Absence of genius
Starshine Moonbeam
"Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
> Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> creating anything at all of lasting value:
Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
(Snip- The rest of the demento diatribe)
--
mhm 31x9
Smeeter #28, 29, or 30
WSD #30
Skep-ti-cult ID# 365-12149-907
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Division of Incendiary Devices)
StArSHiNe_MoOnbEAm aT HoTMaIL DoT cOM
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9
"Technology is getting better and that's fine but most of the time,
all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife, and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
Bob
> In article <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
>
>
>>Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
>>most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
>>truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
>>creating anything at all of lasting value:
>
>
> Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
>
> (Snip- The rest of the demento diatribe)
>
O'Keefe painted pretty pastel cunt pictures. That's hardly a great,
genuine, and original achievement in art.
Bob
Dennis B
> In article <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
>
> > Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> > most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> > truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> > creating anything at all of lasting value:
>
> Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
And Laura Nyro.
connor_a
> "Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
>
> > Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> > most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> > truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> > creating anything at all of lasting value:
>
> Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
>
> (Snip- The rest of the demento diatribe)
Who? Okay lets list the 'best' women alongside the BEST men and see if
things are 'irrelevant'.
Men aren't dominant by mistake and women exclude themselves by not
sharing the burdens, so no wonder woman as genius is a oxymoron.
connor_a
> Starshine Moonbeam <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7e245eb...@news.alt.net>...
> > In article <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
> >
> > > Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> > > most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> > > truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> > > creating anything at all of lasting value:
> >
> > Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
>
> And Laura Nyro.
How about Jenna Jamieson, Rachel Ryan and Flower ... all great porn stars.
Mctaste
Hyerdahl1
>From: Zippy zi...@doodah.btinternet.com
>Date: 1/25/2004 10:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the>most
eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single>truly great,
genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of>creating anything at all
they are just as capable of>mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint
very busily, yet
>cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely>that they
lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands>above all else.
Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole,
are and remain thorough and incurable>philistines: so that, with the extremely
absurd arrangement by which>they share the rank and title of their husband,
they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the
inferior>second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their
>weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and
>demeans us even in their eyes.
>
Well, let us look at the life of the man you quote here:
http://www.ljhammond.com/phlit/2001-09a.htm
Schopenhauer wrote The World as Will and Idea when he was in his twenties; it
was published in 1818, whenSchopenhauer was thirty. It aroused no response from
the public. For the next 35 years, Schopenhauer lived in obscurity in
Frankfurt-am-Main, a bachelor, supporting himself with inherited money,
confident of future fame.
IOW, he was a bon vivant, who complained that women were children. :-)
>--Arthur Schopenhauer
>
>
>
>
>
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
connor_a
> the public. For the next 35 years, Schopenhauer lived in obscurity in
> Frankfurt-am-Main, a bachelor, supporting himself with inherited money,
> confident of future fame.
>
> IOW, he was a bon vivant, who complained that women were children. :-)
>
> >--Arthur Schopenhauer
> >
Since women DO dress like children, behave like spoilt children, hell
due to this courts conclude "diminished responsibility" for most if
not all of womens crime because of the above.
If there ever was womens oppression, its due to their OWN doing.
Starshine Moonbeam
> Starshine Moonbeam wrote:
> > In article <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
> >
> >
> >>Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> >>most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> >>truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> >>creating anything at all of lasting value:
> >
> >
> > Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
> >
> > (Snip- The rest of the demento diatribe)
> >
>
> O'Keefe painted pretty pastel cunt pictures.
So you've heard of O'Keefe. That's all I needed to know. Thanks.
> That's hardly a great,
> genuine, and original achievement in art.
Well, you know who she is so obviously she's of note.
--
mhm 31x9
Smeeter #28, 29, or 30
WSD #30
Skep-ti-cult ID# 365-12149-907
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Division of Incendiary Devices)
StArSHiNe_MoOnbEAm aT HoTMaIL DoT cOM
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9
"Technology is getting better and that's fine but most of the time,
all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife, and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
"You can run but you'll just die tired and buttered."
-- Ryannosaurus
Starshine Moonbeam
"connor_a"(conn...@hotmail.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
Sure. Pr0n qualifies under 'visual arts'.
--
mhm 31x9
Smeeter #28, 29, or 30
WSD #30
Skep-ti-cult ID# 365-12149-907
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Division of Incendiary Devices)
StArSHiNe_MoOnbEAm aT HoTMaIL DoT cOM
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9
"Technology is getting better and that's fine but most of the time,
all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife, and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
"You can run but you'll just die tired and buttered."
-- Ryannosaurus
Starshine Moonbeam
"connor_a"(conn...@hotmail.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
> Starshine Moonbeam <silve...@tacoshells.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7e245eb...@news.alt.net>...
> > In article <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
> >
> > > Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> > > most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> > > truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> > > creating anything at all of lasting value:
> >
> > Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
> >
> > (Snip- The rest of the demento diatribe)
>
> Who?
Blob's heard of her.
> Okay lets list the 'best' women alongside the BEST men and see if
> things are 'irrelevant'.
Sure. Florence Nightingale vs the best male combat medic you can come up
with.
>
> Men aren't dominant by mistake and women exclude themselves by not
> sharing the burdens, so no wonder woman as genius is a oxymoron.
Go tell Marilyn Vos Savant that. I'm sure she'd love to hear all about
it.
--
mhm 31x9
Smeeter #28, 29, or 30
WSD #30
Skep-ti-cult ID# 365-12149-907
Alcatroll Labs Inc. (Division of Incendiary Devices)
StArSHiNe_MoOnbEAm aT HoTMaIL DoT cOM
http://www.geocities.com/tobydog9
"Technology is getting better and that's fine but most of the time,
all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife, and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
"You can run but you'll just die tired and buttered."
-- Ryannosaurus
Bob
> In article <401497EB...@hotmail.com>, "Bob"(boby...@hotmail.com)
> dropped a +5 bundle of words...
>
>>Starshine Moonbeam wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bv0udl$n5amq$2...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>>>"Zippy"(zi...@doodah.btinternet.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
>>>
>>>>Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
>>>>most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
>>>>truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
>>>>creating anything at all of lasting value:
>>>
>>>
>>>Georgia O' Keefe renders this entire screed irrelevant.
>>>
>>>(Snip- The rest of the demento diatribe)
>>>
>>
>>O'Keefe painted pretty pastel cunt pictures.
>
>
> So you've heard of O'Keefe. That's all I needed to know. Thanks.
Well, actually she was from around here so while Bob has been to some of
the places where she painted, and laid on the bench on the D. H.
Lawrence Ranch from which she painted tree branches for example, it
doesn't attest to whether or not her reputation extends beyond the front
gate. We went to the Lawrence Ranch becasue of Lawrence, not because of
O'Keefe.
Most of her works are stylized pastel cunt pictures. Like the "Vagina
Monologues" that is a fur piece from qualifying as "truly great"
achievement.
>> That's hardly a great,
>>genuine, and original achievement in art.
>
>
> Well, you know who she is so obviously she's of note.
Seems like someone stole one of her paintings last week from a local
government owned gallery. It made the news.
Bob
>
>
>
C.V. Compton Shaw
requires the following qualities in a person to create and produce the
same: 1. Imagination 2. Understanding 3. Soul and 4. Taste. It is clear
that all women do not lack these qualities. However, it is relatively
clear by the paucity of true fine art created by women that, on average
(with notable exceptions), they do not possess the same to the extent
that men do. Of course, I prefer refined and intelligent women (those
women who tend to have the aforementioned qualities).
Zippy wrote:
> Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the
> most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single
> truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of
> creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most
> forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of
> mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet
> cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely
> that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands
> above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case:
> women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable
> philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which
> they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual
> spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior
> second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their
> weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and
> demeans us even in their eyes.
>
> --Arthur Schopenhauer
Raul
> http://www.ljhammond.com/phlit/2001-09a.htm
>
> Schopenhauer wrote The World as Will and Idea when he was in his twenties; it
> was published in 1818, whenSchopenhauer was thirty. It aroused no response from
> the public. For the next 35 years, Schopenhauer lived in obscurity in
> Frankfurt-am-Main, a bachelor, supporting himself with inherited money,
> confident of future fame.
>
> IOW, he was a bon vivant, who complained that women were children. :-)
Another one of your pathetic attempts at character assasination.
Anyone who is familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy would see that
it'd be entirely out of character for him to be confident of, or
perhaps even want, fame.
Vincent Van Gogh had sold just 1 painting during his lifetime and was
virtually unknown then. The same goes for Franz Kafka. You'll find
many other cases of posthumous fame if you bother to look.
You aren't helping women by constantly embarrassing yourself here.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Zippy zi...@doodah.btinternet.com
>Date: 1/26/2004 10:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bv3hh2$n3srr$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>On 26 Jan 2004 16:30:30 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>Schopenhauer lived in obscurity in
>>Frankfurt-am-Main, a bachelor, supporting himself with inherited money,
>
>
>He was a clever man, he didn't waste his money.
He wasn't "clever" enough to make it to 24 tho. :-) He was a mot.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 1/26/2004 3:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04012...@posting.google.com>
Hehehehe... Why don't you emulate Schopenhauer, your mentor? First you'd have
to act like a child, and then complain about women, and then kill yourself.
Well, you've accomplished two of three,eh?
connor_a
> >Subject: Re: Absence of genius
> >From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
> >Date: 1/26/2004 3:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <6688b088.04012...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >news:<20040126113030...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> >> the public. For the next 35 years, Schopenhauer lived in obscurity in
> >> Frankfurt-am-Main, a bachelor, supporting himself with inherited money,
> >> confident of future fame.
> >>
> >> IOW, he was a bon vivant, who complained that women were children. :-)
> >>
> >> >--Arthur Schopenhauer
> >> >
> >
> >Since women DO dress like children, behave like spoilt children, hell
> due to this courts conclude "diminished responsibility" for most if not all of
> womens crime because of the above.
> >
> >If there ever was womens oppression, its due to their OWN doing.
>
> Hehehehe... Why don't you emulate Schopenhauer, your mentor? First you'd have
> to act like a child, and then complain about women, and then kill yourself.
> Well, you've accomplished two of three,eh?
> >
Women oppressed themselves, self exclusion via the self preserving
shell of femininity resulted in womens lesser rights so blame women,
not innocent men.
;-)
Each year 30,000 American sons of feminists believe its right to
bypass women altogether and "liberate" themselves, I'm proud of them,
since LESS men is good for womens rights.
I'll show you the 10 best male genuises, you show me your best 10
female geniuses and then we'll compare. ;=-)
Rebekkah S
>
> Go tell Marilyn Vos Savant that. I'm sure she'd love to hear all about
> it.
>
>
>
Marilyn Vos Savant is an idiot. I asked her a simple question about
what she thought of the relative IQ going down compared to past
generations because smart people are having few kids or none at all
and stupid people are breeding like rabbits, thus bringing down the
average IQ. (IQ is usually hereditary, although there are a few
exceptions). She replied the pathetically p.c. answer that IQ will
always be at 100, because 100 is normal. Well, no shit. Instead of
answering my question, she dodged it. I lost all respect for her.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 1/31/2004 7:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <d6f392f6.0401...@posting.google.com>
She actually DID answer your question; you just didn't like the answer. The
idiot is the one who asks a question, gets a good answer and eventually is
taught to understand that they asked the wrong question. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <6688b088.04013...@posting.google.com>
(edit)
>
>I'll show you the 10 best male genuises, you show me your best 10>female
geniuses and then we'll compare. ;=-)
>
Why 10? The fact that there ARE women who have genius makes my point that
there ARE women of genius.
One should also remember Marie Curie (dead), co-discoverer of radium, who
died for her scientific passion, Candace Pert, who was denied a Nobel for>her
discovery of endorphins for no other reason than her sex, Barbara McClintock,
who won a Nobel in science for her revolutionary work in the>synergistic
genetics of corn, Simone DeBeauvoir (dead), who followed both>>her heart and
her head by having a lengthy and torrid affair with Sartre>while, in THE ETHICS
OF AMBIGUITY, intellectually (correctly) choosing >his>rival, Merleau-Ponty (as
well as founding modern feminism with THE>SECOND SEX), and Marian Dos Savant
(an interesting consilience of name),>the human with the highest measured I.Q.
Grizzlie Antagonist
GrannySaysSc...@linkedto.nosnoop.com (Granny) wrote:
>Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<401497EB...@hotmail.com>...
>>
>> O'Keefe painted pretty pastel cunt pictures. That's hardly a great,
>> genuine, and original achievement in art.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Let's be fair here, sir. Prior to the feminist movement in the early
>seventies, women were for all intents and purposes closely bound to
>raising their families. Few and far between were those woman, mostly
>single, who pursued a career in any field you would consider as
>involving objective accomplishment, and those who did were often
>ridiculed and discouraged from doing so.
WAAAAA! WAAAAA!
> So, what you're in effect
>doing here is asking them to erase 6,000 years of history in 30 years.
Women like you are using the big meat-axe of feminism as a rationale
for erasing millions of years of evolution in order to mold human
behavior.
>Moreover, even if we concede that our brains are wired differently, it
>must then follow that in the general scheme of things each sex has an
>equal contribution to make,
Apart from breeding more men, women aren't capable of a great deal.
> for men cannot do their thing without
>women holding up their end.
Wow! What happened to "let's be fair"?
Granny expects men to kiss her twat and pay hommage to "the goddess",
but she doesn't think that there is anything illogical about women
insisting that men are useless - and, almost to an individual, this is
EXACTLY what women think.
>If any man thinks running a household and
>rearing a family is an easier task than putting in eight hours on the
>job, then they're sorely mistaken.
Yeah, that must be why women are always calling upon the government to
change the workplace to fit female preconceptions of what the
workplace should be like.
And that must be why women so often cut down on hours or leave the
labor force altogether to rear a family if they are in a position to -
I know of one female district attorney who did just this - because
they aren't getting burned out ENOUGH in the workplace.
Stupid tit!
>You may be able to build that cabin
>and bring down that deer, but just try doing everything else in
>between which keeps you and your children fed, clothed, the house tidy
>and neat and a zillion other things that magically get done without
>your magnificent direction.
Women are given those tasks because they can't do much else - not
because men can't do those tasks. Single fathers do a better job of
raising children than single mothers, so you see, men really ARE more
capable than women of "magnificent direction".
>Different roles do not translate into unequal roles. Get that much
>straight and the discussion will go someplace.
Women are inferior to men and should be subjugated and the discussion
should end right there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"The Germans are like women; you can scarcely fathom their depths -- they haven't any." - Freidrich Nietzsche
"No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they
have never thought seriously about them. As children, imbeciles and criminals would be justly prevented from
taking any part in public affairs even if they were numerically equal or in the majority; woman must in the
same way be kept from having a share in anything which concerns the public welfare." -- Otto Weininger
"There is nothing in the world like the devotion of a married woman. It is a thing no married man knows anything about." - Oscar Wilde
Bob
>>genuine, and original achievement in art.
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> seventies, women were for all intents and purposes closely bound to
> raising their families.
Well, let's really be fair. The feminist movement began in the 1850, a
century and a half ago. The myth of women being mostly bound closely to
their families began in the 1950. There has always been a class of
independent women who chose different careers.
> Few and far between were those woman, mostly
> single, who pursued a career in any field you would consider as
> involving objective accomplishment, and those who did were often
> ridiculed and discouraged from doing so. So, what you're in effect
> doing here is asking them to erase 6,000 years of history in 30 years.
Wrong. There has always been an independent class of women. What we're
not doing is accepting the feminist myth about 30 years of history.
> Moreover, even if we concede that our brains are wired differently, it
> must then follow that in the general scheme of things each sex has an
> equal contribution to make, for men cannot do their thing without
> women holding up their end. If any man thinks running a household and
> rearing a family is an easier task than putting in eight hours on the
> job, then they're sorely mistaken.
The so called "nuclear family" is myth that mostly began in the 20th
century. It combines the horrors of the industrial revolution sending
so many men off to factories away from our families with a feminist myth
about oppressed women who didn't have to go.
> You may be able to build that cabin
> and bring down that deer, but just try doing everything else in
> between which keeps you and your children fed, clothed, the house tidy
> and neat and a zillion other things that magically get done without
> your magnificent direction.
>
> Different roles do not translate into unequal roles. Get that much
> straight and the discussion will go someplace.
Yep. The female role is chosen because it's less work than the man's
role.
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
OhSojourner
Bob wrote:
>Granny wrote:
>> Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<401497EB...@hotmail.com>...
>>
>>>O'Keefe painted pretty pastel cunt pictures. That's hardly a great,
>>>genuine, and original achievement in art.
>>>
>>>Bob
Van Gogh isn't everyone's cup of tea either, but that doesn't mean he can't be
considered a genuine and accomplished artist.
OK, just for the sake of argument, what can we consider truly "original" in art
any more? In terms of "originality", which of O'Keeffe's contemporaries can
you name who did similar work? Also, who pays attention to the fine arts these
days anyways? Can anyone here name a famous present-day fine artist?
Surprised nobody here mentioned Leni Reifenstahl, (maybe she's too politically
incorrect?) whose dramatic cinematography in the 1930's was both original and
has had lasting influence in the realm of filmmaking.
http://www.enterstageright.com/cgi-bin/gm/archives/00001874.htm
Also, it's kinda silly to keep on shouting "Where are they?" when you have
Google right there in front of you. For example, if you do a search on "women
inventors" you will find (for instance) that it was a woman, Stephanie Kwolek,
who invented the bullet-proof fabric Kevlar -- an invention that has saved the
lives of countless numbers of men.
>> Let's be fair here, sir. Prior to the feminist movement in the early
>> seventies, women were for all intents and purposes closely bound to
>> raising their families.
>
>Well, let's really be fair. The feminist movement began in the 1850, a
>century and a half ago. The myth of women being mostly bound closely to
>their families began in the 1950. There has always been a class of
>independent women who chose different careers.
>
>
>> Few and far between were those woman, mostly
>> single, who pursued a career in any field you would consider as
>> involving objective accomplishment, and those who did were often
>> ridiculed and discouraged from doing so. So, what you're in effect
>> doing here is asking them to erase 6,000 years of history in 30 years.
>
>Wrong. There has always been an independent class of women. What we're
>not doing is accepting the feminist myth about 30 years of history.
>
>
>> Moreover, even if we concede that our brains are wired differently, it
>> must then follow that in the general scheme of things each sex has an
>> equal contribution to make, for men cannot do their thing without
>> women holding up their end. If any man thinks running a household and
>> rearing a family is an easier task than putting in eight hours on the
>> job, then they're sorely mistaken.
>The so called "nuclear family" is myth that mostly began in the 20th
>century. It combines the horrors of the industrial revolution sending
>so many men off to factories away from our families with a feminist myth
>about oppressed women who didn't have to go.
It's good you mention this; too many people are under the short-sighted
assumption that it was always this way. But, if one could imagine the way
things were before there were automobiles, factories, white collar jobs, etc.
the case was probably moreso that the "typical" family was one of an extended
family of relatives. That's probably the way it was for thousands of years;
the way humans probably originally evolved; and in fact the way most social
primate societies lived. There was more interaction among community members,
and, most notably, more cross-generational interaction (whereas these days,
culture seems to be divided by generation). In these original communities, the
older relatives also probably had a hand in looking after the kids (who in turn
were probably given necessary chores to do), so the task of raising them didn't
all fall squarely on the shoulders of one or two individuals. Women probably
felt more necessary back in the pre-industrial days, too, as they had a hand in
making necessary items such as textiles and household goods.
Yes, obviously, certain things got screwed up around the 20th century and
especially postwar; IMO it probably had something to do with the isolating
effects of suburbia and the sterilization of culture, leaving people bored and
without much of a sense of identity; also probably television and other
entertainment diversions. And in such times of discontent, collective groups
often try to define themselves by identifying an "enemy" -- hence modern
feminism blaming their problems on "men".
http://members.aol.com/ohsojourner/monkey.html (Truth #6)
>> You may be able to build that cabin
>> and bring down that deer, but just try doing everything else in
>> between which keeps you and your children fed, clothed, the house tidy
>> and neat and a zillion other things that magically get done without
>> your magnificent direction.
>>
>> Different roles do not translate into unequal roles. Get that much
>> straight and the discussion will go someplace.
>
>Yep. The female role is chosen because it's less work than the man's
>role.
The female hormone progesterone creates a calming effect, and is opposed to
testosterone, which is more of a motivator. Women also start off with higher
amounts of testosterone when they are young, but this gradually declines. This
can explain why women can produce talented works when they are younger, but
their "fire" doesn't always last as long as a man's. (*notwithstanding a
minority of women who are more sensitive to testosterone and/or have higher
levels of it).
>Bob
>
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <g0p82055ef39f5h1q...@4ax.com>, Grizzlie Antagonist
<grizzliea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Apart from breeding more men, women aren't capable of a great deal.
Come on, Gregarious Anemone, think of you mom! Was the event of your birth
not a Great Deal?