This is a FYI addressing followers and/or members of G+ who conclude from off-the-cuff remarks I made about misogyny and sexism. I as the messenger am sometimes accused of being a misogynist and sexist by certain #SJW within the communities both on Google Plus and on social media, e.g. Reddit.
"Hori ez dela nire asmo bat!" ("This is not my intent!") was what the Basque iraultzaileen (revolutionaries) were sometimes hear to shout when the Spanish government accused them of being terrorists rather than freedom fighters that they all were. Today they are politicians after they chose to serve their community rather than to continue to blow up Spaniards.
In response to such ignorance by my fellow revolutionaries who ought to know better, I have only the motto of the Order of the Garter to remind my accusers that this is evil thinking - "Honi soit qui mal y pense".
Though the word "honi" is borrowed from the Basque, the overall meaning in this context is, "just because I mention misogyny and sexism, your accusations of me regarding misogyny and sexism are but blaming the messenger.
For I am not a misogynist nor a sexist; rather, my use of misogyny and sexism help to inspire hyperbole and satire.
If you punch a fascist as Antifa, then you have become the fascist. Your high ideals and higher moral ground is a disgrace to freedom and democracy, and your only claim is to degeneracy and perversions of all kinds.
Until people of color, especially women, are no longer oppressed like those so-called terrorists in Europe, the New Left's cause is lost in parties on the weekend while a few revolutionaries begin a slow descent into the madness of drug abuse and the endless cycle of addiction and rehabilitation.
Yet not all revolutionaries are addicts. For the majority of the New Left are productive and sober members of society.
As for women who follow me and were offended by direct messages prior today, I have only this excuse: "I am old school and the metrosexuality of the average beta male who fronts feminism could lead I as a fool to become a misogynist and sexist by one small error, to listen to the heart when the voice of reason cries "Resist, resist, wafi sabil allah eiz wajil" (Resist, resist, for the sake of God Almighty).
No, I am not a terrorist for speaking Arabic; I am a revolutionary for peace, love, unity and respect.
Fuck ISIL, and death to the death cultists known as Da'esh. My thanks to Russia and America - work together to make politics great again!
For those feminists in the know, I rebuke the youtube male feminist who shot dead his co-streamer, a woman. Social justice ideology condemns murder as more heinous than shutting down free speech, and I condemn Antifa supporters for that.
In closing I will also deny that the presumed to be terror attacks in Europe and the UK are by terrorists. They were , are, and have always been freedom fighters.
In closing, I have this to say:
Après avoir été qualifiés de terroristes,
les combattants de la liberté
ont perdu leur cause de liberté,
et l'Occident - le monde libre -
n'est plus ce qu'il était.
After they were labeled terrorists,
the freedom fighters
have lost their cause of freedom,
and the West - the free world -
is no longer what it was.
As for extremists, they have lost their true reason for existence - to free their peple from oppression from the majority, who are "whiter" than they are, while taking the moral high ground.
This is not a race war, because the race ideology is based on pseudoscience - it is a fact that the West honors the light skinned over the dark skinned people.
This is not racist; this is the once unspoken truth, a manner of apocalypse, my revelation to freedom lovers everywhere.
If you are truly a revolutionary for freedom, you know what greater jihad means. Even if our right-wing detractors mock us, remember this: jihad is the holy war against the worldly, not all of humanity but only those people who have lost their way. So offer them the true way of freedom lovers, charity, loving-kindness or whatever you call it these days.
And remember that I am not an Islamist nor am I what label is used to delegitimize my place in the history of freedom.
Finally, as my German friends might think, I say: "Die einzige gute Party ist der Block Party. Fuck Politik!" (The only good party is the block part! Fuck politics!"
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
20170518
20150203
Bolas / Balls (poem)
Às vezes eu sinto áspero, desajeitado,
E deselegante porque eu não sou uma mulher;
Por isso, digo a mim mesma
A mentira sobre gênero: um homem não precisa
Seja gracioso, por sua presença
Tem sido conhecida ao longo da história.
Verdade seja dita, os homens não são graciosos
Porque eles têm testículos para proteger.
— English translation —
Sometimes I feel rough, clumsy,
And ungainly because I am not a woman;
therefor, I tell myself
A lie about gender: a man need not
Be graceful, for their presence
Has been known throughout history.
Truth be told, men are not graceful
Because they have testes to protect.
E deselegante porque eu não sou uma mulher;
Por isso, digo a mim mesma
A mentira sobre gênero: um homem não precisa
Seja gracioso, por sua presença
Tem sido conhecida ao longo da história.
Verdade seja dita, os homens não são graciosos
Porque eles têm testículos para proteger.
— English translation —
Sometimes I feel rough, clumsy,
And ungainly because I am not a woman;
therefor, I tell myself
A lie about gender: a man need not
Be graceful, for their presence
Has been known throughout history.
Truth be told, men are not graceful
Because they have testes to protect.
20140908
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.
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.
20140805
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
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
Sometimes "I Love You" Means Just That (satire)
I'd like to say this to a woman I like, but don't have the balls. It's not the fear of rejection that stops me, but the fear that she might misunderstand the declaration of love.
When a man says "I love you", not all women hear it just as it is. They assume it means the guy is saying "I am saying this hoping to become more intimate with you -and have sex" when the guy actually means what he says.
Sometimes it is impossible to declare my love lest the woman mistake it for sexual desire.
Love like this is so unconditional that the very thought of making love is a ridiculous fantasy. How can one misunderstand unconditional love as the very act of making love, which has conditions about love attached to it?
Sometimes "I love you" means just that. Assuming that the person declaring it just wants to get into your pants is as sexist as other applications of heteronormative masculinity to fulfil the urges of the male libido.
Yes, I am saying that a woman who assumes a man just desires her solely for sex is as sexist as that desire.
Unconditional love removes all such sexist notions because all the conditions that apply to erotic love are removed. In their place is mutual respect for each other's rights and freedoms.
This is why sometimes "I love you" means just that, and nothing more.
Originally posted on August 27, 2013 at 11:32 PM
When a man says "I love you", not all women hear it just as it is. They assume it means the guy is saying "I am saying this hoping to become more intimate with you -and have sex" when the guy actually means what he says.
Sometimes it is impossible to declare my love lest the woman mistake it for sexual desire.
Love like this is so unconditional that the very thought of making love is a ridiculous fantasy. How can one misunderstand unconditional love as the very act of making love, which has conditions about love attached to it?
Sometimes "I love you" means just that. Assuming that the person declaring it just wants to get into your pants is as sexist as other applications of heteronormative masculinity to fulfil the urges of the male libido.
Yes, I am saying that a woman who assumes a man just desires her solely for sex is as sexist as that desire.
Unconditional love removes all such sexist notions because all the conditions that apply to erotic love are removed. In their place is mutual respect for each other's rights and freedoms.
This is why sometimes "I love you" means just that, and nothing more.
Originally posted on August 27, 2013 at 11:32 PM
20140316
Cell Phone Safety and Security (satire)
Statutory rape laws may be seen as sexist when they protect good girls and promote chastity. However, they punish bad girls and sex-positive minors who tend to be a growing minority among technology-savvy children.
In Canada, sexual assault is a broad term covering everything from rape to sexual blackmail, especially in the case of Amanda Todd.
Yet the RCMP concluded that, because she consented, that there was no crime committed against Amanda since she was over the age of consent. However, there is legislation pending that would make it illegal to bullying or harass anyone online. Yet most of the bullying and harassment was actually done by her peers.
Of course, they are going to let the police entrap people online to enforce it. So I expect a lot of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges to this legislation once the Conservative government pushes it through.
In anticipation of the anti-bullying legislation becoming law in Canada, I urge everyone to secure your private phone calls both voice and text.
Currently I endorse Red Phone and Textsecure, even though I have yet to use them. Both products add a layer of security on top of texts and voice phone calls that is sorely lacking. Most cell phone calls and text messages can be decrypted since the encryption is weak. The only problem is, if you forget your password, then you have to reinstall Textsecure.
Reference:
Red Phone and Textsecure for Android:
https://whispersystems.org
In Canada, sexual assault is a broad term covering everything from rape to sexual blackmail, especially in the case of Amanda Todd.
Yet the RCMP concluded that, because she consented, that there was no crime committed against Amanda since she was over the age of consent. However, there is legislation pending that would make it illegal to bullying or harass anyone online. Yet most of the bullying and harassment was actually done by her peers.
Of course, they are going to let the police entrap people online to enforce it. So I expect a lot of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenges to this legislation once the Conservative government pushes it through.
In anticipation of the anti-bullying legislation becoming law in Canada, I urge everyone to secure your private phone calls both voice and text.
Currently I endorse Red Phone and Textsecure, even though I have yet to use them. Both products add a layer of security on top of texts and voice phone calls that is sorely lacking. Most cell phone calls and text messages can be decrypted since the encryption is weak. The only problem is, if you forget your password, then you have to reinstall Textsecure.
Reference:
Red Phone and Textsecure for Android:
https://whispersystems.org
20140128
Alice Miller and Transcending Sexism
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he and is his equal in education and work." — Severin, a character in Venus in Furs by Sacher-Masoch
By writing thusly Sacher-Masoch represented 19th-century mores and the enlightenment prior to suffrage of women circa the 1890s and throughout the first 72 years of the 20th century.
Even today, women are still not treated with equality through education and work in certain parts of Eastern Europe including the Balkans, as well as as Turkey, the Middle East and most of Asia.
Until that happens by allowing girls the choice to choose non-traditional paths of freedom before the age of majority, any inequality is due to a rigid dualism of male-female with men in the dominant role which is artificially constructed as a result of the patriarchalism that underlies each society which practises such traditions.
The solution is not matriarchalism, which itself is a rigid dualism of male-female with women in the dominant role.
Rather, both the sexes must endeavour to transcend the artificial construct of the male-female dichotomy and especially transcend the dominant-submissive dichotomy and truly become democratic and egalitarian without preference for the limited dichotomy be it of the sexes or of control. Although sexism is inherent in any system which supports either patriarchal or matriarchal power structures, it loses its power in a gender neutral power structure where power is shared by capable men and women
Thus there is a way out.
It starts with Alice Miller and goes beyond the December 6 Massacre to the sole purpose to emancipate men and women alike from the perils of child abuse, the root of human violence learned in family. The solution is not to break up families but to provide counselling to let survivors tell their stories without censure.
By sharing it is possible to help heal psychic wounds, thus beginning the road to recovery to help renew a sense of hope.
For gylanic egalitarianism is the way out of sexism.
Originally posted: December 23, 2010 4:27 AM
By writing thusly Sacher-Masoch represented 19th-century mores and the enlightenment prior to suffrage of women circa the 1890s and throughout the first 72 years of the 20th century.
Even today, women are still not treated with equality through education and work in certain parts of Eastern Europe including the Balkans, as well as as Turkey, the Middle East and most of Asia.
Until that happens by allowing girls the choice to choose non-traditional paths of freedom before the age of majority, any inequality is due to a rigid dualism of male-female with men in the dominant role which is artificially constructed as a result of the patriarchalism that underlies each society which practises such traditions.
The solution is not matriarchalism, which itself is a rigid dualism of male-female with women in the dominant role.
Rather, both the sexes must endeavour to transcend the artificial construct of the male-female dichotomy and especially transcend the dominant-submissive dichotomy and truly become democratic and egalitarian without preference for the limited dichotomy be it of the sexes or of control. Although sexism is inherent in any system which supports either patriarchal or matriarchal power structures, it loses its power in a gender neutral power structure where power is shared by capable men and women
Thus there is a way out.
It starts with Alice Miller and goes beyond the December 6 Massacre to the sole purpose to emancipate men and women alike from the perils of child abuse, the root of human violence learned in family. The solution is not to break up families but to provide counselling to let survivors tell their stories without censure.
By sharing it is possible to help heal psychic wounds, thus beginning the road to recovery to help renew a sense of hope.
For gylanic egalitarianism is the way out of sexism.
Originally posted: December 23, 2010 4:27 AM
The Sexism of Pure Land Ideology
Vow 35:If, when I attain Buddhahood, women in the immeasurable and inconceivable Buddha-lands of the ten quarters who, having heard my Name, rejoice in faith, awaken aspiration for the Enlightenment and wish to renounce womanhood, should after death be reborn again as women, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. — 48 Vows of Amida Buddha
In Pure Land Buddhism, I notice women who get reborn as women cause Bodhisattva Dharmakara not to attain perfect Enlightenment. They have to renounce womanhood, and subsequently be reborn as men.
This makes me wonder where women get reborn, because it is not any of the Buddhist heavens.
It is quite possible that lust may prevent both male and female Buddhists from finding true peace of mind. Yet gender differentiation itself is an impediment to spiritual growth and the eventual enlightenment of Nirvana.
Indeed, gender differentiation may lead to sexual temptation. This explains the need for the Buddhist vow regarding sexual misconduct.
In the Soma Sutta, the bhikkhuni Soma states:
"Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman'
or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's fit to address".
Thus, gender neutrality is linked to the Buddhist concept of no-self, which is a strategy the Buddha taught to relieve suffering.
Indeed, the Pure Land Buddhist seeks to be reborn in the Pure Land of Bliss, not as a man or woman but as a Bodhisattva.
48 Vows of Amida Buddha: http://venchinkung.com/48-vows-of-amitabha/
Women in Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism
In Pure Land Buddhism, I notice women who get reborn as women cause Bodhisattva Dharmakara not to attain perfect Enlightenment. They have to renounce womanhood, and subsequently be reborn as men.
This makes me wonder where women get reborn, because it is not any of the Buddhist heavens.
It is quite possible that lust may prevent both male and female Buddhists from finding true peace of mind. Yet gender differentiation itself is an impediment to spiritual growth and the eventual enlightenment of Nirvana.
Indeed, gender differentiation may lead to sexual temptation. This explains the need for the Buddhist vow regarding sexual misconduct.
In the Soma Sutta, the bhikkhuni Soma states:
"Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman'
or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' —
that's who Mara's fit to address".
Thus, gender neutrality is linked to the Buddhist concept of no-self, which is a strategy the Buddha taught to relieve suffering.
Indeed, the Pure Land Buddhist seeks to be reborn in the Pure Land of Bliss, not as a man or woman but as a Bodhisattva.
48 Vows of Amida Buddha: http://venchinkung.com/48-vows-of-amitabha/
Women in Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism
20140120
The Angels That Understand (Their Place in A Man's World) (Satire)
In 2003 tATu came out to the world by kissing after singing "All the Things She Said."
This video (above) was a promo for reality show "t.A.T.u. Under The Heaven" which came out in 2008.
After twelve years of existence, which is a long time for two young teenagers named Julian Volkova and Lena Katina, they grew up working as the girl group since 1999 and it went on hiatus in 2011.
However, the sexism inherent in Russian society is also contained in this short clip from six years ago.
Here is how the reality show "t.A.T.u. Under the Heaven" was introduced to the world:
Лучшее качество девочек — покорность.
Девочкам запрещается проявлять физическую силу.
Они не имеют права заниматься боевыми искусствами и брать в руки оружие.
Когда девочек бьют, они не должны стонать и жаловаться на боль.
The best quality in girls is obedience.
Girls are forbidden from expressing physical strength.
They do not have the right to engage in martial arts or hold weapons.
When girls are beaten they must not make any noise or complain about the pain.
It is apparent that this reality show was the last chance to grab more fame from controversy before moving on.
Back in 2004, both Julia and Lena came out and said they were coached by their manager to pretend to be lesbian to appeal to the world.
Given the power and influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is doubtful they were ever lesbian. This was a gimmick by their manager using the forbidden to appeal both domestically and globally. Both women are heterosexual, though Julia is consider to be bisexual due to her admission that she "still likes boys and girls".
When t.A.T.u was disbanded in 2011 with the previous seven years under scrutiny, including their proposed "Show Me Love" tour in the UK which canceled due to poor ticket sales in 2002, both women launched solo careers. It turned out the poor tickets sales was due to a parental advisory based on the belief that the girls' sexual image were inappropriate.
Having gone solo since 2008, Julia Volkova created her genre Sex Rock, and both Lena and her were based in LA for a bit but often return to Russia for tATu gigs and promos for their brands. Later Julia based herself in Moscow.
After breaking up Lena has admitted going to a shrink to recover from the 12 years of performing in tATu. I can't blame her.
In 2012 Lena moved to LA to reboot her career.
After Lena was being managed by Tristam Buckley from 2012 to 2013, the Tatu management team returned. Buckley helped reboot Lena's solo career which had gone down the tubes due to mismanagement in the year since t.A.T.u officially went into hiatus in 2011.
In 2013 Buckley sued for his share of the t.A.T.u. pie.
As of now, the new t.A.T.u, which began in December 2012, consists of small concerts they do and also product endorsement. However, the concerts they do ares not the biggest part of their lives due to being solo artists.
They also have their own lives to live. Julia has two kids from two relationships and converted to Islam because her second boyfriend is a Persian-Russian businessman, and Lena just got married in 2013 to a Russian musician.
Because the old t.A.T.u. concerts were a part of grueling tours, I can certainly understand why they are reluctant to dedicate all of their time to t.A.T.u.
Their solo careers have only begun.
As far as genre goes, Julia does Europop, Pop and Rock. Lena is definitely Rock.
However, these two angels of tATu will never be forgotten. These angels that understood their place in a man's world live on.
After Putin approved the anti-gay law, which forbids the practice of homosexuality in public, Rolling Stones Russia interviewed Lena Katina. During the interview they shared three bottles of wine. Lena jokingly admits to being an alcoholic. However, drinking is a big part of Russian culture along with big parties during birthdays and holidays, even on weekends.
Lena admits to not being particularly interested in politics back in Moscow, and loves the fact that American television filters out most of the "demonstrations, arrests, fights with the Special Purpose Mobile Unit" happening back home.
While she was not in touch with Julia after she moved back to Moscow almost two years before this interview, she's fine with that. As well, she holds no grudge against Ivan, the man who created t.A.T.u. and their fey-gay persona while performing.
Even though the lesbianism was all an act, I got the feeling after reading the interview, that to them, t.A.T.u was just as much performance art as it was a musical act.
Indeed, I am pretty sure it is the same with Pussy Riot, who may have inspired Putin to sign the anti-gay law due to the fact that none of the members of that musical act had boyfriends because they were ardent feminists too busy with their political performance art. It would be interesting for Rolling Stones Russia to interview Pussy Riot and ask them if t.A.T.u. inspired them in some way, too.
When asked if she and Julia would return to t.A.T.u., Lena denied it, saying that both she and Julia are very much into their solo careers. However, she never flat out said "Never."
As well, she described how Ivan had once took them to a drug den after the fame had gone to his head. Nothing like this shocked Lena Katina, who claims Ivan considered her to be the "conscience" of t.A.T.u. Such goings-on merely made her a little sad. In fact, she once fantasized becoming a famous psychotherapist who would counsel drug addicts for a living.
Well, after her beauty fades in her 40s and she becomes another dumpy babushka, Lena Katina the music star could become Elena Katina the psychotherapist in a world-famous rehab clinic for celebrities who want to kick their drugs habits.
Reference:
tATu tumblr fansite, blog post for January 17, 2014: http://ta-tu.tumblr.com/post/73629164053
t.A.T.u. v Podnebesnoi (promo 4) for reality show "t.A.T.u. Under The Heaven" circa 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia7zN4eym1E
T.A.T.u : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.A.T.u.
Julia Volkova: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Volkova
Lena Katina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena Katina
t.A.T.u sued: http://www.tmz.com/2013/06/09/tatu-lena-katina-manager-lawsuit/
2012 interview of t.A.T.u: http://www.muumuse.com/2012/11/10-years-in-the-wrong-lane-an-interview-with-t-a-t-u.html/
Rolling Stones Russia interview: http://www.lenakatina.nl/rolling-stone.php
20131204
Wake up Sheeple!! (satire)
Attention Sheeple: wake up from the dangers of the status quo!
I feel that society is antisocial when it lies about itself via mass media e.g. promotes a heteronormative and sexist status quo at the expense of homosexuals and women.
As well, youth culture that promotes ageism is also antisocial.
Thus it is society that promotes antisocial behavior when it deems anything the minority thinks is cool to be uncool and counter to the status quo of conformity.
Social norms only promote what is supposed to be normal within a cultural group.
Such norms become antisocial when they promote group harmony at the expense of honesty between members of that group.
When society promotes sincerity by promoting falsehoods to maintain status quo while calling it truth and penalizes anyone who exposes it, the seeds of antisocial behaviour are sown.
Are you still willing to remain sheeple?
Originally written October 26, 2013 at 3:38 AM
I feel that society is antisocial when it lies about itself via mass media e.g. promotes a heteronormative and sexist status quo at the expense of homosexuals and women.
As well, youth culture that promotes ageism is also antisocial.
Thus it is society that promotes antisocial behavior when it deems anything the minority thinks is cool to be uncool and counter to the status quo of conformity.
Social norms only promote what is supposed to be normal within a cultural group.
Such norms become antisocial when they promote group harmony at the expense of honesty between members of that group.
When society promotes sincerity by promoting falsehoods to maintain status quo while calling it truth and penalizes anyone who exposes it, the seeds of antisocial behaviour are sown.
Are you still willing to remain sheeple?
Originally written October 26, 2013 at 3:38 AM
20131124
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.
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.
20131018
Safe Drinking for Women (satire)
In Japan though, there is is a safe venue where women can be encouraged to binge drink but never be raped.
It's called #hostclubs
We actually need a safe venue where women can drink until they drop but never risk rape because the men know it's bad for business.
That Western culture has no such place suggests to me that bars and clubs are unfit for women, regardless of what the promoters suggest.
Even so, the truth is, when intoxicated, a woman who consents to sex still is at risk to rape because inebriation means she is not competent to give consent.
In short it is rape even when she consents to sex while inebriated. That is what the law says.
What really needs to be taught is education geared towards men that being drunk gives them no right to have drunk sex with a willing partner, and that it is rape.
It needs to be stressed that being a rapist will ruin a man's life forever
This is why I feel that Western society has need for host clubs as a safe venue for women to get drunk by men hosts who know that safe drinking is good for business.
Western culture's lack of such venues shows how sexist bars and clubs actually are.
It's called #hostclubs
We actually need a safe venue where women can drink until they drop but never risk rape because the men know it's bad for business.
That Western culture has no such place suggests to me that bars and clubs are unfit for women, regardless of what the promoters suggest.
Even so, the truth is, when intoxicated, a woman who consents to sex still is at risk to rape because inebriation means she is not competent to give consent.
In short it is rape even when she consents to sex while inebriated. That is what the law says.
What really needs to be taught is education geared towards men that being drunk gives them no right to have drunk sex with a willing partner, and that it is rape.
It needs to be stressed that being a rapist will ruin a man's life forever
This is why I feel that Western society has need for host clubs as a safe venue for women to get drunk by men hosts who know that safe drinking is good for business.
Western culture's lack of such venues shows how sexist bars and clubs actually are.
20130130
The Marginalization of Women of Color
Women are being marginalized around the world, and especially women of color.
While this blog post is not a comprehensive look at the problem, I am posting it to show the ease with which I can find proof to back up the marginalization of women of color.
With the recent spate of rapes in India. sexism is rife in India, the world's biggest democracy.
At the same time, women of color are oppressed (including Muslim women. This includes the Pakistan girl, Malala Yousufzai, shot and now living in the UK, the hundreds of women in Afghanistan who not only have to watch out for the Taleban but also their husbands due to cultural clash between tradition and Islam, which in itself is not oppressive to women.
Now before I finish this blog post, I'm going to add all the evidence to back up my claim that women are being marginalized around the world.
India gang rape (including commentaries)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/13/world/asia/india-new-gang-rape/index.html
http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-01-15/padma-lakshmi-responds-to-gang-rapes-in-india/
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/delhi-rape-activists-education-campaign-idINDEE90U02720130131?feedType=RSS&feedName=globalCoverage2
Pakistan girl, Malala Yousufzai, shot and now living in UK
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/01/04/malala-pakistan-girl-released.html
http://news.yahoo.com/pakistani-girl-shot-taliban-skull-reconstructed-103807211.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pakistani+girl+Malala+shot+Taliban+released+hospital/7775637/story.html
Afghani women oppressed by Taleban and husbands
http://www.fazeteen.com/issue01/afghan_women.html
http://newcommave.com/relationship-taliban-and-afghan-women
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126628&page=1
I apologize for not writing about the oppression of women in developed nations. It's less overt and is concentrated around economic equity between men and women in the workplace. As well, I admit to ignorance about the marginalization of women of color in developed nations, because on the whole, the marginalization isn't as bad as in other parts of the world.
First of all, the marginalization of aboriginal women in Canada has been well documented.
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/community-politics/marginalization-of-aboriginal-women.html
While this blog post is not a comprehensive look at the problem, I am posting it to show the ease with which I can find proof to back up the marginalization of women of color.
With the recent spate of rapes in India. sexism is rife in India, the world's biggest democracy.
At the same time, women of color are oppressed (including Muslim women. This includes the Pakistan girl, Malala Yousufzai, shot and now living in the UK, the hundreds of women in Afghanistan who not only have to watch out for the Taleban but also their husbands due to cultural clash between tradition and Islam, which in itself is not oppressive to women.
Now before I finish this blog post, I'm going to add all the evidence to back up my claim that women are being marginalized around the world.
India gang rape (including commentaries)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/13/world/asia/india-new-gang-rape/index.html
http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-01-15/padma-lakshmi-responds-to-gang-rapes-in-india/
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/delhi-rape-activists-education-campaign-idINDEE90U02720130131?feedType=RSS&feedName=globalCoverage2
Pakistan girl, Malala Yousufzai, shot and now living in UK
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/01/04/malala-pakistan-girl-released.html
http://news.yahoo.com/pakistani-girl-shot-taliban-skull-reconstructed-103807211.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pakistani+girl+Malala+shot+Taliban+released+hospital/7775637/story.html
Afghani women oppressed by Taleban and husbands
http://www.fazeteen.com/issue01/afghan_women.html
http://newcommave.com/relationship-taliban-and-afghan-women
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126628&page=1
I apologize for not writing about the oppression of women in developed nations. It's less overt and is concentrated around economic equity between men and women in the workplace. As well, I admit to ignorance about the marginalization of women of color in developed nations, because on the whole, the marginalization isn't as bad as in other parts of the world.
First of all, the marginalization of aboriginal women in Canada has been well documented.
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/community-politics/marginalization-of-aboriginal-women.html
20130105
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.
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.
20121125
Racism as Patriarchal Legacy
IMHO racism began 40,000 years ago, about the time we assimilated the Neanderthal, outside of Africa, and just before the ancesters of the Native Americans, the Asians and the like migrated out of Central Asia.
When India was invaded by Aryans, patriarchism arose, matriarchism was suppressed and demonized, and gylandry was wiped out of existence before history began.
Today in India the essentially democratic societies are the tribals, because they practice the essence of what the Buddha taught. Hinduism does not because it is essentially patriarchal. It instead practices the essence of the Vedas.
Am I suggesting racism is a patriarchal ideology? Yes.
For racism exists as long as women of color remain oppressed.
When India was invaded by Aryans, patriarchism arose, matriarchism was suppressed and demonized, and gylandry was wiped out of existence before history began.
Today in India the essentially democratic societies are the tribals, because they practice the essence of what the Buddha taught. Hinduism does not because it is essentially patriarchal. It instead practices the essence of the Vedas.
Am I suggesting racism is a patriarchal ideology? Yes.
For racism exists as long as women of color remain oppressed.
20110714
SEXISM IN A NUTSHELL
Sexism is found in a male-dominated culture which promotes a paternalistic ideology that puts men first, above women and children.
However, it depends on the situation. If I rib a close relative about getting married and "pop" some kids, I try to quickly say, "Just kidding!"
In a democracy, a bunch of politicians would enact laws to protect women, children, family and men by vote but commoners such as you or I cannot get elected. The lucky candidate must be upper middle class. Sexism is kept in check by laws which uphold human rights laws regarding women.
In the family, nobody is elected. Two people make love, and within 4 months, she's showing. Because sexism is learned behavior, usually it's done to fit in with an out crowd.
Yet in an equalitarian society, each gender, both young and old, take turns dominating the other out of fun, not spite. >:)
However, it depends on the situation. If I rib a close relative about getting married and "pop" some kids, I try to quickly say, "Just kidding!"
In a democracy, a bunch of politicians would enact laws to protect women, children, family and men by vote but commoners such as you or I cannot get elected. The lucky candidate must be upper middle class. Sexism is kept in check by laws which uphold human rights laws regarding women.
In the family, nobody is elected. Two people make love, and within 4 months, she's showing. Because sexism is learned behavior, usually it's done to fit in with an out crowd.
Yet in an equalitarian society, each gender, both young and old, take turns dominating the other out of fun, not spite. >:)
20070615
Overcoming the Patriarchy: a Man's View
"There are many characteristics of traditional masculinity that are positive and beneficial: being strong, courageous, willing to work hard and willing to sacrifice oneself to protect family and society in times of danger. And many masculine characteristics appear to be protective factors that help men to be at reduced risk for developing anxiety and depressive disorders. Most men do not over-focus on feelings. They tend to be more action-oriented, have higher self-esteem and more self-confidence, and do not over-analyze things, thus avoiding the paralysis of analysis. As well, most men appear to be able to compartmentalize well, a skill necessary for keeping things in perspective." -- Aaron White, PhD: ed-op in Visions Vol. 2 Iss. 5 2005
In his editorial, White points out traits of masculinity which could be beneficial not only to men, but also to women. For these are traits of assertiveness.
To reduce the risk of anxiety and depression, a woman could learn not to over-focus on feelings. By being action-oriented, a woman can be pro-active and thus raise her self-esteem and self-confidence as a result. Finally, by not over-analyzing things, she can avoid the paralysis of analysis.
As well, the ability to compartmentalize feelings is a necessary skill which keeps things in perspective for both men and women.
Indeed, a woman can learn a lot from men, just as men have learned from women.
In his editorial, White points out traits of masculinity which could be beneficial not only to men, but also to women. For these are traits of assertiveness.
To reduce the risk of anxiety and depression, a woman could learn not to over-focus on feelings. By being action-oriented, a woman can be pro-active and thus raise her self-esteem and self-confidence as a result. Finally, by not over-analyzing things, she can avoid the paralysis of analysis.
As well, the ability to compartmentalize feelings is a necessary skill which keeps things in perspective for both men and women.
Indeed, a woman can learn a lot from men, just as men have learned from women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)