Dear Feminists (satire)

To me horror is viewed as a tragic comedy. This is because a movie isn't as scary as reality is.

Unless it is happening in the Middle East, I might not care about a horror movie since what's happening there is purely horrific. Sometimes children and women are oppressed there by their fathers, brothers and male cousins daily.

For it is a man's world there, still.

That's why certain feminists need to moderate their unbridled criticism about US military in the Middle East and especially about the West in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Feminists, your job is to facilitate change through dialogue, rather than just criticize the American government's gunboat democracy in the Middle East.

Look what happened to America when it forced Japan to open up trade in 1853: it led to the Japanese military bombing Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Why? Because a bunch of elites wanted to amass a fortune, whilst letting the Japanese military turn Japan into a militant society in the 1930s.

Today we need feminists to bring change to how we deal with the Middle East.

Even if it means 16 FA-18 jets and 300 Canadian personnel in Kuwait. This was a done deal in Ottawa, thanks to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and was made without consultation with the federal Liberal, NDP and Green Parties" elected representatives, most of whom still went along with the deal.

Even if it means crazy young males might turn into jihadi cult members overnight and cause trouble. In two recent cases, the so-called jidhadis were actually mentally ill men whose actions may look like homegrown terrorism.

It is by dialogue that war is prevented.

While horror movies amuse me, the Islamic State horrifies me enough to accept the increased military presence of America and Canada in northern Iraq.

However I am thankful that most feminists are involved in the growing dialog on the War on Terror. I hope their voices can be heard over the increasing call for military presence in the Middle East.

posted from Bloggeroid

---

Reference:

Criticism of the War on Terror: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_War_on_Terror

Feminists are Sexist Too (satire)

Women are so picky about their mates.

Firstly, despite protest contrary, their ideal man must be financial stable, i.e. they must be the breadwinner.

Yet women have been emancipated. Sometimes they make more than men do.

Why is it that women demand a financial stable man, but a man usually marries a woman with no visible means of income, save what her parents might give to her as a wedding presents, or nothing if they foot the bill for the wedding?

A feminist would call the man a misogynist, yet most feminists who are heterosexual demand that the man to be an employee with a good job (doctors, lawyers, or CEO of a company that is green). She would be working, too.

I believe it is sexist for a woman to demand such a thing of a man. It is sexist because few feminists complain about men with jobs marrying women who have no job, save to be homemaker. If they actually were complaining, then why are they not protesting in your neighborhood.

If women want to wear the pants in their future family, then I see no reason why a man must have a job to meet the requirements of a women for her to marry, especially if she is employed at a good job.

He is not a burden to her, just as a woman without a job marrying an employed man is not a burden to him.

Therefore the fallacy that a man must be a breadwinner in order to marry a woman regardless of her employment status is clearly evident.

As well, that a man must be a breadwinner is also an artificial requirement by women which is inherently sexist and misanthropic.

Feminists, cut out the double standard. You are equal in sexism.

Objectifying Gender and Social Conditioning (satire)

First of all, interested parties may want to Google "gylanic" and look for the feminist criticism of it, as well as research the role the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother and crone. Otherwise, we'll be working out of ignorance of what role feminists, Riane Eisler, and those archetypes play in daily life.

IMHO it's a joint effort. How it gets done requires that men refrain from doing their thinking with the little head, and that women remember that the male ego is a myth.

Otherwise it may become a battle of wills if either side has an axe to grind.

In order get beyond the objectifying of women, both sides have to acknowledge the role that the patriarchal roots of human society plays in it.

Likewise, the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother, and crone also play a role in women-only views of patriarchy and also need to be addressed to help sensitize the men to what women want to help both sides overcome this age-old problem.

Yet it is more than an age-old problem, it is also a challenge for both men and women due to social conditioning.

That is why I suggested that we make use of the extensive research that shows that objectifying women (and men) is due to social conditioning. The only thing that is "hardwired" into the brain is the sex drive.

As well, the terms "man", "woman", "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are artifacts of that social conditioning. The first two terms are genders rigidly defined by patriarchal society, and the latter two are forms of sexuality (sexual expression).

However, I am not suggesting that we try to undo all of our social conditioning. Rather, the focus is on objectifying women (and men).

When a person listens to a story of general interest written by another person without knowing the person's gender, it is impossible to know whether a man or woman wrote it.

Before the 1920s, after which time the genders were rigidly enforced and homosexuality was criminalized, a person's sexuality was nobody's business and homosexuality was condoned, provided that both parties remained discreet.

Once upon a time, transgender people were not subject to rigidly enforced surgical and often psychotherapeutic intervention, depending on the person's socio-economic background.

In other cultures, the third sex is accepted but within context of social rules sometimes being eroded by patriarchal values imposed by first-world nations, much as nationalism was imposed on peoples living in societies prior to the rising of nations both in Europe and in the Americas as well as Asia.

However, objectifying women (and sometimes men) is due to social conditioning. It is patriarchal in nature, and neither gender nor sexuality are immune to its effects. One of many ways to reduce the effects of such social conditioning is to sensitize oneself to the way such social conditioning plays on our relationship with others.

Alone, one does not objectify others, apart from treating oneself to be of sole importance to oneself and considering trusted others to be essential to one's well-being. Thus, one trusts first family and then friends.

Then how does objectifying others work? Objectifying implies that one is presenting the objectified as an object and thus depersonalizing the other. In contract, personalizing then implies that the other becomes known as a person, and subsequently respecting his or her rights as an individual, thus individualizing that person. As well, in language, personal pronouns tend to personalize a person while depersonalizing a person happens when s/he is described as an object to fulfilled the material needs of a person in power. Thus, there is a dominator-submissive dichotomy in the power structure associated with objectifying women.

Thus, maintaining an impersonal idea of a person without careful consideration of that person as a unique individual with the same rights as you or I is also a factor in objectifying other people.

Even so, the system of objectifying a person is not called objectification, which refers to the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing and is the concrete representation of an abstract idea or thing. While people are not abstractions nor are they an abstract idea or thing, our ideas about other people are abstractions when we do not know them personally.

The only term which defines the process of objectifying is depersonalization, which has both personal (from the point of view of the self) and social (from the point of view of the other within the context of self). Thus, other people cannot be objects without feeling depersonalized on learning that they have been objectified. Likewise, the person doing the objectifying may be unaware of the effect that such depersonalization is having on himself/herself.

Depersonalization has detrimental effects on both the objectified person and the person doing the objectifying. It is morally irresponsible for the latter to deny such effects or to blame the objectified for them.

However, objectifying a woman (or a man) is another case of situational ethics in that within the auspices of a loving relationship, the tendency to objectify each other is reduced by getting to know each other as people. Instead, by making it personal and a shared experience, such a relationship can reduces the tendency to objectify each other. Thus, objectifying another person denies a personal and shared experience.

As well, what defines a personal and shared experience requires communication between both parties on an equal level. Proponents of the view that prostitution is an objectified relationship deny that the prostitute and the customer are on an equal level, despite the fact that in some cases, as the customer gets to know the prostitute that he has chosen as a regular customer, they both may cross from a depersonalized relationship into a deeply personal and loving one.

Even the language used in prostitution depersonalizes each party: a customer is called a "john" and a prostitute is called many kinds of name, including the neutral term "professional".

Returning to the objectifying of women, this is a matter that may be remedied by social interaction both on a public and a private level. It cannot be done informally without facing the risks that depersonalization entails. Nor can it be done by people who are not familiar with the terms I have introduced here.

This is why I have introduced most of the concepts which face each and every person, men and women, as well as heterosexuals and homosexuals.

---

Originally posted on December 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Reference:

Social conditioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning
Transgender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Depersonalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization

Ah shit: Feminists Don't Get It Right

Before you get into the meat of this entry, please read about Marc Lepine: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/rapidfire/story.html?id=bd7367a7-1f49-4c5d-949d-7e5a85941b40 and http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/hammer/73/lepine.html

All these stories miss the girlfriend mentioned in a few other reports. However, let a man tell of the aftermath of Lepine's murder spree:


My problem with the White Ribbon Campaign is not that it is trying to help female victims of violence, or that it is working towards gun-control.

My problem with the White Ribbon Campaign is that it offers up a cartoon in place of a schematic.

Most men don't rape, don't beat, and don't murder their partners. Most men don't get into drunken brawls and murder whoever dissed them at the bar.

My problem with the White Ribbon Campaign is that it uses the image of Marc Lepine to stand in for a very complex social problem. It is a way of making us feel good about ourselves without addressing the real (and much more difficult) problem of domestic violence itself.

The problem isn't just that some individual men kill women. The problem is that some individual men and a much smaller number of women kill other men.

Leaving aside the minority of those murderers who are clinically insane - who murder because a leprechaun on their shoulder tells them to - what we are dealing with is a problem of violence.
-- http://ed-rex.com/fact/dec6.html

Statistically, more men are killed by other men every year than women are. In fact, it's about 75 percent of murders. Yes, one in four of murder victims are women. However, 90 percent of murderers are men.

To use Marc Lepine's murder spree as a memorial is to distort the truth: violent men do violence to men, women and sometimes children without discretion.

As well, the media painted Marc as a quiet loner. Yet they rarely fully explain why.

In fact, child abuse and domestic abuse, let alone family violence, is never mentioned by feminists outside of context with violence against women and the endemic violence perpetrated within the context of patriarchy.

Ironically, the start of the US's entry into WW2 was also on December 7, 1941 - war is proof that men are sometimes called upon to do violence against other men, women and children for the greater good. Even so, it helps to reconcile with the innocent victims of war.

Let us not forget that most violence against women is the result of domestic and family violence, including Lepine's murder spree.

More violence has been done against men by men.

Let's stop pretending violence against women is an epidemic, for the real epidemic is that more and more men (and women and children) are victims of violence!

Let's stop violence, now.

---

Originally written before April 8, 2007 at 3:59 AM
Previously edited on: November 19, 2011 at 1:00 AM
Previously edited on: November 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Rant about the UBC Rapist (satire)

I am a man and according to feminist thetoric I am inherently sexist. Isn't that too a sexist statement? Yes, neither side of the gender divide is innocent of sexism.

Oh wait1 I am not supposed to be ranting incoherently that is off topic. :p

Feminism is not free of bias itself. Since it is too inherently biased, then it becomes like a filter that facilitates dialog between all genders.

At 50, I realize that my biases are partially inherent. I refuse to exaggerate the sexism inherent in male rhetoric. There is no such thing as male sexism being totally inherent because such extremes are few in number.

For confirmation bias denies this, and a few feminists prove my point when they discuss the male stereotype.

Another feminist bias regards women as a visible minority when unemployed and underpaid. This depends on the age group.

Sometimes feminist rhetoric tends to turn grey areas of human civilization into black and white caricatures of reality while presenting it as reality.

Overall there is a gender bias present which is more subtle than men acknowledge.

How am I to be free of such bias if the confirmation bias of feminists label some of my actions as sexist yet sometimes deny theirs to be sexist by use of the fallacy that all men are sexist while subtly stating that only men are sexist.

The truth is, belief in the gender binary makes men and women equally culpable in being sexist. Either gender, be it male or female, is capable of using fallacies to propagandize their confirmation biases about gender.

When a person encounters such biases and does not question them, there are many reasons for non-confrontation of these biases.

Confrontational methods of dealing with gender biases common to the limitations of the gender binary may be observed by a person as a political ploy to exercise freedom of expression and of associations.

So feminists protest publicly the glass ceiling's effect on women's wages. Then the term "rape culture" is used to morph sexual assaults of women into attempted rape and label the survivors of such assaults as victims.

In response, I deny that there are victims; there are only survivors of sexual assault. Even when the perpetrator escalates his violence against some women in the future, and rape become likely, they are then survivors of rape.

My reason for removing the term "victim" from my rhetoric is to imply that the human species is capable of surviving violence.

Not all men are rapists, nor is a man inherently violent. Both genders are capable of violence.

Therefore, the introduction of victimology into the discussion of sexual violence is inherently an artifact of the patriarchy that pervades society at this point in time.

Thus, by using the term "survivor" I have reframed sexual violence in a pro-active manner, rather than catering to a patriarchal bias by calling a victim a survivor.

This reframed view turns a victim into an empowered individual, and negates the perpetrator's impact. For victimology implies that there is a victim and a perpetrator as well as a them versus us ideology.

Calling such a victim a survivor does not negate the victim's experience. Rather, it removes the survivor from remaining powerless.

What does this make the perpetrator but a potential rapist? Especially when he escalates his violence.

As for myself, I have no sympathy for the rapist. He thinks he is entitled to exercise his power over a potential victim because in doing so, his loss of control over his sexual urges motivates him to gain control over someone potentially weaker than him.

How ironic that something that uncontrolled results in a show of power that reflect a hidden impotence!

If a man needs that much excitement in his life, then he is truly a sexual psychopath. Even though he may have a partner, not even she and his circle of friends would suspect him of such a crime.

A prime example of this is the UBC rapist whose six victims I only see as six survivors of an inept offender who gave up when his crimes became known.

To the survivors I have this to say: "through no fault of your own you survived a terrifying act of violence and prevented rape.

Thus you six prove that there is no rape culture at UBC."

These six acts of violence reflect instead a rape culture inherent with the perpetrator's family within their community.

"Less than 1% of women own property": Debunking the myth

This isn't a myth; it's political opinion. It's also a form of propaganda.

By appealing to the emotions, it also is a logical fallacy.

For through marriage, women own property. Indeed, most of young feminists today have mothers who own property. Even in countries where women are oppressed, women own property either through their husband or their son(s).

"Almost half of world property is held in trust by women" would be closer to the truth.

---

Reference:
Phillip Cohen (March 8, 2013), The Atlantic, "'Women Own 1% of World Property': A Feminist Myth That Won't Die"
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/

Beyond December 6: Transcending "ISMs": Religion and Cyborg Feminism as Holistic Ideology

[Formerly titled Transcending "ISMs": Religion and Cyborg Feminism as Holistic Ideology on December 19. 2007]

Even though feminism, due to its socialist roots, rejects religion, I am not going to exclude feminists from my questions about what makes us who we are.

Otherwise, another Marc Lepine is in the making due to bullying of the perceived weak by weak-willed people who fear the weak yet pretend to be superior to them, whether it is Lepine's father and late sister, feminist radicals, reviled patriarchal demagogues or even social activists.

Given the rise of feminist paganism and the Goddess feminism movement, I agree with Haraway that with "woman" being a social construct much like "homosexual" and "youth", both movements are reactionary and are based on the hypothesis that in the roots of patriarchism are both the means of oppression of women and their ultimate liberation.

Since the social construct, "woman", arises out of the patriarchy, then feminism is actually rooted in a reaction to it but is in the end both symptom and solution, once a feminist transcends the duality of wo/man.

This is not to imply that cyborg feminism requires religion, but that post-modern fictions and myths are derived from science fiction which are stories based on extrapolations of scientific knowledge, and the stories that turn into cult classics, including animes, Final Fantasy and other online RPGs, and even Hello Kitty, reflect much of what Haraway discusses in her manifesto.

Thus, post-modern pop culture is inspired by various secular ideologies which are ultimately based on socialist revisionism that removed religion's influence on our collective histories, of which feminism was a large influence.

So instead of assuming madness is due to the gods, we assume the person is psychotic and need of help, due to our ignorance about religion which was never used to explain why the things ancient civilization did in the name of God. Rather, we learned that the Pyramids were built to satisfy the egos of the Pharaohs and that the Bible is not a useful reference for factual information - though a few of us got censured by well-meaning Christians for implying that the Bible was "just another book of myths".

But then so are Inuyasha and WoW based on myth!!

In her manifesto, Haraway tries "to build an ironic political myth faithful to feminism, socialism, and materialism". After reading Senft's commentary on Haraway's manifesto, I am inclined to conclude that the Cyborg Manifesto does attempt to transcend patriarchy itself by deconstructing what it means to be a woman by pointing out that "woman" is a social construct much like "homosexual" and "youth". Though, I will point out that her term "myth" does not imply fairy-tales of mythological characters, but rather metaphors necessary for post-modern feminists and their socialist comrades to transcend gender and thus end the mythological gender war.

It is sad then to hear of reactionary feminists adhere to radical feminist ideals to the point of pretending that Marc Lepine is only a symbol of systematic violence against women by the patriarchy, as he originally witnessed such violence in his home and was inculcated in it during abuse by his father. While Haraway does not address such violence in her manifesto, I do tend to get a sense of necessary desensitization by using the cyborg metaphor to transcend the duality inherent in post-modern feminism.

It's not so much about confrontation that should drive feminists to change the world as it is about transcending social constructs such as gender. As long as feminists continue to market the duality of real-world patriarchy versus mythological patriarchy, the gender war will continue victimizing women.

Therefore, December 6 is more about confronting the reality of violence against women than it is about actually changing the world. For in order to change the world, feminists will have to transcend the duality of wo/man rather than just react to the perceived duality of wo/man.

In order to market December 6 effectively, feminists have created as martyrs 14 young women, very few of whom were actually feminists. However, time and time again, they have ignored the symbol of male violence, Marc Lepine.

Indeed, most feminists remain ignorant of the fact that he was a victim of male violence, born to an Algerian father and a Quebecois mother. Indeed, very little facts about his father are known, apart from the fact that he had embraced Western values by becoming a mutual funds salesman yet had retained possibly Berber and thus Islamic influence of cultural values related to the raising of children.

It is unknown whether violence on TV influences gang violence or even violence among young women. One can more effectively argue that poverty may be a far greater influence on violence than violent anime like Inuyasha. My theory on violence in anime is that violence meted out on quasi-mythological characters by other similar characters is amusing at first, but any child who acts out such violence in real life is either going to get smacked down by an older sibling or punished by her parents.

In concluding that in households where the parents are distracted by legislated poverty, children lack supervision and thus "can get away with murder", social scientists are ignored by the State when recommendations to relieve poverty are clearly stated to solve poverty. Locally in BC, the woman judge hired to solve the child care crisis had her request for extra funding refused and a far less amount being given to help her with the provincial government citing "lack of funds". The current BC Liberal regime itself is afraid of losing votes by daring to tax its loyal party members, most of whom indirectly contribute to the daily plight of the poor and especially abused women through their tax breaks, depriving all of the public sector from adequate funding. Creative bookkeeping by the Campbell government's penny-pinchers had hidden this systematic oppression of the underclass, just to stay in power. It continued in the current government of Christy Clark.

Thus, all political parties that fear the loss of votes for making an unpopular move are acting according to the will of the people who vote them in, not the will of the ones who deserve the favour that move provides them.

No doubt in writing her manifesto Haraway performs a similar ignorance of facts by only hinting at the side effects of feminists being a product of the military industrial complex, inculcated through compulsory public education to become women only to react to male dominance by rejecting the patriarchal values learned in public school through enlightenment in post-secondary educational institutes, the traditional hotbed of socialist revisionism of our collective histories.

Therefore, the average reader needs Senft to perform commentary on Haraway since Senft, being an enlightened feminist, can "be the moon pointing to the sun". For me, reading Senft is like reading Shinran: there is no difference between commenting on feminist ideology and Pure Land sutras since both feminism and Buddhism are ideologies first. As well, anyone who declares politics has nothing to do with religion, as Gandhi originally stated, really know nothing about religion at all.

Once you transcend the differences between politics and religion, even the religious statement — "I am that I am" — can be as radical as the feminist hypothesis that "the patriarchy uses the threat of violence to maintain civil order so that States may be prosperous and their citizens productive".

It has been said that "information wants to be free", and that the civilization that is great is the one that rises above religious oppression. But I say that in order to truly be free, one needs to rise above one's political ideology and transcend it. For as long as one clings to whatever flavour of feminism or other ideological "ism", one will remain a product of the military industrial complex, picking sides and fated to endure the hell of dualism epitomized as "wo/man" and similar social constructs.

In order for humanity to be truly free, all it takes is taking a breath and liberating oneself of ideology. For me as a Buddhist anarchist , that seems to be the subtle message contained in the Cyborg manifesto: the process of liberation includes freedom from "isms", even if it means transcending the Buddha and anarchy to support the Christian left.

Even Marc Lepine was fighting against the duality of patriarchalism versus feminism by hating feminists.

In hating feminism, he actually hated the deprivation of maternal nurturance by his recently separated mother after learning to hate her through the beatings his father treated him to for not being a good son.

This shows the failure of patriarchalism, in which the father's power, instead of defending his family from poverty and legitimate threats, is perverted into forcing his family to live by his rules, only to lose power completely through separation and divorce.

Thus, the failure of patriarchalism is evident in the rising divorce rates, the increasing incidents of teen violence, and the mass murders which continue to be a part of our post-modern lives to this very day.

What we need today is not another ISM to replace old traditions with newly minted ones. Rather, we need to transcend the dichotomy of wo/man for something as old as early Christian idealism, which is something the feminists, due to their socialist conditioning, totally ignore.

Yes, we need a transhuman ideology which emphasizes unity, not division, between the sexes. It won't be found in feminism, for the roots of such a world transforming ideology demands that we stop denying God's existence, because so far the current dualism of patriarchalism versus feminism is actually tearing our post-modern society apart with its feel-good sophistry and its ego-centred idealism.

Indeed, we may need to centre the body politic with good, old-fashioned religion for the masses not unlike Matthew Fox's manifesto.

---

Added the punchline on November 3, 2010.
Corrected spelling on November 5, 2012
Nov. 19, 2011 edition made automatic to 20130120.0425

Censorship: The Myth of Male Power

When a man calls a woman a girl, in no way is it solely implicit that he means she is weak and helpless.

For calling a woman a girl only identifies gender. In the implied insult, "girl" == " female child", which requires suspension of disbelief regarding the conclusion that a child is powerless. This is a myth.

If a child was truly powerless, then why do grown adults fawn over a cute child? A good mass media example of this is the Home Alone franchise.

Therefore the use of the statement, "he called me a girl and thus implies I am weak and powerless" AKA "the male power trip" is a fallacy. For it is a myth that men have power over women. Most laws in Canada protect the rights of women, and thus render arguments about the myth of male power invalid.

This is because such intent cannot be proven since online discussions are protected by free speech.

Implicit in the above arguments regarding the myth of male power over women is its use in censorship.

To The Critical Feminist

If you're a feminist who supports critical thinking, then you should check out CAFE, rather than listening to your activist sisters propagate misinformation.

When a group uses hate speech to censor a person out of ignorance, it makes the ideology it represents look bad.

So if you consider yourself an intelligent feminist, then it's recommended you inform yourself about whoever you are protesting against so you don't act out of ignorance.

As far as I can tell from the UTSU's Facebook page, they outdid themselves in using hate speech, and acted out of ignorance to violate the University of Toronto's code of conduct.

Then they objected to being harassed and vilified online.

How then is feminism going to help free women of colour from oppression if they resort to the same tactics they accuse men of?

Bipolar Disorder as Metaphor: It's not Just Venus vs Mars

Bipolar disorder is a metaphorical fight between Mars (sexuality, libido, nymphomania) and Venus (fertility, motherhood, feminine wisdom). Antidepressants put the disorder into remission by sedating Mars. Personally, I prefer seducing my inner Venus, but feminists would object.

Depression is represented by Saturn, the metaphor of limitation of control and power. Neptune represents inspirational and intuitive energy, and with respect to mental health, may signify hypomania.

The Sun may represent egocentricity, and ego-related disorders.

Moon represents the mind and emotions, but is also representative of the Oedipus complex.

Mercury represents the intellect and reason. This may be unaffected by the other planets. However, the egocentricity of the Sun has a strong influence on Mercury, with possible defects in intellect affecting rational thought.

Jupiter may indicate the religious affect of mental illness, which may be due to bipolar disorder.

Notes on the Female Buddha Tārā

Known as Jetsün Drolma in Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) and Ārya Tārā in India, Tara is the female Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhsm. She appears as the female Buddha in Vajrayana.

She is the "mother of liberation" who represents the virtues of success in work and achievements, which is one of the eight parts of the Eightfold Noble Path, right livelihood.

In Japan she is called Tarani Bosatsu, and Tuoluo in Chinese Buddhism, where Kuan Yin is more popular.

On Tara, HH the Dalai Lama said:

• There is a true feminist movement in Buddhism that relates to the goddess Tārā. Following her cultivation of bodhicitta, the bodhisattva's motivation, she looked upon the situation of those striving towards full awakening and she felt that there were too few people who attained Buddhahood as women. So she vowed, "I have developed bodhicitta as a woman. For all my lifetimes along the path I vow to be born as a woman, and in my final lifetime when I attain Buddhahood, then, too, I will be a woman."

Within the Buddhist tradition Tara is bodhisattva, deity, and saviouress.

As deity, she personifies the perfection of wisdom (Prajnaparamita). As bodhisattva, she personifies compassion and action. As saviouress, she is the Mother of Buddhas.

---

References

Female Buddha Taras Mantra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibm1QysfhgQ
Wikipedia entry for Tara: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism)
Prajnaparamita: http://thenewheretics.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/the-perfection-of-wisdom-in-eight-thousand-lines/

Why Men Fear Women Leaders

Men fear women leaders in power today because women are capable of doing a better job than them.

Women have managed to raise children, fly combat aircraft, and perform duties on Shuttle missions.

At the same time, men have never been pregnant, suffered PMS or even menopause.

Indeed, no man has been a doula.

In today's post-modern world, the people best qualified to change world history are woman, not men.

Indeed, men are pretty obsolete as far as pregnancy goes.

Why, Rosie O-Donnelll's partner is pregnant by artificial insemination.

So, women, are you ready to lead us out of the darkness?