our homework, help mom clean, run a few errands… then we got to go out and play till dad came home. We weren’t allowed to go too far. If we went farther we had to tell, and remember to hear the church bells to get to the block on time. Like the old prince spaghetti commercials you could hear parents lean out windows from time to time, and call out to their kids. And the kids would hear, and mostly go home.

    We went home and had dinner at the table. Mom would tell dad her day, what she found cheaper (she regaled him as to the berries she found, as he told her how he battled the other men), or what she took care of. As I got older, and if it was payday, they would give me dads pay check, and I would count the money and put it in the envelopes for the bills. Later mom would redo it all, but over time, I stopped because I knew how and that was the reason.

    Depending on things, dad would take a nap, or watch tv. We originally only had one black and white… (before that I had to go downstairs to my grandparents and watch their black and white). This meant that tv guide was important. When the new one was bought, dad got it first, and he would sit in the can and mark off the shows he wanted to see. Then each of us over time would do the same. We would somehow work out how to see most of what we wanted. If it was a Sunday, mutual omahas wild kingdom and Disney would be on. We would all sit and watch, and sis and I would go to bed. Mom and dad would stay up and watch laughin, or have friends over (which is why dad napped).

    Taking care of kids when this is the kind of world your in isn’t that hard. In fact most parents make taking care of their kids much harder than they have to because they have very lilttle experience taking care of kids. They were disconnected from that cultural transmittal.

    Go to a book store, get a copy of leatherstocking, and get a copy of a book today. Open them and read a page or two of each.

    You would think that fenimore coopers work was high literature. That only educated people read it. but you would be wrong, cooper, twain, and others were considered in many ways childrens authors. It wasn’t till the move to socialism that we came up with really dumb easy books for kids that didn’t challenge them.

    Shakespear was written for the common man. Mozarts pieces were sometimes written for the commedie halls.

    Take a search and list out great authors from the late 1800s and poets and playwrites, etc. then do the same later. See what level we were at, see what level socialist realism brought us too.

    So, the idea of being relegated to being home with your children totally is an unreal view of the situation. If your kids were REARED not raised (like corn), then they are more pleasant to deal with. they don’t play all day while you’re a referee, they play house with you. much of the time they play by themselves, and you teach them to work things out for themselves independently.

    I could write a whole book on this…

    In case you haven’t noticed, watch nanny 911, or the other nanny show. Then realize that each of these nannies hard part is not what is to be done, but how to get the incompetents to adopt what she tells them without being alienated and rejecting her. They always teach the same things! That each has to do age appropriate things. That kids need to be listened to as PEOPLE. That you have to be very fair with them. that if something has to be done, you dont need their permission, you don’t negotiate till they can negotiate. The list goes on and on… but if you watch they get a huge change in the kids in a week.

    You watch a mom and dad about ready to drug their kids on Ritalin, divorce, or kill em, into a happy family that can go to a restaurant together. (last nights show).

    My wife is asian, and I LOVE being with them. they are like it used to be. There is a birthday party, the kids are with them. the children are part of life, not accessories, or pets that are convenient to show, but inconvenient when you want to live and have fun.

    I would have given my arm to stay home and be with my son. To hear someone say the feminist line and not even know who they are copying is something that buggers the mind. it was Freidan, a woman that had maids and butlers and money, who called being a wife akin to being in a gulag.

    And your more in between female and male because they have been pushing maleness on you!!!

    Got to go eat… : )

  23. Artfldgr Says:

    Hey q

    Hmmm. I’d be interested in seeing the data on that. I agree that the changes in hormonal structure and neural structure can make a big difference in behavior.

    Its in front of you staring you in the face. Most female comedians are lesbians, not all of course, but most. Meanwhile from a recent study in Australia, gay and bi only made up around 3-4% of the population (self reporting).

    You will also find that the leaders of the feminist movement and many powerful women as well. you only have to read about their personal lives.

    As an aside I wanted to insert something.

    If you look at the descriptions of feminists describing marriage, if your open enough and can see the pattern, they are describing what its like for a gay woman to be in a heterosexual relationship. And their movement strongly projects that what they experience all women must experience.

    More than once I have hit upon the everyone is gay line, often followed with, let me show you…

    Also, in the perfect world that mcw mentions before the 60s, in order for her to live the way heterosexual women got to live (a life of privilege as if they were wealthy on a trust fund), they had to marry a heterosexual male. Of course these males would cheat more than others because of the horrid way that these women would be during sex. Many would get very frustrated and beat them because they committed all the sex they would ever have to someone, and they lied. Which is why no fault divorce was so desired as in Russia. After all, how could you then stand up to the judge and get your trust fund payments if you had so say “sorry your honor, I am a lesbian, but I wanted to be taken care of, so can I have the money”. This is why all the other forms of divorce was not good enough. None of them let her keep the wealth if he was a decent man.

    If you carefully pay attention you can see that the whole movement is steps towards normalizing that (to them bringing out the real women).

    Lets see, lesbians and sociopaths now get to have a lot more sex
    Lesbians now can marry a hetero, have her sex with her companion, then divorce and keep the money.

    You can go down the list… its all about them… what happens to hetero women and all that is not important.

    Which is why wanting to have a home is not allowed. They are only 2% of the population at most. If it goes back, then 98% of the world will live back in that home situation, and they will be the only ones left. They will be once again in high relief. They will become the spinsters that you can see from arsenic and old lace, and other situations. they only needed regular women as a battering ram to allow them to get the business money without having to be as competent. (that isn’t to say that there aren’t a lot of competent women out there, there are, but from where they started this, they had no way of knowing, and no confidence in that, so they had to set it up so that didn’t matter).

    Of course we are all the same, so that hides the game. Keeps you from thinking that this cadre of women (of course not all lesbians), can have a different agenda. in fact, abortion technically favors heterosexual extermination, no? and middle class extermination, and racial extermination… its like hitting the big three. (however, lack of being folded into the population removes them from the gene pool, which is why ivf is such a key thing. And since, as mcw mentions they have more male like brains, artificial wombs allows them to birth their own genes, but not be icky like a hetero woman. (yes there are lots of lesbians that don’t think that way)).

    That last leading me to

    And I get along better with lesbians than any other women, but in looking for a partner I like men…and I never wanted to stay at home full time with the kids. Maybe I’m somewhere in between.

    No… no woman wants to stay at home full time with the kids. Prior to the myth, no woman did!!!!

    Watch old movies. They seem hoaky because we are that far removed from that kind of life, not because they were hoaky. Ours would give them heart attacks (but that depended on what period in time – look at the 20s, and you wonder why feminism, or any of that).

    Also, prior to feminism, children weren’t constantly at play and needed attending. Children are very competent. That’s why the khmer rouge found them to be really good soldiers. That’s why admiral farragut got his first military commission at 12 years old. That’s why the industrial revolution allowed children to work.

    If you watch shows, you will see that kids were expected to be responsible, capable, do their best, to understand that elders on average knew more and would teach them and help them. they did chores, which is why dad didn’t have to do the work when he got home.

    I grew up at the tail end of that. As I got older, I got to have more and more chores that were harder to do. running errands to the store for mom when she yelled out the window. I had to stop play, run around the block, run up the stairs, burst thorugh the door. She would give me a list. later she would tell me and I had to remember. Then I had to run out, down the stairs, to the stores, shop the isles, learn how compare, get the items, go to the counter and pay. I wasn’t supposed to buy some candy, unless I was told that I could. I was to get the change, and take the package back.

    Can you imagine a 8 year old today doing that? Heck I posted up the 9 third graders that planned to kill their teacher. They made a kill kit and planned to cover windows, brought in knives, etc.

    You don’t get that there were a lot of mothers then… moms would go to the park, sit on a bench, talk and really do nothing, while their kids played.

    Let me give you a typical day. the family would get up, I was older so had to help my sister dress. Mom got dad ready. (mom worked later, then didn’t, then did and never stopped as they couldn’t live like they did). This was the time of the sexual revolution and like most my parents were weekend hippies too.

    Anyway… we would eat breakfast, I would feed my pets, sis would collect her stuff. if mom wasn’t going to be home when we got home, she would say go to your grandparents. Later I had a key.

    Mom would go to the parlor once a week, and have her hair coiffed and styled. Remember I lived in a poor area of the Bronx, not a wealthy area at all.

    When we got home, we had to do our homework, help mom clean, run a few errands… then we got to go out and play till dad came home. We weren’t allowed to go too far. If we went farther we had to tell, and remember to hear the church bells to get to the block on time. Like the old prince spaghetti commercials you could hear parents lean out windows from time to time, and call out to their kids. And the kids would hear, and mostly go home.

    We went home and had dinner at the table. Mom would tell dad her day, what she found cheaper (she regaled him as to the berries she found, as he told her how he battled the other men), or what she took care of. As I got older, and if it was payday, they would give me dads pay check, and I would count the money and put it in the envelopes for the bills. Later mom would redo it all, but over time, I stopped because I knew how and that was the reason.

    Depending on things, dad would take a nap, or watch tv. We originally only had one black and white… (before that I had to go downstairs to my grandparents and watch their black and white). This meant that tv guide was important. When the new one was bought, dad got it first, and he would sit in the can and mark off the shows he wanted to see. Then each of us over time would do the same. We would somehow work out how to see most of what we wanted. If it was a Sunday, mutual omahas wild kingdom and Disney would be on. We would all sit and watch, and sis and I would go to bed. Mom and dad would stay up and watch laughin, or have friends over (which is why dad napped).

    Taking care of kids when this is the kind of world your in isn’t that hard. In fact most parents make taking care of their kids much harder than they have to because they have very lilttle experience taking care of kids. They were disconnected from that cultural transmittal.

    Go to a book store, get a copy of leatherstocking, and get a copy of a book today. Open them and read a page or two of each.

    You would think that fenimore coopers work was high literature. That only educated people read it. but you would be wrong, cooper, twain, and others were considered in many ways childrens authors. It wasn’t till the move to socialism that we came up with really dumb easy books for kids that didn’t challenge them.

    Shakespear was written for the common man. Mozarts pieces were sometimes written for the commedie halls.

    Take a search and list out great authors from the late 1800s and poets and playwrites, etc. then do the same later. See what level we were at, see what level socialist realism brought us too.

    So, the idea of being relegated to being home with your children totally is an unreal view of the situation. If your kids were REARED not raised (like corn), then they are more pleasant to deal with. they don’t play all day while you’re a referee, they play house with you. much of the time they play by themselves, and you teach them to work things out for themselves independently.

    I could write a whole book on this…

    In case you haven’t noticed, watch nanny 911, or the other nanny show. Then realize that each of these nannies hard part is not what is to be done, but how to get the incompetents to adopt what she tells them without being alienated and rejecting her. They always teach the same things! That each has to do age appropriate things. That kids need to be listened to as PEOPLE. That you have to be very fair with them. that if something has to be done, you dont need their permission, you don’t negotiate till they can negotiate. The list goes on and on… but if you watch they get a huge change in the kids in a week.

    You watch a mom and dad about ready to drug their kids on Ritalin, divorce, or kill em, into a happy family that can go to a restaurant together. (last nights show).

    My wife is asian, and I LOVE being with them. they are like it used to be. There is a birthday party, the kids are with them. the children are part of life, not accessories, or pets that are convenient to show, but inconvenient when you want to live and have fun.

    I would have given my arm to stay home and be with my son. To hear someone say the feminist line and not even know who they are copying is something that buggers the mind. it was Freidan, a woman that had maids and butlers and money, who called being a wife akin to being in a gulag.

    And your more in between female and male because they have been pushing maleness on you!!!

    Got to go eat… : )

  24. Artfldgr Says:

    Hey q

    Hmmm. I’d be interested in seeing the data on that. I agree that the changes in hormonal structure and neural structure can make a big difference in behavior.

    Its in front of you staring you in the face. Most female comedians are lesbians, not all of course, but most. Meanwhile from a recent study in Australia, gay and bi only made up around 3-4% of the population (self reporting).

    You will also find that the leaders of the feminist movement and many powerful women as well. you only have to read about their personal lives.

    As an aside I wanted to insert something.

    If you look at the descriptions of feminists describing marriage, if your open enough and can see the pattern, they are describing what its like for a gay woman to be in a heterosexual relationship. And their movement strongly projects that what they experience all women must experience.

    More than once I have hit upon the everyone is gay line, often followed with, let me show you…

    Also, in the perfect world that mcw mentions before the 60s, in order for her to live the way heterosexual women got to live (a life of privilege as if they were wealthy on a trust fund), they had to marry a heterosexual male. Of course these males would cheat more than others because of the horrid way that these women would be during sex. Many would get very frustrated and beat them because they committed all the sex they would ever have to someone, and they lied. Which is why no fault divorce was so desired as in Russia. After all, how could you then stand up to the judge and get your trust fund payments if you had so say “sorry your honor, I am a lesbian, but I wanted to be taken care of, so can I have the money”. This is why all the other forms of divorce was not good enough. None of them let her keep the wealth if he was a decent man.

    If you carefully pay attention you can see that the whole movement is steps towards normalizing that (to them bringing out the real women).

    Lets see, lesbians and sociopaths now get to have a lot more sex
    Lesbians now can marry a hetero, have her sex with her companion, then divorce and keep the money.

    You can go down the list… its all about them… what happens to hetero women and all that is not important.

    Which is why wanting to have a home is not allowed. They are only 2% of the population at most. If it goes back, then 98% of the world will live back in that home situation, and they will be the only ones left. They will be once again in high relief. They will become the spinsters that you can see from arsenic and old lace, and other situations. they only needed regular women as a battering ram to allow them to get the business money without having to be as competent. (that isn’t to say that there aren’t a lot of competent women out there, there are, but from where they started this, they had no way of knowing, and no confidence in that, so they had to set it up so that didn’t matter).

    Of course we are all the same, so that hides the game. Keeps you from thinking that this cadre of women (of course not all lesbians), can have a different agenda. in fact, abortion technically favors heterosexual extermination, no? and middle class extermination, and racial extermination… its like hitting the big three. (however, lack of being folded into the population removes them from the gene pool, which is why ivf is such a key thing. And since, as mcw mentions they have more male like brains, artificial wombs allows them to birth their own genes, but not be icky like a hetero woman. (yes there are lots of lesbians that don’t think that way)).

    That last leading me to

    And I get along better with lesbians than any other women, but in looking for a partner I like men…and I never wanted to stay at home full time with the kids. Maybe I’m somewhere in between.

    No… no woman wants to stay at home full time with the kids. Prior to the myth, no woman did!!!!

    Watch old movies. They seem hoaky because we are that far removed from that kind of life, not because they were hoaky. Ours would give them heart attacks (but that depended on what period in time – look at the 20s, and you wonder why feminism, or any of that).

    Also, prior to feminism, children weren’t constantly at play and needed attending. Children are very competent. That’s why the khmer rouge found them to be really good soldiers. That’s why admiral farragut got his first military commission at 12 years old. That’s why the industrial revolution allowed children to work.

    If you watch shows, you will see that kids were expected to be responsible, capable, do their best, to understand that elders on average knew more and would teach them and help them. they did chores, which is why dad didn’t have to do the work when he got home.

    I grew up at the tail end of that. As I got older, I got to have more and more chores that were harder to do. running errands to the store for mom when she yelled out the window. I had to stop play, run around the block, run up the stairs, burst thorugh the door. She would give me a list. later she would tell me and I had to remember. Then I had to run out, down the stairs, to the stores, shop the isles, learn how compare, get the items, go to the counter and pay. I wasn’t supposed to buy some candy, unless I was told that I could. I was to get the change, and take the package back.

    Can you imagine a 8 year old today doing that? Heck I posted up the 9 third graders that planned to kill their teacher. They made a kill kit and planned to cover windows, brought in knives, etc.

    You don’t get that there were a lot of mothers then… moms would go to the park, sit on a bench, talk and really do nothing, while their kids played.

    Let me give you a typical day. the family would get up, I was older so had to help my sister dress. Mom got dad ready. (mom worked later, then didn’t, then did and never stopped as they couldn’t live like they did). This was the time of the sexual revolution and like most my parents were weekend hippies too.

    Anyway… we would eat breakfast, I would feed my pets, sis would collect her stuff. if mom wasn’t going to be home when we got home, she would say go to your grandparents. Later I had a key.

    Mom would go to the parlor once a week, and have her hair coiffed and styled. Remember I lived in a poor area of the Bronx, not a wealthy area at all.

    When we got home, we had to do our homework, help mom clean, run a few errands… then we got to go out and play till dad came home. We weren’t allowed to go too far. If we went farther we had to tell, and remember to hear the church bells to get to the block on time. Like the old prince spaghetti commercials you could hear parents lean out windows from time to time, and call out to their kids. And the kids would hear, and mostly go home.

    We went home and had dinner at the table. Mom would tell dad her day, what she found cheaper (she regaled him as to the berries she found, as he told her how he battled the other men), or what she took care of. As I got older, and if it was payday, they would give me dads pay check, and I would count the money and put it in the envelopes for the bills. Later mom would redo it all, but over time, I stopped because I knew how and that was the reason.

    Depending on things, dad would take a nap, or watch tv. We originally only had one black and white… (before that I had to go downstairs to my grandparents and watch their black and white). This meant that tv guide was important. When the new one was bought, dad got it first, and he would sit in the can and mark off the shows he wanted to see. Then each of us over time would do the same. We would somehow work out how to see most of what we wanted. If it was a Sunday, mutual omahas wild kingdom and Disney would be on. We would all sit and watch, and sis and I would go to bed. Mom and dad would stay up and watch laughin, or have friends over (which is why dad napped).

    Taking care of kids when this is the kind of world your in isn’t that hard. In fact most parents make taking care of their kids much harder than they have to because they have very lilttle experience taking care of kids. They were disconnected from that cultural transmittal.

    Go to a book store, get a copy of leatherstocking, and get a copy of a book today. Open them and read a page or two of each.

    You would think that fenimore coopers work was high literature. That only educated people read it. but you would be wrong, cooper, twain, and others were considered in many ways childrens authors. It wasn’t till the move to socialism that we came up with really dumb easy books for kids that didn’t challenge them.

    Shakespear was written for the common man. Mozarts pieces were sometimes written for the commedie halls.

    Take a search and list out great authors from the late 1800s and poets and playwrites, etc. then do the same later. See what level we were at, see what level socialist realism brought us too.

    So, the idea of being relegated to being home with your children totally is an unreal view of the situation. If your kids were REARED not raised (like corn), then they are more pleasant to deal with. they don’t play all day while you’re a referee, they play house with you. much of the time they play by themselves, and you teach them to work things out for themselves independently.

    I could write a whole book on this…

    In case you haven’t noticed, watch nanny 911, or the other nanny show. Then realize that each of these nannies hard part is not what is to be done, but how to get the incompetents to adopt what she tells them without being alienated and rejecting her. They always teach the same things! That each has to do age appropriate things. That kids need to be listened to as PEOPLE. That you have to be very fair with them. that if something has to be done, you dont need their permission, you don’t negotiate till they can negotiate. The list goes on and on… but if you watch they get a huge change in the kids in a week.

    You watch a mom and dad about ready to drug their kids on Ritalin, divorce, or kill em, into a happy family that can go to a restaurant together. (last nights show).

    My wife is asian, and I LOVE being with them. they are like it used to be. There is a birthday party, the kids are with them. the children are part of life, not accessories, or pets that are convenient to show, but inconvenient when you want to live and have fun.

    I would have given my arm to stay home and be with my son. To hear someone say the feminist line and not even know who they are copying is something that buggers the mind. it was Freidan, a woman that had maids and butlers and money, who called being a wife akin to being in a gulag.

    And your more in between female and male because they have been pushing maleness on you!!!

    Got to go eat… : )

  25. Artfldgr Says:

    why can’t there be biological levels in between that predispose us towards certain careers, ways of life?

    ah, thats how it actually is. but the body behaves based on what it percieves. so if you screw the inputs up, the creature acts abnormal.

    everyone is a mix of some point on these spectrums.

    and most mental disorders if you look at them are normal behaviors taken to extremes.

    love exists on a spectrum with disinterest on the other end.

    hate doesnt have an opposite just a degree.

    we have aptitudes and we have abiliteis and the old process used childhood to discover them and bring htem out as much as possible. merit rewarded you for what you were good at so naturally guided you into things you want to do. today they guess…and if they are very lucky they are right, otherwise, they are living in hell.

    you didnt get a chance to be with kids, to be in traditional role, to not be berated for it. you also didnt get a chance to find yourself while it was safe.

    the closness your daughther has with her friends is not healthy. she isnt closer because she is healthier than you were, she is closer because they are more the same, they dont make distinctions as good or bad so all are accepted, and she has been trained by the school to need to be in the group. she fears independence, which is why she is such a protestor. not to mention that nickleodeon and other programming is teaching her that! (bet you dont watch the shows teaching them to be little radicals. you dont notice it but its not much different than the games of hammas).

    her freinds are her influence, not you. her peers are her life, not you. she is learning what they taught us in the 60s culturally. dont trust anyone over 30.

    now you may have a stronger than average family, so her peers might not be that way, but then she wouldnt be so close to them.

    she is less independent. she cant oppose that group.

    They are so much more self assured than I ever was, and their ability to absorb knowledge is greater than it was for me at their age.

    nope. there isnt more information to absorb. just different. they are not learning all you know then some, they are learning a segment of knowlege that is knowlege you dont have.

    just ask them some history questions. what is a gulag. who is dylan thomas? etc.

    they will be blank..

    and they are so assured because they are socialists more than independent people.

    if you were told that this gives you all the answers, then you would be confident. but its false confidence, not real confidence. put them in a position in which all their supports and their ideological knowlege breaks down and watch what happens.

    i will be travelling later in the year… we have decided to take my son to the other side of the globe. he too is confident. however i will bet that since we will not be in a play pen vacation spot, and we are in a country that the US has alerts about, he will not be so confident.

    he thinks the trip is great, but he also has confessed its scary too since its too real. he went from the confident young man who will be 21, is on scholarship, and really is a great guy (but the girls dont want him), to someone that was sitting quietly with the gears going around trying to get his mind around the fact that we are going to go someplace where there is a real chance of us getting killed, or getting an exotic debilitating desease.

    real life is so much better.. and if we survive (we will), he will be quite a bit wiser, but he will also be more confident in a real way. next time, his confidence will not fail him.

    cant you tell i just love people?

    i love them enough to teach them to run and be free… then leave them alone.

  26. Artfldgr Says:

    why can’t there be biological levels in between that predispose us towards certain careers, ways of life?

    ah, thats how it actually is. but the body behaves based on what it percieves. so if you screw the inputs up, the creature acts abnormal.

    everyone is a mix of some point on these spectrums.

    and most mental disorders if you look at them are normal behaviors taken to extremes.

    love exists on a spectrum with disinterest on the other end.

    hate doesnt have an opposite just a degree.

    we have aptitudes and we have abiliteis and the old process used childhood to discover them and bring htem out as much as possible. merit rewarded you for what you were good at so naturally guided you into things you want to do. today they guess…and if they are very lucky they are right, otherwise, they are living in hell.

    you didnt get a chance to be with kids, to be in traditional role, to not be berated for it. you also didnt get a chance to find yourself while it was safe.

    the closness your daughther has with her friends is not healthy. she isnt closer because she is healthier than you were, she is closer because they are more the same, they dont make distinctions as good or bad so all are accepted, and she has been trained by the school to need to be in the group. she fears independence, which is why she is such a protestor. not to mention that nickleodeon and other programming is teaching her that! (bet you dont watch the shows teaching them to be little radicals. you dont notice it but its not much different than the games of hammas).

    her freinds are her influence, not you. her peers are her life, not you. she is learning what they taught us in the 60s culturally. dont trust anyone over 30.

    now you may have a stronger than average family, so her peers might not be that way, but then she wouldnt be so close to them.

    she is less independent. she cant oppose that group.

    They are so much more self assured than I ever was, and their ability to absorb knowledge is greater than it was for me at their age.

    nope. there isnt more information to absorb. just different. they are not learning all you know then some, they are learning a segment of knowlege that is knowlege you dont have.

    just ask them some history questions. what is a gulag. who is dylan thomas? etc.

    they will be blank..

    and they are so assured because they are socialists more than independent people.

    if you were told that this gives you all the answers, then you would be confident. but its false confidence, not real confidence. put them in a position in which all their supports and their ideological knowlege breaks down and watch what happens.

    i will be travelling later in the year… we have decided to take my son to the other side of the globe. he too is confident. however i will bet that since we will not be in a play pen vacation spot, and we are in a country that the US has alerts about, he will not be so confident.

    he thinks the trip is great, but he also has confessed its scary too since its too real. he went from the confident young man who will be 21, is on scholarship, and really is a great guy (but the girls dont want him), to someone that was sitting quietly with the gears going around trying to get his mind around the fact that we are going to go someplace where there is a real chance of us getting killed, or getting an exotic debilitating desease.

    real life is so much better.. and if we survive (we will), he will be quite a bit wiser, but he will also be more confident in a real way. next time, his confidence will not fail him.

    cant you tell i just love people?

    i love them enough to teach them to run and be free… then leave them alone.

  27. Artfldgr Says:

    why can’t there be biological levels in between that predispose us towards certain careers, ways of life?

    ah, thats how it actually is. but the body behaves based on what it percieves. so if you screw the inputs up, the creature acts abnormal.

    everyone is a mix of some point on these spectrums.

    and most mental disorders if you look at them are normal behaviors taken to extremes.

    love exists on a spectrum with disinterest on the other end.

    hate doesnt have an opposite just a degree.

    we have aptitudes and we have abiliteis and the old process used childhood to discover them and bring htem out as much as possible. merit rewarded you for what you were good at so naturally guided you into things you want to do. today they guess…and if they are very lucky they are right, otherwise, they are living in hell.

    you didnt get a chance to be with kids, to be in traditional role, to not be berated for it. you also didnt get a chance to find yourself while it was safe.

    the closness your daughther has with her friends is not healthy. she isnt closer because she is healthier than you were, she is closer because they are more the same, they dont make distinctions as good or bad so all are accepted, and she has been trained by the school to need to be in the group. she fears independence, which is why she is such a protestor. not to mention that nickleodeon and other programming is teaching her that! (bet you dont watch the shows teaching them to be little radicals. you dont notice it but its not much different than the games of hammas).

    her freinds are her influence, not you. her peers are her life, not you. she is learning what they taught us in the 60s culturally. dont trust anyone over 30.

    now you may have a stronger than average family, so her peers might not be that way, but then she wouldnt be so close to them.

    she is less independent. she cant oppose that group.

    They are so much more self assured than I ever was, and their ability to absorb knowledge is greater than it was for me at their age.

    nope. there isnt more information to absorb. just different. they are not learning all you know then some, they are learning a segment of knowlege that is knowlege you dont have.

    just ask them some history questions. what is a gulag. who is dylan thomas? etc.

    they will be blank..

    and they are so assured because they are socialists more than independent people.

    if you were told that this gives you all the answers, then you would be confident. but its false confidence, not real confidence. put them in a position in which all their supports and their ideological knowlege breaks down and watch what happens.

    i will be travelling later in the year… we have decided to take my son to the other side of the globe. he too is confident. however i will bet that since we will not be in a play pen vacation spot, and we are in a country that the US has alerts about, he will not be so confident.

    he thinks the trip is great, but he also has confessed its scary too since its too real. he went from the confident young man who will be 21, is on scholarship, and really is a great guy (but the girls dont want him), to someone that was sitting quietly with the gears going around trying to get his mind around the fact that we are going to go someplace where there is a real chance of us getting killed, or getting an exotic debilitating desease.

    real life is so much better.. and if we survive (we will), he will be quite a bit wiser, but he will also be more confident in a real way. next time, his confidence will not fail him.

    cant you tell i just love people?

    i love them enough to teach them to run and be free… then leave them alone.

  28. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Oh come on Art, really…

    Art: “the closeness your daughther has with her friends is not healthy. she isnt closer because she is healthier than you were, she is closer because they are more the same, they dont make distinctions as good or bad so all are accepted, and she has been trained by the school to need to be in the group. she fears independence, which is why she is such a protestor.”

    You are making way too many assumptions, don’t you think? Just because I said she was close to her friends, doesn’t mean she’s not close to me. Man…I had to laugh at the seeming audacity! I’ve been reading her some of our dialogue…she’s going to love that (she’s 14). We have a very close relationship, which I love very much…but its just that I’ve never had a lot of close friends (only 2 other women) preferring substance to numbers. I just meant she seems more confident in dealing with people and negotiating her way in the world than I was. Part of that I helped to foster. She does chores around the house, walks home from school (2 miles), and makes sure she checks in when she should.

    Yes…I watch all of what the kids watch on T.V., and we talk about what they see. I’m very involved in both their lives, and their “rearing”. 🙂

    No, I was not pushed, or ever felt pushed, to be male. I’ve not had any inclination toward the traditional female role of being the one to raise the children. I was a tomboy growing up, preferring to play baseball, basketball, climb trees and such. I left for the Navy because I feared being set into a traditional role, stuck in my home state, and wanted to do something else. I couldn’t bear filling the role such as my mother embraced. She stayed at home, she raised us, and I couldn’t think of anything I wanted to do less. The military was instant home. I loved it, and still do, despite its inconsistencies. I never searched for a male role, or “maleness”, I only searched for what I wanted to do because there were things I was good at and enjoyed doing.

    One thing I’ve found interesting is the things we all choose to post on in this forum, and what we choose to highlight versus what we choose to not comment on or ignore. That is even more food for thought.
    Back to the stats paper…

  29. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Oh come on Art, really…

    Art: “the closeness your daughther has with her friends is not healthy. she isnt closer because she is healthier than you were, she is closer because they are more the same, they dont make distinctions as good or bad so all are accepted, and she has been trained by the school to need to be in the group. she fears independence, which is why she is such a protestor.”

    You are making way too many assumptions, don’t you think? Just because I said she was close to her friends, doesn’t mean she’s not close to me. Man…I had to laugh at the seeming audacity! I’ve been reading her some of our dialogue…she’s going to love that (she’s 14). We have a very close relationship, which I love very much…but its just that I’ve never had a lot of close friends (only 2 other women) preferring substance to numbers. I just meant she seems more confident in dealing with people and negotiating her way in the world than I was. Part of that I helped to foster. She does chores around the house, walks home from school (2 miles), and makes sure she checks in when she should.

    Yes…I watch all of what the kids watch on T.V., and we talk about what they see. I’m very involved in both their lives, and their “rearing”. 🙂

    No, I was not pushed, or ever felt pushed, to be male. I’ve not had any inclination toward the traditional female role of being the one to raise the children. I was a tomboy growing up, preferring to play baseball, basketball, climb trees and such. I left for the Navy because I feared being set into a traditional role, stuck in my home state, and wanted to do something else. I couldn’t bear filling the role such as my mother embraced. She stayed at home, she raised us, and I couldn’t think of anything I wanted to do less. The military was instant home. I loved it, and still do, despite its inconsistencies. I never searched for a male role, or “maleness”, I only searched for what I wanted to do because there were things I was good at and enjoyed doing.

    One thing I’ve found interesting is the things we all choose to post on in this forum, and what we choose to highlight versus what we choose to not comment on or ignore. That is even more food for thought.
    Back to the stats paper…

  30. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Oh come on Art, really…

    Art: “the closeness your daughther has with her friends is not healthy. she isnt closer because she is healthier than you were, she is closer because they are more the same, they dont make distinctions as good or bad so all are accepted, and she has been trained by the school to need to be in the group. she fears independence, which is why she is such a protestor.”

    You are making way too many assumptions, don’t you think? Just because I said she was close to her friends, doesn’t mean she’s not close to me. Man…I had to laugh at the seeming audacity! I’ve been reading her some of our dialogue…she’s going to love that (she’s 14). We have a very close relationship, which I love very much…but its just that I’ve never had a lot of close friends (only 2 other women) preferring substance to numbers. I just meant she seems more confident in dealing with people and negotiating her way in the world than I was. Part of that I helped to foster. She does chores around the house, walks home from school (2 miles), and makes sure she checks in when she should.

    Yes…I watch all of what the kids watch on T.V., and we talk about what they see. I’m very involved in both their lives, and their “rearing”. 🙂

    No, I was not pushed, or ever felt pushed, to be male. I’ve not had any inclination toward the traditional female role of being the one to raise the children. I was a tomboy growing up, preferring to play baseball, basketball, climb trees and such. I left for the Navy because I feared being set into a traditional role, stuck in my home state, and wanted to do something else. I couldn’t bear filling the role such as my mother embraced. She stayed at home, she raised us, and I couldn’t think of anything I wanted to do less. The military was instant home. I loved it, and still do, despite its inconsistencies. I never searched for a male role, or “maleness”, I only searched for what I wanted to do because there were things I was good at and enjoyed doing.

    One thing I’ve found interesting is the things we all choose to post on in this forum, and what we choose to highlight versus what we choose to not comment on or ignore. That is even more food for thought.
    Back to the stats paper…

  31. Artfldgr Says:

    good comment Q, much for me to consider.

    though i was not saying you werent close to here, what i was saying is i know the kind of educational programs she was getting since schools are national.

    one of the online books mcw listed about the secret history of schools as well as dumbing down…

    there was a specific meeting it happened before i even went to school. but was not all over as it mostly is now. its a subtle thing since its embodied in the system.

    its so global i am having a problem finding an example or something i can point to that would bring it to relief. its homogeneous.

    here, read this;

    In 1932, at the nadir of the Great Depression, Counts combined three speeches into a slim volume called Dare the School Build a New Social Order” The book led to his general acceptance as leader of the social reconstructionists, a group within the society-centered wing (as opposed to the child-centered wing) of the Progressive Education Association, that was intent on using the schools to initiate social change. With characteristic boldness, Counts argued for the replacement of traditional capitalism with some form of democratic collectivism in order to avert social and economic chaos. He called for educators to shape the attitudes of children so that they would be receptive to the idea that collective control of the economy was necessary. Thus schools, according to Counts, could become the incubators of a great society dedicated to cooperation rather than to exploitation. Anticipating the charge that his scheme smacked of indoctrination, Counts declared that all education entailed indoctrination to some extent.

    the frankfurt school settled in columbia university, columbia university is the center of educational studies for the country.

    the difference in the education is critical… since i was going up the acheivment track, in the era i went to school, the game was still like the more common and understandable german track where you went either normal or academic for college…

    didnt you everwonder why kids get state kindergarten? thats a german word. dewey said he wanted to start before the apple fell from the tree.

    there is a reason why the older people are more independent thinkers, and the younger are less independent more following the revolutionary life plan.

    as long as you dont have anything to compare to, you dont know where your standing.

    It should be noted, in this connection, that Counts denounced Soviet communism in his later writings and vigorously opposed communist efforts to infiltrate the American Federation of Teachers during his term as president of that organization from 1939 to 1942.

    yeah but he left, by the 60s, the kids tuned in turned on and dropped out.

    everything had been hammered enough that herbert marcuses “if it feels good do it” and communist “free love” was the new way…

    from then on it went down hill.

    all text books are written in texas, one system, and its a very weird system. there are some articles around on it. only one side yells and screams and yells that some group is not represented right, and so on, so the textbooks are carefully crafted to follow a certain line.

    the teachers techiques are different in how groups are worked and how they “dialogue to consensus”.

    here is another blogger i just found that is talking about what happened when he took the time to read. i found it searching for the essays for you

    http://educationconversation.wordpress.com/category/dare-the-school-build-a-new-social-order/

    Dare the School Build a New Social Order?

    I’ve spent the last year reading a lot of education philosophy – mostly stuff written over the past century by many of the movers and shakers of public schools. It’s been depressing, though enlightening — and mind-numbing.

    When they do say something, it’s scary – mostly utopian, authoritarian, even outright weird.

    Here’s an example from George Sylvester Counts, an education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University from 1927 to 1956, and author of numerous books, including “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?” Read it carefully to get the full impact.

    “If Progressive Education is to be genuinely progressive, it must… face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all its stark reality, establish an organic relation with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become less frightened than it is today of the bogies of imposition and indoctrination….

    The parade continues to this day. The education establishment must define what it means to be a worthwhile human being then force it down the throats of children. If the children or their parents resist, all power available should be used to break that resistance.

    so its easy for you to think your bias is natural.. till you read the history of how your school system was constructed.

    the book that mcw recomended by john taylor gatto explains the changes… he was voted teacher of the year nationally, then left teaching because of this.

    here is what he said (from the same page)

    Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct. Initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, enjoying privacy — these are precisely what the structures of schooling are set up to prevent, on one pretext or another. (The Underground History of American Education)

    compared to the past you check with others as to whats right. will ask freinds what their vote is when in my day that was never done. try to get consensus in favor over a winner… (you read the quotes as to design by committee).

    in a way it has to do with knowing the different ways they cheat. mcw did show you in one of the recent excerpts on the site as to how they moved men out of the schools.

    and yet you cant conceive of a large plan working. well then how do you explain few men in schools?

    i posted here an exerpt from george kennans long letter that pretty much describes the liberals, and you dont realize that that was predicted in that letter in 1946, 62 odd years ago.

    the reason they moved women out is that women go by how they feel. so if it feels right, then it is right, as your dialogue as to your daughter and you pointed out.

    guys are critical and logically moral, not feelings moral. so the idea of indoctrinating children for their own good would go against men much worse and men would act. women would only need to make the argument persuasive enough to feel right, then the rest is history.

    (how edenic, no? maybe there is a lesson there)

    this is why girls and women are targeted. read marx and engals, they spoke of it.

    anyway, the point is that the system has been changed, and you cant tell anyone what changed, or even knew that it was changed.

    this is why the US no longer scores on the top. its why companies want foreign workers as americans sit and think that they got good educations. its why the average level of writing is now 5th grade (are you as smart as a 5th grader?)… it used to be 8th grade.

    you dont realize that before picture books kids had to learn to really read. kids read mark twain and were adult ready by 13 and better educated than today.

    the picture books and new learning started in the years i was born. maurice sendak, and others.

    however, people look for books to teach their kids by pictures. you know that they arent smart enough to use the world around them to teach? that they want a book with a picture of a pen, not hold up pens and teach with real things.

    i also did some work for a prestigious private school in manhattan. its about 20k a year from 1st thru high school.. you know, little emblems on the coats.

    anyway… to compare their curriculum with what your kid got is like day compared to nothing because night is still too close.

    then again, those kids are going to grow up to be leaders of the kids in regular school…

    and only one of the two groups will know the difference.

  32. Artfldgr Says:

    good comment Q, much for me to consider.

    though i was not saying you werent close to here, what i was saying is i know the kind of educational programs she was getting since schools are national.

    one of the online books mcw listed about the secret history of schools as well as dumbing down…

    there was a specific meeting it happened before i even went to school. but was not all over as it mostly is now. its a subtle thing since its embodied in the system.

    its so global i am having a problem finding an example or something i can point to that would bring it to relief. its homogeneous.

    here, read this;

    In 1932, at the nadir of the Great Depression, Counts combined three speeches into a slim volume called Dare the School Build a New Social Order” The book led to his general acceptance as leader of the social reconstructionists, a group within the society-centered wing (as opposed to the child-centered wing) of the Progressive Education Association, that was intent on using the schools to initiate social change. With characteristic boldness, Counts argued for the replacement of traditional capitalism with some form of democratic collectivism in order to avert social and economic chaos. He called for educators to shape the attitudes of children so that they would be receptive to the idea that collective control of the economy was necessary. Thus schools, according to Counts, could become the incubators of a great society dedicated to cooperation rather than to exploitation. Anticipating the charge that his scheme smacked of indoctrination, Counts declared that all education entailed indoctrination to some extent.

    the frankfurt school settled in columbia university, columbia university is the center of educational studies for the country.

    the difference in the education is critical… since i was going up the acheivment track, in the era i went to school, the game was still like the more common and understandable german track where you went either normal or academic for college…

    didnt you everwonder why kids get state kindergarten? thats a german word. dewey said he wanted to start before the apple fell from the tree.

    there is a reason why the older people are more independent thinkers, and the younger are less independent more following the revolutionary life plan.

    as long as you dont have anything to compare to, you dont know where your standing.

    It should be noted, in this connection, that Counts denounced Soviet communism in his later writings and vigorously opposed communist efforts to infiltrate the American Federation of Teachers during his term as president of that organization from 1939 to 1942.

    yeah but he left, by the 60s, the kids tuned in turned on and dropped out.

    everything had been hammered enough that herbert marcuses “if it feels good do it” and communist “free love” was the new way…

    from then on it went down hill.

    all text books are written in texas, one system, and its a very weird system. there are some articles around on it. only one side yells and screams and yells that some group is not represented right, and so on, so the textbooks are carefully crafted to follow a certain line.

    the teachers techiques are different in how groups are worked and how they “dialogue to consensus”.

    here is another blogger i just found that is talking about what happened when he took the time to read. i found it searching for the essays for you

    http://educationconversation.wordpress.com/category/dare-the-school-build-a-new-social-order/

    Dare the School Build a New Social Order?

    I’ve spent the last year reading a lot of education philosophy – mostly stuff written over the past century by many of the movers and shakers of public schools. It’s been depressing, though enlightening — and mind-numbing.

    When they do say something, it’s scary – mostly utopian, authoritarian, even outright weird.

    Here’s an example from George Sylvester Counts, an education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University from 1927 to 1956, and author of numerous books, including “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?” Read it carefully to get the full impact.

    “If Progressive Education is to be genuinely progressive, it must… face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all its stark reality, establish an organic relation with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become less frightened than it is today of the bogies of imposition and indoctrination….

    The parade continues to this day. The education establishment must define what it means to be a worthwhile human being then force it down the throats of children. If the children or their parents resist, all power available should be used to break that resistance.

    so its easy for you to think your bias is natural.. till you read the history of how your school system was constructed.

    the book that mcw recomended by john taylor gatto explains the changes… he was voted teacher of the year nationally, then left teaching because of this.

    here is what he said (from the same page)

    Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct. Initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, enjoying privacy — these are precisely what the structures of schooling are set up to prevent, on one pretext or another. (The Underground History of American Education)

    compared to the past you check with others as to whats right. will ask freinds what their vote is when in my day that was never done. try to get consensus in favor over a winner… (you read the quotes as to design by committee).

    in a way it has to do with knowing the different ways they cheat. mcw did show you in one of the recent excerpts on the site as to how they moved men out of the schools.

    and yet you cant conceive of a large plan working. well then how do you explain few men in schools?

    i posted here an exerpt from george kennans long letter that pretty much describes the liberals, and you dont realize that that was predicted in that letter in 1946, 62 odd years ago.

    the reason they moved women out is that women go by how they feel. so if it feels right, then it is right, as your dialogue as to your daughter and you pointed out.

    guys are critical and logically moral, not feelings moral. so the idea of indoctrinating children for their own good would go against men much worse and men would act. women would only need to make the argument persuasive enough to feel right, then the rest is history.

    (how edenic, no? maybe there is a lesson there)

    this is why girls and women are targeted. read marx and engals, they spoke of it.

    anyway, the point is that the system has been changed, and you cant tell anyone what changed, or even knew that it was changed.

    this is why the US no longer scores on the top. its why companies want foreign workers as americans sit and think that they got good educations. its why the average level of writing is now 5th grade (are you as smart as a 5th grader?)… it used to be 8th grade.

    you dont realize that before picture books kids had to learn to really read. kids read mark twain and were adult ready by 13 and better educated than today.

    the picture books and new learning started in the years i was born. maurice sendak, and others.

    however, people look for books to teach their kids by pictures. you know that they arent smart enough to use the world around them to teach? that they want a book with a picture of a pen, not hold up pens and teach with real things.

    i also did some work for a prestigious private school in manhattan. its about 20k a year from 1st thru high school.. you know, little emblems on the coats.

    anyway… to compare their curriculum with what your kid got is like day compared to nothing because night is still too close.

    then again, those kids are going to grow up to be leaders of the kids in regular school…

    and only one of the two groups will know the difference.

  33. Artfldgr Says:

    good comment Q, much for me to consider.

    though i was not saying you werent close to here, what i was saying is i know the kind of educational programs she was getting since schools are national.

    one of the online books mcw listed about the secret history of schools as well as dumbing down…

    there was a specific meeting it happened before i even went to school. but was not all over as it mostly is now. its a subtle thing since its embodied in the system.

    its so global i am having a problem finding an example or something i can point to that would bring it to relief. its homogeneous.

    here, read this;

    In 1932, at the nadir of the Great Depression, Counts combined three speeches into a slim volume called Dare the School Build a New Social Order” The book led to his general acceptance as leader of the social reconstructionists, a group within the society-centered wing (as opposed to the child-centered wing) of the Progressive Education Association, that was intent on using the schools to initiate social change. With characteristic boldness, Counts argued for the replacement of traditional capitalism with some form of democratic collectivism in order to avert social and economic chaos. He called for educators to shape the attitudes of children so that they would be receptive to the idea that collective control of the economy was necessary. Thus schools, according to Counts, could become the incubators of a great society dedicated to cooperation rather than to exploitation. Anticipating the charge that his scheme smacked of indoctrination, Counts declared that all education entailed indoctrination to some extent.

    the frankfurt school settled in columbia university, columbia university is the center of educational studies for the country.

    the difference in the education is critical… since i was going up the acheivment track, in the era i went to school, the game was still like the more common and understandable german track where you went either normal or academic for college…

    didnt you everwonder why kids get state kindergarten? thats a german word. dewey said he wanted to start before the apple fell from the tree.

    there is a reason why the older people are more independent thinkers, and the younger are less independent more following the revolutionary life plan.

    as long as you dont have anything to compare to, you dont know where your standing.

    It should be noted, in this connection, that Counts denounced Soviet communism in his later writings and vigorously opposed communist efforts to infiltrate the American Federation of Teachers during his term as president of that organization from 1939 to 1942.

    yeah but he left, by the 60s, the kids tuned in turned on and dropped out.

    everything had been hammered enough that herbert marcuses “if it feels good do it” and communist “free love” was the new way…

    from then on it went down hill.

    all text books are written in texas, one system, and its a very weird system. there are some articles around on it. only one side yells and screams and yells that some group is not represented right, and so on, so the textbooks are carefully crafted to follow a certain line.

    the teachers techiques are different in how groups are worked and how they “dialogue to consensus”.

    here is another blogger i just found that is talking about what happened when he took the time to read. i found it searching for the essays for you

    http://educationconversation.wordpress.com/category/dare-the-school-build-a-new-social-order/

    Dare the School Build a New Social Order?

    I’ve spent the last year reading a lot of education philosophy – mostly stuff written over the past century by many of the movers and shakers of public schools. It’s been depressing, though enlightening — and mind-numbing.

    When they do say something, it’s scary – mostly utopian, authoritarian, even outright weird.

    Here’s an example from George Sylvester Counts, an education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University from 1927 to 1956, and author of numerous books, including “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?” Read it carefully to get the full impact.

    “If Progressive Education is to be genuinely progressive, it must… face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all its stark reality, establish an organic relation with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become less frightened than it is today of the bogies of imposition and indoctrination….

    The parade continues to this day. The education establishment must define what it means to be a worthwhile human being then force it down the throats of children. If the children or their parents resist, all power available should be used to break that resistance.

    so its easy for you to think your bias is natural.. till you read the history of how your school system was constructed.

    the book that mcw recomended by john taylor gatto explains the changes… he was voted teacher of the year nationally, then left teaching because of this.

    here is what he said (from the same page)

    Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct. Initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, enjoying privacy — these are precisely what the structures of schooling are set up to prevent, on one pretext or another. (The Underground History of American Education)

    compared to the past you check with others as to whats right. will ask freinds what their vote is when in my day that was never done. try to get consensus in favor over a winner… (you read the quotes as to design by committee).

    in a way it has to do with knowing the different ways they cheat. mcw did show you in one of the recent excerpts on the site as to how they moved men out of the schools.

    and yet you cant conceive of a large plan working. well then how do you explain few men in schools?

    i posted here an exerpt from george kennans long letter that pretty much describes the liberals, and you dont realize that that was predicted in that letter in 1946, 62 odd years ago.

    the reason they moved women out is that women go by how they feel. so if it feels right, then it is right, as your dialogue as to your daughter and you pointed out.

    guys are critical and logically moral, not feelings moral. so the idea of indoctrinating children for their own good would go against men much worse and men would act. women would only need to make the argument persuasive enough to feel right, then the rest is history.

    (how edenic, no? maybe there is a lesson there)

    this is why girls and women are targeted. read marx and engals, they spoke of it.

    anyway, the point is that the system has been changed, and you cant tell anyone what changed, or even knew that it was changed.

    this is why the US no longer scores on the top. its why companies want foreign workers as americans sit and think that they got good educations. its why the average level of writing is now 5th grade (are you as smart as a 5th grader?)… it used to be 8th grade.

    you dont realize that before picture books kids had to learn to really read. kids read mark twain and were adult ready by 13 and better educated than today.

    the picture books and new learning started in the years i was born. maurice sendak, and others.

    however, people look for books to teach their kids by pictures. you know that they arent smart enough to use the world around them to teach? that they want a book with a picture of a pen, not hold up pens and teach with real things.

    i also did some work for a prestigious private school in manhattan. its about 20k a year from 1st thru high school.. you know, little emblems on the coats.

    anyway… to compare their curriculum with what your kid got is like day compared to nothing because night is still too close.

    then again, those kids are going to grow up to be leaders of the kids in regular school…

    and only one of the two groups will know the difference.

  34. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    Thank you for sharing your story. You have me wondering, how did you come across my blog?

    And you and your husband deserve a lot of credit for giving your kids so much attention and care. Even if Art is partly right in what he said, which we don’t know your family well enough to say and it’s a bit out of line besides, you’ve still done so much better by them than most parents today. Certainly better than mine.

    On another entirely different note, other things I wonder…since there are people like you, and Art who are of similar mind… Have others come together in groups who have the same knowledge, philosophy, ideas? Are there ‘schools’ and educational groups dedicated to sharing what you believe? Or is it a concept against what you believe/stand for?

    Well, if you explore the links in my sidebar, you’ll find some of the fora we post to and stuff. Most of the activism where some of us meet in real life is devoted to fathers’ rights, helping divorced fathers who’ve been denied access to their children. I think that’s the only “real life” stuff we currently do. Wendy Shalit got death threats for publishing a book in which she said that young women shouldn’t feel obliged to dress like Britney Spears or have sex without commitment, so what would they do to someone who says that patriarchy is a good thing? It would be fun to teach a class about it, though, aside from being afraid of being lynched.

    I’m glad you at least don’t like the unfairness in women’s favor you were listing. I’ve encountered a few women who won’t even admit that it exists. And there’s a wide gap between a mere “antifeminist” – that is, someone who thinks housewives deserve respect and doesn’t think women should get special privileges, like easier promotions – and an actual male chauvinist like myself. It took me a long time to become one. And not even all of them are misogynists like I am, but a lot of women have worked hard to make me one.

    Tomorrow I’ll dig up a couple of the references about the biological differences in homosexuals. Both kinds, men and women, resemble the opposite sex more than most members of our sex do, but the research doesn’t get a lot of coverage because it isn’t fashionable at the moment.

    Art,

    If you look at the descriptions of feminists describing marriage, if your open enough and can see the pattern, they are describing what its like for a gay woman to be in a heterosexual relationship.

    YES! I’ve actually been planning to do a post about that. A lot of the major feminists were lesbians, or at least there’s evidence that they were: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Germaine Greer. They assumed that all women must feel the way they did about heterosexual marriage – personally, I find the thought highly depressing. And since we do tend to be hormonally and mentally different from other women, we tended to assume that of course all women want the same things we do, not understanding that straight women have fundamentally different needs from us.

    We make up maybe 2% of the population. Laws should not be made to made 2% of the people happy and everybody else miserable! I shock people by saying this, but: while it would be ideal to set up law and social customs so that we queers can mind our own business and do our own thing, I’m sorry, but if the choice is between making us miserable or making heterosexuals miserable, we queers are just going to have to deal.

    I hadn’t thought of your point that a prefeminist lesbian who got married would probably have an unhappy marriage because of her inevitable lack of enthusiasm for her husband, and would then assume that that’s what marriage was like. That’s a very important insight. It’s also why I keep trying to convince (sometimes successfully) my fellow conservatives that we queers need to be allowed to love as our nature inclines. When we’re not, we’re easy prey for people with a revolutionary agenda, all because we’re expected to sleep with the wrong shaped people.

  35. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    Thank you for sharing your story. You have me wondering, how did you come across my blog?

    And you and your husband deserve a lot of credit for giving your kids so much attention and care. Even if Art is partly right in what he said, which we don’t know your family well enough to say and it’s a bit out of line besides, you’ve still done so much better by them than most parents today. Certainly better than mine.

    On another entirely different note, other things I wonder…since there are people like you, and Art who are of similar mind… Have others come together in groups who have the same knowledge, philosophy, ideas? Are there ‘schools’ and educational groups dedicated to sharing what you believe? Or is it a concept against what you believe/stand for?

    Well, if you explore the links in my sidebar, you’ll find some of the fora we post to and stuff. Most of the activism where some of us meet in real life is devoted to fathers’ rights, helping divorced fathers who’ve been denied access to their children. I think that’s the only “real life” stuff we currently do. Wendy Shalit got death threats for publishing a book in which she said that young women shouldn’t feel obliged to dress like Britney Spears or have sex without commitment, so what would they do to someone who says that patriarchy is a good thing? It would be fun to teach a class about it, though, aside from being afraid of being lynched.

    I’m glad you at least don’t like the unfairness in women’s favor you were listing. I’ve encountered a few women who won’t even admit that it exists. And there’s a wide gap between a mere “antifeminist” – that is, someone who thinks housewives deserve respect and doesn’t think women should get special privileges, like easier promotions – and an actual male chauvinist like myself. It took me a long time to become one. And not even all of them are misogynists like I am, but a lot of women have worked hard to make me one.

    Tomorrow I’ll dig up a couple of the references about the biological differences in homosexuals. Both kinds, men and women, resemble the opposite sex more than most members of our sex do, but the research doesn’t get a lot of coverage because it isn’t fashionable at the moment.

    Art,

    If you look at the descriptions of feminists describing marriage, if your open enough and can see the pattern, they are describing what its like for a gay woman to be in a heterosexual relationship.

    YES! I’ve actually been planning to do a post about that. A lot of the major feminists were lesbians, or at least there’s evidence that they were: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Germaine Greer. They assumed that all women must feel the way they did about heterosexual marriage – personally, I find the thought highly depressing. And since we do tend to be hormonally and mentally different from other women, we tended to assume that of course all women want the same things we do, not understanding that straight women have fundamentally different needs from us.

    We make up maybe 2% of the population. Laws should not be made to made 2% of the people happy and everybody else miserable! I shock people by saying this, but: while it would be ideal to set up law and social customs so that we queers can mind our own business and do our own thing, I’m sorry, but if the choice is between making us miserable or making heterosexuals miserable, we queers are just going to have to deal.

    I hadn’t thought of your point that a prefeminist lesbian who got married would probably have an unhappy marriage because of her inevitable lack of enthusiasm for her husband, and would then assume that that’s what marriage was like. That’s a very important insight. It’s also why I keep trying to convince (sometimes successfully) my fellow conservatives that we queers need to be allowed to love as our nature inclines. When we’re not, we’re easy prey for people with a revolutionary agenda, all because we’re expected to sleep with the wrong shaped people.

  36. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Querus,

    Thank you for sharing your story. You have me wondering, how did you come across my blog?

    And you and your husband deserve a lot of credit for giving your kids so much attention and care. Even if Art is partly right in what he said, which we don’t know your family well enough to say and it’s a bit out of line besides, you’ve still done so much better by them than most parents today. Certainly better than mine.

    On another entirely different note, other things I wonder…since there are people like you, and Art who are of similar mind… Have others come together in groups who have the same knowledge, philosophy, ideas? Are there ‘schools’ and educational groups dedicated to sharing what you believe? Or is it a concept against what you believe/stand for?

    Well, if you explore the links in my sidebar, you’ll find some of the fora we post to and stuff. Most of the activism where some of us meet in real life is devoted to fathers’ rights, helping divorced fathers who’ve been denied access to their children. I think that’s the only “real life” stuff we currently do. Wendy Shalit got death threats for publishing a book in which she said that young women shouldn’t feel obliged to dress like Britney Spears or have sex without commitment, so what would they do to someone who says that patriarchy is a good thing? It would be fun to teach a class about it, though, aside from being afraid of being lynched.

    I’m glad you at least don’t like the unfairness in women’s favor you were listing. I’ve encountered a few women who won’t even admit that it exists. And there’s a wide gap between a mere “antifeminist” – that is, someone who thinks housewives deserve respect and doesn’t think women should get special privileges, like easier promotions – and an actual male chauvinist like myself. It took me a long time to become one. And not even all of them are misogynists like I am, but a lot of women have worked hard to make me one.

    Tomorrow I’ll dig up a couple of the references about the biological differences in homosexuals. Both kinds, men and women, resemble the opposite sex more than most members of our sex do, but the research doesn’t get a lot of coverage because it isn’t fashionable at the moment.

    Art,

    If you look at the descriptions of feminists describing marriage, if your open enough and can see the pattern, they are describing what its like for a gay woman to be in a heterosexual relationship.

    YES! I’ve actually been planning to do a post about that. A lot of the major feminists were lesbians, or at least there’s evidence that they were: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Germaine Greer. They assumed that all women must feel the way they did about heterosexual marriage – personally, I find the thought highly depressing. And since we do tend to be hormonally and mentally different from other women, we tended to assume that of course all women want the same things we do, not understanding that straight women have fundamentally different needs from us.

    We make up maybe 2% of the population. Laws should not be made to made 2% of the people happy and everybody else miserable! I shock people by saying this, but: while it would be ideal to set up law and social customs so that we queers can mind our own business and do our own thing, I’m sorry, but if the choice is between making us miserable or making heterosexuals miserable, we queers are just going to have to deal.

    I hadn’t thought of your point that a prefeminist lesbian who got married would probably have an unhappy marriage because of her inevitable lack of enthusiasm for her husband, and would then assume that that’s what marriage was like. That’s a very important insight. It’s also why I keep trying to convince (sometimes successfully) my fellow conservatives that we queers need to be allowed to love as our nature inclines. When we’re not, we’re easy prey for people with a revolutionary agenda, all because we’re expected to sleep with the wrong shaped people.

  37. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way Q, i am sorry if i touched too sensitive spots.

    my angle is more from what i know about the schools, not directly what goes on in your family in fine grain.

    MCW is right that you are to be commended in that much time, and it is important. most important when the school crap breaks down.

    on another note, mcw, thanks for confirming my take on things. people look at me nutty when i start explaining how things work and they never heard it before, or its too odd. i actually do it alot since i am good with assembling the clues and getting a picture… (its a physics thing).

    so thanks a lot for that..

    here is a number game you can play too… you know the 50 50 work thing. each should do half the home work… etc.

    well, if you create two columns, and they represent qualities, and you fill them with numbers between 0 and 100… (say 10), you are now ready to understand feminist math. (i have divulged this before, and i do have a high visiblity place to write, but i dont want to be lynched or ruin things for others)

    once column is male, another is female. if you did it honestly you will have some numbers wide apart, and others close. the close ones are the qualities we do pretty much around the same, the ones far apart are the complimentary ones.

    ok.. now, comparitive advantage would dictate that in the tasks in which we do pretty much the same, either can do them and the score will be lower… however, in tasks in which one has comparitive advantage over others, its better to let the person with aptitude do it. as an extreme example breast feeding. a male would get a zero, and a woman would get 100%.

    so you can see that you can make a simple model…

    now watch when you apply fem math.

    fem math says that for every task you take half of each score.

    when your done the score will be the exact average of all the skills.

    ok.. now do the game allowing each to decide to do what they have comparitive advantage in. thats a heterosexual classical family.

    they get the highest score because they are a complimentary pair..

    now do the same when you use two females, or two males…

    your score is going to be closer to the false mean of the 50 50 game.

    in other words, due to “lack of complimentarity” same sex couples underpeform.

    heterosexual couples will perform at highest optimum. so they will do better than the other type.

    now given the lesbian thing you accepted before, how do you make the field more level for the gay pairs? (note that the one that comes out the worst is the single hetero mother they dispise).

    it destroys families because a womans sense of doing well is not based on the mean. she has to feel that together they do better than their average. it creates a constant sense that they should be doing better but they arent. so blame is sought for, and voila the media lets her know who to blame.

  38. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way Q, i am sorry if i touched too sensitive spots.

    my angle is more from what i know about the schools, not directly what goes on in your family in fine grain.

    MCW is right that you are to be commended in that much time, and it is important. most important when the school crap breaks down.

    on another note, mcw, thanks for confirming my take on things. people look at me nutty when i start explaining how things work and they never heard it before, or its too odd. i actually do it alot since i am good with assembling the clues and getting a picture… (its a physics thing).

    so thanks a lot for that..

    here is a number game you can play too… you know the 50 50 work thing. each should do half the home work… etc.

    well, if you create two columns, and they represent qualities, and you fill them with numbers between 0 and 100… (say 10), you are now ready to understand feminist math. (i have divulged this before, and i do have a high visiblity place to write, but i dont want to be lynched or ruin things for others)

    once column is male, another is female. if you did it honestly you will have some numbers wide apart, and others close. the close ones are the qualities we do pretty much around the same, the ones far apart are the complimentary ones.

    ok.. now, comparitive advantage would dictate that in the tasks in which we do pretty much the same, either can do them and the score will be lower… however, in tasks in which one has comparitive advantage over others, its better to let the person with aptitude do it. as an extreme example breast feeding. a male would get a zero, and a woman would get 100%.

    so you can see that you can make a simple model…

    now watch when you apply fem math.

    fem math says that for every task you take half of each score.

    when your done the score will be the exact average of all the skills.

    ok.. now do the game allowing each to decide to do what they have comparitive advantage in. thats a heterosexual classical family.

    they get the highest score because they are a complimentary pair..

    now do the same when you use two females, or two males…

    your score is going to be closer to the false mean of the 50 50 game.

    in other words, due to “lack of complimentarity” same sex couples underpeform.

    heterosexual couples will perform at highest optimum. so they will do better than the other type.

    now given the lesbian thing you accepted before, how do you make the field more level for the gay pairs? (note that the one that comes out the worst is the single hetero mother they dispise).

    it destroys families because a womans sense of doing well is not based on the mean. she has to feel that together they do better than their average. it creates a constant sense that they should be doing better but they arent. so blame is sought for, and voila the media lets her know who to blame.

  39. Artfldgr Says:

    by the way Q, i am sorry if i touched too sensitive spots.

    my angle is more from what i know about the schools, not directly what goes on in your family in fine grain.

    MCW is right that you are to be commended in that much time, and it is important. most important when the school crap breaks down.

    on another note, mcw, thanks for confirming my take on things. people look at me nutty when i start explaining how things work and they never heard it before, or its too odd. i actually do it alot since i am good with assembling the clues and getting a picture… (its a physics thing).

    so thanks a lot for that..

    here is a number game you can play too… you know the 50 50 work thing. each should do half the home work… etc.

    well, if you create two columns, and they represent qualities, and you fill them with numbers between 0 and 100… (say 10), you are now ready to understand feminist math. (i have divulged this before, and i do have a high visiblity place to write, but i dont want to be lynched or ruin things for others)

    once column is male, another is female. if you did it honestly you will have some numbers wide apart, and others close. the close ones are the qualities we do pretty much around the same, the ones far apart are the complimentary ones.

    ok.. now, comparitive advantage would dictate that in the tasks in which we do pretty much the same, either can do them and the score will be lower… however, in tasks in which one has comparitive advantage over others, its better to let the person with aptitude do it. as an extreme example breast feeding. a male would get a zero, and a woman would get 100%.

    so you can see that you can make a simple model…

    now watch when you apply fem math.

    fem math says that for every task you take half of each score.

    when your done the score will be the exact average of all the skills.

    ok.. now do the game allowing each to decide to do what they have comparitive advantage in. thats a heterosexual classical family.

    they get the highest score because they are a complimentary pair..

    now do the same when you use two females, or two males…

    your score is going to be closer to the false mean of the 50 50 game.

    in other words, due to “lack of complimentarity” same sex couples underpeform.

    heterosexual couples will perform at highest optimum. so they will do better than the other type.

    now given the lesbian thing you accepted before, how do you make the field more level for the gay pairs? (note that the one that comes out the worst is the single hetero mother they dispise).

    it destroys families because a womans sense of doing well is not based on the mean. she has to feel that together they do better than their average. it creates a constant sense that they should be doing better but they arent. so blame is sought for, and voila the media lets her know who to blame.

  40. Querus Abuttu Says:

    “Thank you for sharing your story. You have me wondering, how did you come across my blog?”

    It was interesting really. I have my Google Alert set for: “sexual assault”, “male rape”, “sexual violence” and “military rape”, because of my additional background as a forensic nurse/sexual assault examiner. One of the main areas I’m researching and looking at is related to thoroughness of forensic evidence collection, and whether or not collectors of forensic evidence are fairly collecting evidence (most of them are nurses/, and most of the investigators are male and don’t ask for a suspect exam). I’m looking at their educational qualifications, their history of credible or faulty expert witness testimony, their biases, and the trial outcomes for the suspects. I’ve done more work for the defense than the prosecution, lately, and reviewed a lot of cases. I’ve seen outcomes that were, IMHO, incredible given the lack of hard evidence, and seen men go to jail for over 12 years with an additional ‘sex offender’ label on their name for life, without what I would consider evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Issues like this have driven me to want to show people the inconsistencies that exist in the system, and I’ve been unpopular in many professional ranks, among my peers and among women’s advocacy groups.

    Anyhow…your site must have had the word rape, or military, or something. It showed up on my radar, and I started reading…and you know the rest. 🙂

    Now, I’m here to learn, but plan to still express my views with honesty and the research I find. (It will give Art something amusing to read, and respond to when he feels gracious):) I believe in being respectful even when there is a difference of opinion, even though I don’t always achieve that mark (I keep trying). Though I may not come to agree with the information that’s being presented here, and the information I read in some of the suggested books you and Art have highlighted for me, I know I’ll come away with a broader view and a lot more facts. I’ll be able to better understand the perspective of someone who has beliefs/understandings like yourself or Art (and I don’t mean that in any type of superior way, just different), and not discount your opinions or facts simply because they aren’t like mine.

    I find it a wonder that in all of this time in my life (45 years), I’ve generally ignored gender issues. I’ve done my work, studied, raised my family, and seldom considered how gender impacts the daily life of the rest of the world. Incredible isn’t it? Now, with my return to studies, I’m focusing a lot more on Violence Prevention, War and Conflict studies, Diasporas, and International/Global Health. One of the main areas I’m writing papers on has to deal with the issue of male rape. It’s a subject no one really talks about, or addresses in health care policy, yet male rapes, tortures and abuses have occurred all over the world (particularly highlighted in Africa in the past few years). The rest of the world focuses primarily on responding to violence to women. I find this incredible. When considering the health of a society, how can you have a healthy community when the men have been genitally maimed, or tortured, or sexually assaulted? Consider the impact to their community. How can those child soldiers expect to have normal lives when they are taken from their mothers, raped, made to kill and rape, and then grow to be older men who rape children, women, men and kill? What type of world does that breed?

  41. Querus Abuttu Says:

    “Thank you for sharing your story. You have me wondering, how did you come across my blog?”

    It was interesting really. I have my Google Alert set for: “sexual assault”, “male rape”, “sexual violence” and “military rape”, because of my additional background as a forensic nurse/sexual assault examiner. One of the main areas I’m researching and looking at is related to thoroughness of forensic evidence collection, and whether or not collectors of forensic evidence are fairly collecting evidence (most of them are nurses/, and most of the investigators are male and don’t ask for a suspect exam). I’m looking at their educational qualifications, their history of credible or faulty expert witness testimony, their biases, and the trial outcomes for the suspects. I’ve done more work for the defense than the prosecution, lately, and reviewed a lot of cases. I’ve seen outcomes that were, IMHO, incredible given the lack of hard evidence, and seen men go to jail for over 12 years with an additional ‘sex offender’ label on their name for life, without what I would consider evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Issues like this have driven me to want to show people the inconsistencies that exist in the system, and I’ve been unpopular in many professional ranks, among my peers and among women’s advocacy groups.

    Anyhow…your site must have had the word rape, or military, or something. It showed up on my radar, and I started reading…and you know the rest. 🙂

    Now, I’m here to learn, but plan to still express my views with honesty and the research I find. (It will give Art something amusing to read, and respond to when he feels gracious):) I believe in being respectful even when there is a difference of opinion, even though I don’t always achieve that mark (I keep trying). Though I may not come to agree with the information that’s being presented here, and the information I read in some of the suggested books you and Art have highlighted for me, I know I’ll come away with a broader view and a lot more facts. I’ll be able to better understand the perspective of someone who has beliefs/understandings like yourself or Art (and I don’t mean that in any type of superior way, just different), and not discount your opinions or facts simply because they aren’t like mine.

    I find it a wonder that in all of this time in my life (45 years), I’ve generally ignored gender issues. I’ve done my work, studied, raised my family, and seldom considered how gender impacts the daily life of the rest of the world. Incredible isn’t it? Now, with my return to studies, I’m focusing a lot more on Violence Prevention, War and Conflict studies, Diasporas, and International/Global Health. One of the main areas I’m writing papers on has to deal with the issue of male rape. It’s a subject no one really talks about, or addresses in health care policy, yet male rapes, tortures and abuses have occurred all over the world (particularly highlighted in Africa in the past few years). The rest of the world focuses primarily on responding to violence to women. I find this incredible. When considering the health of a society, how can you have a healthy community when the men have been genitally maimed, or tortured, or sexually assaulted? Consider the impact to their community. How can those child soldiers expect to have normal lives when they are taken from their mothers, raped, made to kill and rape, and then grow to be older men who rape children, women, men and kill? What type of world does that breed?

  42. Querus Abuttu Says:

    “Thank you for sharing your story. You have me wondering, how did you come across my blog?”

    It was interesting really. I have my Google Alert set for: “sexual assault”, “male rape”, “sexual violence” and “military rape”, because of my additional background as a forensic nurse/sexual assault examiner. One of the main areas I’m researching and looking at is related to thoroughness of forensic evidence collection, and whether or not collectors of forensic evidence are fairly collecting evidence (most of them are nurses/, and most of the investigators are male and don’t ask for a suspect exam). I’m looking at their educational qualifications, their history of credible or faulty expert witness testimony, their biases, and the trial outcomes for the suspects. I’ve done more work for the defense than the prosecution, lately, and reviewed a lot of cases. I’ve seen outcomes that were, IMHO, incredible given the lack of hard evidence, and seen men go to jail for over 12 years with an additional ‘sex offender’ label on their name for life, without what I would consider evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Issues like this have driven me to want to show people the inconsistencies that exist in the system, and I’ve been unpopular in many professional ranks, among my peers and among women’s advocacy groups.

    Anyhow…your site must have had the word rape, or military, or something. It showed up on my radar, and I started reading…and you know the rest. 🙂

    Now, I’m here to learn, but plan to still express my views with honesty and the research I find. (It will give Art something amusing to read, and respond to when he feels gracious):) I believe in being respectful even when there is a difference of opinion, even though I don’t always achieve that mark (I keep trying). Though I may not come to agree with the information that’s being presented here, and the information I read in some of the suggested books you and Art have highlighted for me, I know I’ll come away with a broader view and a lot more facts. I’ll be able to better understand the perspective of someone who has beliefs/understandings like yourself or Art (and I don’t mean that in any type of superior way, just different), and not discount your opinions or facts simply because they aren’t like mine.

    I find it a wonder that in all of this time in my life (45 years), I’ve generally ignored gender issues. I’ve done my work, studied, raised my family, and seldom considered how gender impacts the daily life of the rest of the world. Incredible isn’t it? Now, with my return to studies, I’m focusing a lot more on Violence Prevention, War and Conflict studies, Diasporas, and International/Global Health. One of the main areas I’m writing papers on has to deal with the issue of male rape. It’s a subject no one really talks about, or addresses in health care policy, yet male rapes, tortures and abuses have occurred all over the world (particularly highlighted in Africa in the past few years). The rest of the world focuses primarily on responding to violence to women. I find this incredible. When considering the health of a society, how can you have a healthy community when the men have been genitally maimed, or tortured, or sexually assaulted? Consider the impact to their community. How can those child soldiers expect to have normal lives when they are taken from their mothers, raped, made to kill and rape, and then grow to be older men who rape children, women, men and kill? What type of world does that breed?

  43. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Thanks for your consideration in our discussion. It is appreciated.

    I just wanted to bring up that I thought about your comment on history, and children’s knowledge of history, and in between stats problems went up to talk to the kids and tuck them into bed. I was curious as to exactly how much they did know and how much they could tell me. I asked them about what they were learning in history, and got a 15 minute presentaiton on WWI, Roosevelt, WWII, Vietnam, Martin Luther King, the California riots, (yes…and Rosa Parks), and the Civil Rights Movement. It might not be the “right” history to know in your eyes, but they had absorbed it well. They even knew who the president of the United States was, the vice president, their party affiliation, who the political candidates were for this year, their party affiliations, the name of the speaker of the house (they know that because of when the Dali Lama came to speak,..we watched the Congressional Award presentation), and the name of the secretary of defense (my boss).

    I counter some of their public school history learning with the morning BBC news, and information on people such as Emmy Noether, Charles Darwin, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc. Our family is also Buddhist by belief and practice, and so we take time to recognize the suffering of others, and pray for the eventual enlightenment and happiness of all beings. 🙂

    Don’t know if you are planning a trip to China or not Art. I was planning on going to Tibet this summer but had to cancel because of the violence (the military won’t let me go into an area of violence…funny eh?) If you go, I wish you well. It will be an adventure. I spent 3 years in Japan, and that alone was a learning experience, which I dearly loved. Take care.

  44. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Thanks for your consideration in our discussion. It is appreciated.

    I just wanted to bring up that I thought about your comment on history, and children’s knowledge of history, and in between stats problems went up to talk to the kids and tuck them into bed. I was curious as to exactly how much they did know and how much they could tell me. I asked them about what they were learning in history, and got a 15 minute presentaiton on WWI, Roosevelt, WWII, Vietnam, Martin Luther King, the California riots, (yes…and Rosa Parks), and the Civil Rights Movement. It might not be the “right” history to know in your eyes, but they had absorbed it well. They even knew who the president of the United States was, the vice president, their party affiliation, who the political candidates were for this year, their party affiliations, the name of the speaker of the house (they know that because of when the Dali Lama came to speak,..we watched the Congressional Award presentation), and the name of the secretary of defense (my boss).

    I counter some of their public school history learning with the morning BBC news, and information on people such as Emmy Noether, Charles Darwin, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc. Our family is also Buddhist by belief and practice, and so we take time to recognize the suffering of others, and pray for the eventual enlightenment and happiness of all beings. 🙂

    Don’t know if you are planning a trip to China or not Art. I was planning on going to Tibet this summer but had to cancel because of the violence (the military won’t let me go into an area of violence…funny eh?) If you go, I wish you well. It will be an adventure. I spent 3 years in Japan, and that alone was a learning experience, which I dearly loved. Take care.

  45. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Art,

    Thanks for your consideration in our discussion. It is appreciated.

    I just wanted to bring up that I thought about your comment on history, and children’s knowledge of history, and in between stats problems went up to talk to the kids and tuck them into bed. I was curious as to exactly how much they did know and how much they could tell me. I asked them about what they were learning in history, and got a 15 minute presentaiton on WWI, Roosevelt, WWII, Vietnam, Martin Luther King, the California riots, (yes…and Rosa Parks), and the Civil Rights Movement. It might not be the “right” history to know in your eyes, but they had absorbed it well. They even knew who the president of the United States was, the vice president, their party affiliation, who the political candidates were for this year, their party affiliations, the name of the speaker of the house (they know that because of when the Dali Lama came to speak,..we watched the Congressional Award presentation), and the name of the secretary of defense (my boss).

    I counter some of their public school history learning with the morning BBC news, and information on people such as Emmy Noether, Charles Darwin, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc. Our family is also Buddhist by belief and practice, and so we take time to recognize the suffering of others, and pray for the eventual enlightenment and happiness of all beings. 🙂

    Don’t know if you are planning a trip to China or not Art. I was planning on going to Tibet this summer but had to cancel because of the violence (the military won’t let me go into an area of violence…funny eh?) If you go, I wish you well. It will be an adventure. I spent 3 years in Japan, and that alone was a learning experience, which I dearly loved. Take care.

  46. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Q,

    Here’s the references I promised you. This is just a few links about the particular detail that I brought up.

    Gay men’s brains respond differently to a male odor

    Research finds differences in lesbian brains
    Responses to sex hormones more similar to those of heterosexual men

    Lesbian Brains Respond Differently To Pheromones

    There is also a fascinating and all-too-brief appendix about it in Dr. Louise Brizendine’s The Female Brain. But the works she refers are all erudite scientific works intended for people with doctorates, so they’re difficult to get ahold of, and I might not be able to understand them if I did. But the appendix is quite readable and only a few pages long, so if you look it up in the bookstore or the library, you’ll see what I mean.

  47. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Q,

    Here’s the references I promised you. This is just a few links about the particular detail that I brought up.

    Gay men’s brains respond differently to a male odor

    Research finds differences in lesbian brains
    Responses to sex hormones more similar to those of heterosexual men

    Lesbian Brains Respond Differently To Pheromones

    There is also a fascinating and all-too-brief appendix about it in Dr. Louise Brizendine’s The Female Brain. But the works she refers are all erudite scientific works intended for people with doctorates, so they’re difficult to get ahold of, and I might not be able to understand them if I did. But the appendix is quite readable and only a few pages long, so if you look it up in the bookstore or the library, you’ll see what I mean.

  48. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Q,

    Here’s the references I promised you. This is just a few links about the particular detail that I brought up.

    Gay men’s brains respond differently to a male odor

    Research finds differences in lesbian brains
    Responses to sex hormones more similar to those of heterosexual men

    Lesbian Brains Respond Differently To Pheromones

    There is also a fascinating and all-too-brief appendix about it in Dr. Louise Brizendine’s The Female Brain. But the works she refers are all erudite scientific works intended for people with doctorates, so they’re difficult to get ahold of, and I might not be able to understand them if I did. But the appendix is quite readable and only a few pages long, so if you look it up in the bookstore or the library, you’ll see what I mean.

  49. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks M.,

    I’ll read them this PM. Thank you for the f/u.

  50. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks M.,

    I’ll read them this PM. Thank you for the f/u.

  51. Querus Abuttu Says:

    Thanks M.,

    I’ll read them this PM. Thank you for the f/u.

  52. Davout Says:

    querus abuttu,

    I would also suggest taking a look at Brain Sex.

  53. Davout Says:

    querus abuttu,

    I would also suggest taking a look at Brain Sex.

  54. Davout Says:

    querus abuttu,

    I would also suggest taking a look at Brain Sex.

  55. Mr Zopo Says:

    I don’t know if I should laugh or cry when I hear a feminist saying this, history has proven that women can be very heartless and corrupt.

  56. Mr Zopo Says:

    I don’t know if I should laugh or cry when I hear a feminist saying this, history has proven that women can be very heartless and corrupt.

  57. Mr Zopo Says:

    I don’t know if I should laugh or cry when I hear a feminist saying this, history has proven that women can be very heartless and corrupt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: