Longest Thread Ever

[PearlWatson]

I used "agrees to" because for many women (even today), the decision is coerced as opposed to chosen by preference. I used "all she will ever do" to emphasize the difference between doing what's right in the present and sticking to a path even when it may not be optimal. I used "playing a role" because spouses/parents play various roles for each other, as circumstances arise.

When I specifically said "chooses" you still made the comment that "if [a woman] is comfortable in [the cage], that is fine by you (like it would matter if her choice is "fine by you").
If a woman is "comfortable" or "likes it" that would clearly not be an instance of coercion, yet you still consider the choice to "play" an expected role to be a cage.

A guy makes the worst kind of feminazi.

 

[babe]

The cage is being limited to performing in those roles, not performing them per se. yes, when a woman agree that all she will ever do in her life is play the role of a nesting mother and spouse, she is agreeing to limit herself to that cage. If you are comfortable in it, good for you.

you and others of like mind, in preaching this point, come across as degrading women who choose to lean into the roles of motherhood and nurturing their families. There has been a backlash recently, a trend in the feminist movement, where ideologically-liberated women are rebelling against such logic and saying "to hell with you and your whole raft of ideas about what women should be. . . . I'm going to be a mother and stay home and take care of my kids, my husband, and my home."

we've always had some women who could do anything they wanted. That comes from having character and self-respect. Probably has a lot to do with their fathers, who probably taught them to talk straight and shoot straight and don't take crap from anyone, not from ideological utopians who buy into the marxist "equality" equation.

 

[babe]

I see choosing to just be a homemaker as setting a limit on yourself. I see just having a career, and not helping out in the home, as limiting yourself. The "cage" was a reference society's attempt to put women in the former role, but also applies to putting men in the latter role.

However, perhaps I did express that poorly. Thank you for calling me on it.

A lot of folks don't appreciate the "homemaker" and "mother" professions as much as they deserve. In my book, it counts for a lot, at least as good as a BS degree from a college. Too bad more businesses don't see it that way, imo. But then, perhaps in my experience I've seen some extraordinary women at work doing those things, and maybe a lot of women just get by in some neglectful/minimal sort of way, watching the soaps and in general being couch potatos/Walmart fashion exhibits.

I do think a pragmatic woman should develop some career, like my wife did. Even if she doesn't care to get into management at the hospital, she does a great service to many people as labor/delivery nurse. She also has started businesses which have succeeded. .. . well, she helped start them and left them to her brothers to carry on when she decided to become a nurse. She is also the backbone of my business, as a matter of fact. Some of those feminine talents, communication skills and multitasking abilities.

Her father taught her to shoot a gun, straight shooter style, and to talk with the same kind of purpose and aim. Her father placed great confidence in her in many other ways. And she always did the job.

 

[One Brow]

you and others of like mind, in preaching this point, come across as degrading women who choose to lean into the roles of motherhood and nurturing their families. There has been a backlash recently, a trend in the feminist movement, where ideologically-liberated women are rebelling against such logic and saying "to hell with you and your whole raft of ideas about what women should be. . . . I'm going to be a mother and stay home and take care of my kids, my husband, and my home."

One of the most amusing parts of these discussion is when people say,"I'm such a rebel that I'm going to act in a manner that conforms to what's been expected of me for decades".

we've always had some women who could do anything they wanted. That comes from having character and self-respect. Probably has a lot to do with their fathers, who probably taught them to talk straight and shoot straight and don't take crap from anyone, not from ideological utopians who buy into the marxist "equality" equation.

So, as long as we have 1 women engineer for every nine male engineers, it doesn't matter that 8 other potential women engineers were harassed, insulted, and/or discouraged from pursuing it? It's their own fault for not being able to put up with things no man is asked to endure to be an engineer?

 

[LogGrad98]

One of the most amusing parts of these discussion is when people say,"I'm such a rebel that I'm going to act in a manner that conforms to what's been expected of me for decades".



So, as long as we have 1 women engineer for every nine male engineers, it doesn't matter that 8 other potential women engineers were harassed, insulted, and/or discouraged from pursuing it? It's their own fault for not being able to put up with things no man is asked to endure to be an engineer?

The interesting thing to me is the amount of ridicule my wife received from various folks about being a stay at home mom. If she wasn't going to take the world by storm and be the next great CEO she was wasting her life. Why would anyone want to stay at home with the kids? Didn't she know she was giving in to the stereotype and reinforcing the male-centric biases of 150-years-ago America? Of course in the Mormon community she was pretty much the norm, but she grew up in an area that wasn't heavily Mormon, and many of her friends and acquaintances from high school just couldn't believe she would throw all of her education away, and allow the man to dominate her in forcing her to be a stay at home mom. So I guess the rebel part depends on the community and the context. She took way more heat for choosing to be a stay at home mom than she took when she decided to go back to school and perhaps jump start her career. The responses then were "well it's about time you started thinking for yourself". Funny how the counter-culture becomes the norm, then swings fully to the opposite block and becomes the new point of ridicule for not complying with the new "norm".

 

[One Brow]

The responses then were "well it's about time you started thinking for yourself". Funny how the counter-culture becomes the norm, then swings fully to the opposite block and becomes the new point of ridicule for not complying with the new "norm".

I've read so many reports of women, today, who are told they don't belong in STEM fields, that I can only say your wife is very lucky or the perception is very selective.

 

[LogGrad98]

I've read so many reports of women, today, who are told they don't belong in STEM fields, that I can only say your wife is very lucky or the perception is very selective.

Likely selective more than anything else. We are acquainted with a lot of "progressives" so to speak, especially of the feminist variety, and several of my wife's closest friends from high school are very active in the feminist movement. They viewed her decision to be a SAHM as giving in and being a slam on the movement. I remember at her 20 year reunion one discussion with a woman who refused to get married specifically because she viewed it as bondage to a male. She was incredulous that my wife would "choose" to stay at home, and kept giving me sideways glances the whole evening, as if she just knew she would catch me in the act of oppressing my wife.

She grew up in the Pacific northwest, if that means anything.

 

[babe]

Likely selective more than anything else. We are acquainted with a lot of "progressives" so to speak, especially of the feminist variety, and several of my wife's closest friends from high school are very active in the feminist movement. They viewed her decision to be a SAHM as giving in and being a slam on the movement. I remember at her 20 year reunion one discussion with a woman who refused to get married specifically because she viewed it as bondage to a male. She was incredulous that my wife would "choose" to stay at home, and kept giving me sideways glances the whole evening, as if she just knew she would catch me in the act of oppressing my wife.

She grew up in the Pacific northwest, if that means anything.

People never overcome their stupidity, no matter what cause they think they're for. Stupid is, just is.

And stupidity has no regional "home", though the PNW seems to have a kind of "stupid magnet".

 

[PearlWatson]

 

[babe]

I've gotta go out and print some faux rep and spread it around before I can pay this account. . . . . .

 

[PearlWatson]

The power of sarcasm:

There are none. Men and women are literally exactly the same, there is no difference other than a penis and boobs. The only imagined "differences" are complete fallacies foisted on us by an overly zealous religious movement that has had centuries to ingrain everyone with false ideas that there is even the tiniest difference at all in the sexes. Nothing mentioned as a difference could possibly hold any weight since it is all the product of a pervasively male-centric sexist culture that places a premium on being male and relegates all females to second-class citizens by design. We will only ever be free when we can resist any pigeon-holing of any kind and never acknowledge any differences in anyone, while at the same time celebrating and promoting, institutionally and through government mandate, diversity at every level.

 

[babe]

The power of sarcasm:

I just don't see this as sarcasm, not in the least. For a second I wondered if you were being sarcastic in saying that, but I had to rule it out entirely as unthinkable, because I know you. . . . or think I know you. . . . , I have to consider this to be a sweet sort of compliment, nothing less.

The only person on this board who knows you well enough to make that judgment is EJ Wells, who also is incapable of sarcasm.

Log obviously was speaking from the ideological mindset of Mormonism, which places Man at the apex of creation because of the fact that no man has ever been an idiot, a moron, or even been wrong about anything in all the ages of human experience, and properly should receive the grateful acknowledgment of his godliness from his women, who could never actually be right about anything because of the effects of their hormonal floods on their perceptions of reality. . . . .

The fundamental fact of science is that men have been perfected by God in His final act of making Man like himself, by the effects of testosterone exerted in the embryonic development of the male brain, essentially perfecting that instrument of truth and logic by clipping the great majority of interconnecting nerves between the left and right hemispheres, which enables Man to literally function in unconscious denial of ninety percent of the sensory inputs which trouble women with information about the universe.

 

[babe]

It's time to re-boot and discuss "consciousness".

 

[babe]

Consciousness: What is it?

Taking off from the anatomical facts where the brains, as well as every other sinew, tissue, bone, fluid or cell, differ between male and females across the range of known gender identities. . . ..

A male brain has a greater trend to focus on some issues, with perhaps more of a kind of "logic" and less of a kind of "emotion". . . . . because the male brain has fewer interconnections between the two brain hemispheres. This comes at a loss of conscious processing of many kinds of inputs. . ..

It means women likely "see" more in the faces of others, and process that information more "sensitively" or something. But can it be said that a women is more "conscious" of things than a man??? Most of that processing is done at a more subconscious level, a sort of "reflex" perhaps. . . .

So, anyway, what is "consciousness", in it's barest essence???

Do molecules have "consciousness" in their chemical reactions and interactions??? Approaching molecules with a charge will disturb or distort the localization of charges on the other molecule. . .

 

[LogGrad98]

Consciousness is an illusion.

 

[babe]

Consciousness is an illusion.

A Spanish physicist. . . I forget his name, I'd have to dig my old physics book out of my boxes of books. . . . .wrote

"We have dreamed the world. . . . ."

Our logical construct of what we think of the world around us, or the universe, is certainly a thing apart from "what's out there", I admit. . . ..

But we have some useful ideas, a body of knowledge that is the basis of a whole lot of technology, derived from some general or specific ideas in science, that does pretty much prove there is some utility, and validity to those ideas or models of interpretation.

But more than that, our every day experience and learning involves a whole lot of valid observations and interpretations of stuff and living things around us.

"common sense" is one sort of "consciousness", but some people are seemingly very intuitive, say about other people. . . .. I've seen some instances of friends who could literally read my mind and sometimes my wife and I both say the exact same thing spontaneously and simultaneously.

The alternative hypothesis, in many cases, can shed a lot of light on a subject. An unconscious person. . . . . shows what consciousness is.

Consciousness is the sum total of our sense about "what's out there" around us, or "what's in there" within us.

Next question:

How can chemical reactions account for this phenomenon???? How can a pure materialist explain it?

 

[LogGrad98]

In discussing consciousness and even existence I posed this question to my kids: can you prove, with irrefutable evidence, that the universe as it is now constituted, with all matter and human history in exactly this form, wasn't created at the time of your birth, just for YOU. Or conversely can you disprove the idea that you are the only thing that truly exists and everyone and everything else is merely a perfect and complete construct to provide you with a fully believable and "real" existence, while none of it is actually real at all.

 

[babe]

In discussing consciousness and even existence I posed this question to my kids: can you prove, with irrefutable evidence, that the universe as it is now constituted, with all matter and human history in exactly this form, wasn't created at the time of your birth, just for YOU. Or conversely can you disprove the idea that you are the only thing that truly exists and everyone and everything else is merely a perfect and complete construct to provide you with a fully believable and "real" existence, while none of it is actually real at all.

My kids would giggle at this, I think. They know pretty well what "imaginary" means. They play imaginary games all the time. Enough to give them some concrete notion of "reality" and how it is different from imagination.

Because a lot of stuff happens, and can be observed from a distance, that clearly in not something they are imagining.

But this particular comment is a close kin to many a philosopher's dawdlings along various and sundry riverbanks on warm summer days. . .. .. .Alice in Wonderland comes to mind. . . . .

 

[babe]

Science as the college-educated Cousin of Consciousness

Science as a discipline is nested in a set of axioms about objectivity, time, space, and matter, positing various notions such as our ability to accurately observe, measure, and interpret things. It is a more formal sort of "consciousness", well-bred and well-educated, and hopefully well-mannered. . . .

Consciousness is a direct experience both seen and quantified by our onboard senses. . . ..

I think it is also a cousin to "Conscience", or a sense of personal judgments about what we should and should not do. . . . .

 

[babe]

Art as the beautiful romance of Consciousness and Dreams

There is an art to life, I think. . . .

how to love self, others, and stuff. . . . .

how to dream, and choose. . . . .

how to have fun. . . . .