still not there
cut by a penny from heaven
U.S. Women Still Earn Less, More Likely to Be Poor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Women still earn less than men for doing the same work
around the United States, although the wage gap ranges from 27 cents on the
dollar in Wyoming to 14 cents in the nation's capital, a report showed
Wednesday.
On average, women now earn 74 cents for each dollar men make, up from 60
cents two decades ago.
The nonprofit Institute for Women's Policy Research issued a report on the
status of women across the United States, concluding that most states got
``Cs'' on the report card which it has put out every second year since 1996.
``American women are on a slow and uneven road to equality,'' said Dr. Heidi
Hartmann, who heads the nonpartisan research group, which also measured
women's status in terms of poverty, health care, political representation and
educational level.
Nowhere in the United States do women get equal pay with men, according to
the report.
The wage gap varies greatly across the country, it said. Women make 84 cents
for every dollar men earn in Hawaii, and 80 cents in Maryland.
At the other end of the scale, women in Louisiana and Utah get 65 cents, an
increase of just five cents from the national average 20 years ago.
The report noted that the narrowing of the wage gap in recent years reflected
a rise in women's earnings as well as a decline in men's real earnings. In
only nine states did the wage gap between women and men narrow because the
growth in women's earnings outpaced the growth in men's real earnings.
The highest annual earnings for working women -- over $30,000 -- were
reported in the District, Connecticut, Alaska and Maryland, while women's
earnings were lowest in West Virginia and North Dakota -- coming in under
$20,000.
State-To-State Differences
Hartmann said the gaping differences from state to state underscored the
importance of public policy.
``Sometimes you can walk across a state line to go from good to bad. New
Jersey ranks among the top four states in protecting reproductive rights;
drive across the bridge and you're in Pennsylvania, one of the 11 worst
states. And women's median income plunges when you step across the state line
from Maryland to West Virginia,'' she said.
The report noted that women remained ``vastly underrepresented in the
political system in every state.''
Three additional women senators and two new female governors were elected
this month, but still, only 12 percent of the U.S. Senate, 5 of 50 governors,
and about 22 percent of state legislators are women.
In three states -- California, Kansas and Maine -- women have been elected to
both Senate seats, but six states have never sent even one woman to Congress:
Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Vermont, the report
noted.
``Women are making progress toward political equality, but at the current
rate of change it will take over a century to complete their journey,'' said
Dr. Amy Caiazza, the report's editor.
Women's health also varied greatly from state to state, the report found,
noting that lung cancer affected women three times as much in Nevada as in
its neighboring state of Utah, which has the lowest U.S. lung cancer death
rate.
Women also still had high rates of poverty -- 50 percent higher than men's --
and the hardest hit women were single mothers, Hartmann said.
``More than four out of 10 single-mother families are struggling to survive
below the poverty line. These women have largely been left out of the
economic boom,'' she said.
Poverty among women varies greatly among the states, with poverty rates
highest in New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Mississippi, Louisiana, West
Virginia, Arkansas and New York. Poverty was lowest in Wisconsin, Maryland,
Utah, Alaska, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Indiana, Delaware and Minnesota.
lord clod
explain
away
apologists
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
des...@my-deja.com
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Wednesday November 15 10:05 AM ET
>
> U.S. Women Still Earn Less, More Likely to Be Poor
The saddest part of all of this is that a post-feminist mindset has
insidiously made its way into the female psyche. A mindset in which
women are too afraid of the label "feminist," (those angry, hairy, man-
hatin' wimmin!)in which women believe that equality has been achieved,
and who believe that those women who haven't availed themselves of
opportunities have only themselves to blame. Add that to the rise of
of the self-help industry, which places blame for social problems at
the individual level and treats systemic problems as "personal"
problems, and you have a female populace which is mostly satisfied with
$.74 on the dollar.
desnos
shebr...@my-deja.com
I make more money than nearly every man I know. I am a high school
dropout. I wear devastatingly red lipstick and consider it the height
of egregious laziness to strive to be merely equal with men. I believe
many social problems do occur at the individual level and would never
work for, much less be satisfied with, $.74 on the dollar.
I'm too young to be a babyboomer and too old to be a gen X-er, so my
parents are obviously to blame. Too bad I'm not Freudian.
Lisbeth
The Oracle is into archetypes and loves her parents. Especially her
Father.
des...@my-deja.com
[...]
Yes, social problems do occur at the individual level, but treating
them at the individual level does not solve the problem for society as
a whole.
des
Jet Thomas
> In article <8uvf1c$a7v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> shebr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I believe many social problems do occur at the individual level
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, social problems do occur at the individual level, but treating
> them at the individual level does not solve the problem for society as
> a whole.
I have to think there's something to this. After all, I've
never been raped or sexually assaulted in any way.
Nor do I personally know any women who have been.
(I personally know very few women). On my own personal
individual level, that social problem does not exist.
And when I was working at my last job sure it was a crappy
job and I was underpaid, but I was the highest paid employee
there. I've never been discriminated against in employment or
educational contexts on account of my femaleness. On my own
personal individual level, that social problem does not exist.
The weird and disturbing thing about societies is that their problems
are the sum of all the individual problems of the people in the society.
One or two people solving their own individual problems makes
no difference to society at all, unless those people can manipulate
lots and lots of other people into the same or similar solutions.
Jyeshta
>desnos
Yes, to all of this. The one way in which being a woman has been
helpful for me is that, to other people, I'm perhaps less stigma-
tized for being unsuccessful and missing a few marbles. Less is
expected of women than of men, I think (except when it comes to
parenthood).
--
Layo
>In <8uvbd0$79g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> des...@my-deja.com writes:
>>The saddest part of all of this is that a post-feminist mindset has
>>insidiously made its way into the female psyche. A mindset in which
>>women are too afraid of the label "feminist," (those angry, hairy, man-
>>hatin' wimmin!)
That's so last decade. I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
supposed to avoid. All they know is that hot = powerful. That didn't
work quite so well for the group of women who are now in their
30's because - if I can generalize from the Pacific NW - the
kewl guys held insecure image-obsessed little bitches in such
contempt, and so did the homelier of the women. There was
quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
"independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you see.
"I respect a woman with a career" is secret code for "Will you be
my mommy?"
Extremes cause a swingback, but as generations come and go
there's generally little perspective as to the overall trajectory of
actions and reactions 'til the yunguns Reach a Certain Age. By
then they've made many decisions that will shape the potential
scope of the rest of their lives, so they end up hoping they can
encourage their children not to make the mistakes *they* did,
and around we go again.
>>in which women believe that equality has been achieved,
Do you really think they think that?
>>and who believe that those women who haven't availed themselves of
>>opportunities have only themselves to blame.
Oppressed people love to chew on each other. It's a go-home-and-
kick-the-dog thing.
> Add that to the rise of
>>of the self-help industry, which places blame for social problems at
>>the individual level
Even if being raised without, say, a father, becomes a widespread
social ill, each individual will still have to deal with their own
issues personally. It is all ultimately personal to the one who's in
pain, and blaming "society" is often the least effective way to help
yourself cope with the way *you've* been screwed. Observers
of the social ill who have not been hurt themselves usually neither
understand the issue realistically nor care to raise a hand to help,
and why should they? Who here thinks rhetoric will heal a broken
heart? Who here *knows* any pain other than their own?
Awareness may help stop current abuses, but it won't undo the
past, hence the need for "self-help" and the like - which by the
way often does make reference to a larger social context.
>> and treats systemic problems as "personal" problems,
They are personal as well.
>> and you have a female populace which is mostly satisfied with
>>$.74 on the dollar.
Are you sure that politicizing these women's feelings will help
*them* with *their* individual task of changing their response?
I can't help but feel that even if this works, the people who will
be helped most are the ones whose experiences most closely
fit a mainstream model of whatever the fucked-up problem is
purported to be. Those of us who lack common experiences
with, pardon me, a mob of sob sisters, will be as marginalized
as ever. I suppose that makes it a "personal problem" though.
I have always felt so left out of movements. I don't identify
ever with the 'wound of the week'. If having one's problem
publicly legitimized is the way to go, then when is my turn?
Where's *my* acronym and *my* support group?
I am just a throw-away from society's point of view, and all
society wants of me is that I straighten up enough to contribute to
the tax base. Pardon me, I'm feverish. I just had surgery
yesterday and no doubt I'm still fucked up.
>Yes, to all of this. The one way in which being a woman has been
>helpful for me is that, to other people, I'm perhaps less stigma-
>tized for being unsuccessful and missing a few marbles.
Yes to that, though I've outgrown my cute phase - you know, young
and full of potential. Thank god, in some ways.
> Less is
>expected of women than of men, I think (except when it comes to
>parenthood).
We're not expected to be the ones who accumulate the money and
territory, we're the ones who live within it and provide the warmth
and heart (so far as the family aspect of gender expectations goes).
If the man is powerful and intelligent and the woman is loving and
moral, those who vote for folks named Bush perceive family
values in full bloom.
Yes, it's still a sexist society. My eyes are wider open about it than
many who received the brainwashing reserved for the middle class.
(If you can talk college talk, that's you.)
I'm not shocked at all at what assholes people are, only by how
limited their perspective on it seems to be. Life is not only blindly
unfair but desperately, vengefully, pettily unfair. Wage disparity
is only a superfical symptom: a zit riding proudly on a tumor.
The notion that if women ran out to become wage slaves they'd get
'equality' is hilarious to me - what a bunch of tools. Equal to
*what*? *That*? A fine selection <snicker> I could puke, I really
could.
Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women. Poor people
have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
abstracts. Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
It is to laugh. My 'sisters' are who again? Was it the ignorant
white-trash breeders, or the educated career gals who deal
with pussy-whipped she-men and yet live in mortal terror of cock?
But you know things get better if you dialogue, formulate a few theories, get
some rallies together. . .
Sorry, I have no fellow [ ] people to cluster with: I'm rather
bitter that the route to power through group identification is
closed to me. I wanna fit in and fight for right and stuff like
that, but my next closest mental relative is thedavid, and our
genitalia don't match, so . . .
Layo
aloooooone, so alooooooone
matisse
Layo wrote:
> gsk wrote:
> >In <8uvbd0$79g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> des...@my-deja.com writes:
> >>The saddest part of all of this is that a post-feminist mindset has
> >>insidiously made its way into the female psyche. A mindset in which
> >>women are too afraid of the label "feminist," (those angry, hairy, man-
> >>hatin' wimmin!)
>
> That's so last decade. I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
> what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
> supposed to avoid. All they know is that hot = powerful. That didn't
> work quite so well for the group of women who are now in their
> 30's because - if I can generalize from the Pacific NW - the
> kewl guys held insecure image-obsessed little bitches in such
> contempt, and so did the homelier of the women. There was
> quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
> comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you see.
>
the brain washing of 'strong' and 'independent' was a mean trick to play on women
--by women, of course.
>
> "I respect a woman with a career" is secret code for "Will you be
> my mommy?"
>
layo, dear, it is all a code for wanting a mommy. but that line might have more
truth to it.
>
> >>and who believe that those women who haven't availed themselves of
> >>opportunities have only themselves to blame.
>
> Oppressed people love to chew on each other. It's a go-home-and-
> kick-the-dog thing.
>
is being a high power district attorney really a good opportunity?
>
> > Add that to the rise of
> >>of the self-help industry, which places blame for social problems at
> >>the individual level
>
> Even if being raised without, say, a father, becomes a widespread
> social ill, each individual will still have to deal with their own
> issues personally. It is all ultimately personal to the one who's in
> pain, and blaming "society" is often the least effective way to help
> yourself cope with the way *you've* been screwed. Observers
> of the social ill who have not been hurt themselves usually neither
> understand the issue realistically nor care to raise a hand to help,
> and why should they?
it is all part of our ideology. it is not only inherent in classical liberalism,
but thanks to freud, it has become quite the industry.
> Who here thinks rhetoric will heal a broken
> heart?
i do. it is all in words. you can talk yourself to almost any place (or at least
to any place within one's already limited perspective. but sometimes our
perspectives get shaken up enough that a new porthole comes into view)
> Who here *knows* any pain other than their own?
>
that question should have died centuries ago.
> Awareness may help stop current abuses, but it won't undo the
> past, hence the need for "self-help" and the like - which by the
> way often does make reference to a larger social context.
>
i just read this book called -scar culture- it is one fucked up book, and i
found myself twitching in my seat constantly. it is a nice critique of
psychoanalysis and the like.
>
> >> and treats systemic problems as "personal" problems,
>
> They are personal as well.
>
institutional problems might have a personal twist to them, but they do make
things harder.
>
> >> and you have a female populace which is mostly satisfied with
> >>$.74 on the dollar.
>
> Are you sure that politicizing these women's feelings will help
> *them* with *their* individual task of changing their response?
> I can't help but feel that even if this works, the people who will
> be helped most are the ones whose experiences most closely
> fit a mainstream model of whatever the fucked-up problem is
> purported to be. Those of us who lack common experiences
> with, pardon me, a mob of sob sisters, will be as marginalized
> as ever. I suppose that makes it a "personal problem" though.
>
> I have always felt so left out of movements. I don't identify
> ever with the 'wound of the week'. If having one's problem
> publicly legitimized is the way to go, then when is my turn?
> Where's *my* acronym and *my* support group?
>
C.U.N.T. (cute, unique,nomad,timeless)
>
> I am just a throw-away from society's point of view, and all
> society wants of me is that I straighten up enough to contribute to
> the tax base. Pardon me, I'm feverish. I just had surgery
> yesterday and no doubt I'm still fucked up.
>
we are all throw-aways.
>
> >Yes, to all of this. The one way in which being a woman has been
> >helpful for me is that, to other people, I'm perhaps less stigma-
> >tized for being unsuccessful and missing a few marbles.
>
> Yes to that, though I've outgrown my cute phase - you know, young
> and full of potential. Thank god, in some ways.
>
i have out grown that as well, and i have to say, it feels great. it is just all
bullshit, after all.
>
> Yes, it's still a sexist society. My eyes are wider open about it than
> many who received the brainwashing reserved for the middle class.
> (If you can talk college talk, that's you.)
do you really think their eyes aren't as open? i think it all depends on where
they are right now.
given your criteria, i fall into your category. there is double brainwashing
with such a group. as my friend M and i call it, we were raised to be the perfect
companions to professional men. We were trained to be strong independent women,
yet trained to be nurturers. This is a double bind of sexism that tells us we
must have successful jobs while having successful families. It is all a bad joke
to get us to do even more then we have historically done!
>
> I'm not shocked at all at what assholes people are, only by how
> limited their perspective on it seems to be. Life is not only blindly
> unfair but desperately, vengefully, pettily unfair. Wage disparity
> is only a superfical symptom: a zit riding proudly on a tumor.
>
true.
>
> The notion that if women ran out to become wage slaves they'd get
> 'equality' is hilarious to me - what a bunch of tools. Equal to
> *what*? *That*? A fine selection <snicker> I could puke, I really
> could.
>
i could puke as well. Its all bullshit.
>
> Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women. Poor people
> have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
> abstracts. Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
> with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
> cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
> It is to laugh. My 'sisters' are who again? Was it the ignorant
> white-trash breeders, or the educated career gals who deal
> with pussy-whipped she-men and yet live in mortal terror of cock?
>
I wish it was all as clear cut as you are putting it here. Most upper-class
women i know (and i clean a lot of their houses) don't work. They might work a
little, but hobbies do not really count in my book.
Its all fucked up.
>
> But you know things get better if you dialogue, formulate a few theories, get
> some rallies together. . .
>
what a laugh.
>
> Sorry, I have no fellow [ ] people to cluster with: I'm rather
> bitter that the route to power through group identification is
> closed to me. I wanna fit in and fight for right and stuff like
> that, but my next closest mental relative is thedavid, and our
> genitalia don't match, so . . .
>
fuck the group thing and damn the man!
J
des...@my-deja.com
plus...@aol.com (Layo) wrote:
> gsk wrote:
> That's so last decade. I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
> what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
> supposed to avoid.
You're right about them not knowing what feminism is, but they know the
stereotypes. I saw that teaching undergraduates at the U of MN.
>There was
> quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> innately more valuable
This is perhaps the greatest contradiction. I've often bemoaned having
to "appear" strong and independent when sometimes all I really want to
do is break down. Likewise, I've found men who profess to want strong,
independent women, but really they just want the little woman. I've
given up asking men out for this very reason.
> >>in which women believe that equality has been achieved,
>
> Do you really think they think that?
I've known many who do. Again, this is based upon my experience
teaching at the U of MN.
>
> >>and who believe that those women who haven't availed themselves of
> >>opportunities have only themselves to blame.
>
> Oppressed people love to chew on each other. It's a go-home-and-
> kick-the-dog thing.
Yes, but it seems to have risen to a fever pitch within the last 10
years in regard to feminism. There's a book I keep meaning to read --
"Social Darwinism in American thought." Maybe one of these days I'll
get around to it.
>
> > Add that to the rise of
> >>of the self-help industry, which places blame for social problems at
> >>the individual level
>
> Even if being raised without, say, a father, becomes a widespread
> social ill, each individual will still have to deal with their own
> issues personally. It is all ultimately personal to the one who's in
> pain, and blaming "society" is often the least effective way to help
> yourself cope with the way *you've* been screwed. Observers
> of the social ill who have not been hurt themselves usually neither
> understand the issue realistically nor care to raise a hand to help,
> and why should they? Who here thinks rhetoric will heal a broken
> heart? Who here *knows* any pain other than their own?
Given that the early goals of consciousness raising were intended to
help women see that their "personal" problems were indeed shared by
many, many others, and that the problems stemmed from systemic ills,
the goal was nothing other than changing the social structure. It
wasn't successful. What women got were better job opportunities but
relatively little support in the domestic arena. While there may be
some men who help around the house and take a more active role in child-
rearing, by and large this area is still a woman's domain.
> >> and you have a female populace which is mostly satisfied with
> >>$.74 on the dollar.
>
> Are you sure that politicizing these women's feelings will help
> *them* with *their* individual task of changing their response?
> I can't help but feel that even if this works, the people who will
> be helped most are the ones whose experiences most closely
> fit a mainstream model of whatever the fucked-up problem is
> purported to be. Those of us who lack common experiences
> with, pardon me, a mob of sob sisters, will be as marginalized
> as ever. I suppose that makes it a "personal problem" though.
This is, unfortunately, the main success of feminism. White middle
class women reaped the greatest rewards, at the expense of their poorer
and non-white sisters. But don't think that white middle-class
feminists aren't aware of this. It's a constant bone of contention in
feminism these days.
> I am just a throw-away from society's point of view, and all
> society wants of me is that I straighten up enough to contribute to
> the tax base. Pardon me, I'm feverish. I just had surgery
> yesterday and no doubt I'm still fucked up.
But don't really care what society thinks, do you? In that sense,
you've transcended a lot of the bullshit that is fed to women.
>
> >Yes, to all of this. The one way in which being a woman has been
> >helpful for me is that, to other people, I'm perhaps less stigma-
> >tized for being unsuccessful and missing a few marbles.
>
> Yes to that, though I've outgrown my cute phase - you know, young
> and full of potential. Thank god, in some ways.
I'm still bearing this burden.
>
> Yes, it's still a sexist society. My eyes are wider open about it
than
> many who received the brainwashing reserved for the middle class.
> (If you can talk college talk, that's you.)
I have multiple subjectivities. Being middle class is only one of them.
> The notion that if women ran out to become wage slaves they'd get
> 'equality' is hilarious to me - what a bunch of tools. Equal to
> *what*? *That*? A fine selection <snicker> I could puke, I really
> could.
Wages are merely a gauge for inequality. For argument's sake, it's a
more persuadable piece of evidence.
> Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women. Poor people
> have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
> abstracts. Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
> with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
> cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
"Just because you have a vagina doesn't make you my sister." -- Sandra
Cisneros.
> Sorry, I have no fellow [ ] people to cluster with: I'm rather
> bitter that the route to power through group identification is
> closed to me. I wanna fit in and fight for right and stuff like
> that, but my next closest mental relative is thedavid, and our
> genitalia don't match, so . . .
>
> Layo
> aloooooone, so alooooooone
Sorry, bzzt. You sound like other people I've met who have told me
that they're struggling so hard just to survive, that they don't have
anything else to give other people. It isn't a one way street. It's a
generative thing.
At 30, I'm still an idealist. You don't have to be alone...
desnos
des...@my-deja.com
> bitter that the route to power through group identification is
> closed to me. I wanna fit in and fight for right and stuff like
> that, but my next closest mental relative is thedavid, and our
> genitalia don't match, so . . .
>
Group dynamics can be incredibly fucked up. In the early 70s some of
the most prominent feminists (Jo Freeman, T-Grace Atkinson, even Gloria
Steinham) were torn to shreds by their fellow sisters for taking on
leadership roles. There needs to be a happy medium between complete
group control and individual control. I haven't seen a working model
of this yet, but it doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm still have hope
though.
des
buk...@baileylink.net
des...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Yes, it's still a sexist society. My eyes are wider open about it
> > than many who received the brainwashing reserved for the middle
> > class. (If you can talk college talk, that's you.)
> I have multiple subjectivities. Being middle class is only one of
> them.
Sorry, only one label per applicant.
> > The notion that if women ran out to become wage slaves they'd get
> > 'equality' is hilarious to me - what a bunch of tools. Equal to
> > *what*? *That*? A fine selection <snicker> I could puke, I really
> > could.
> Wages are merely a gauge for inequality. For argument's sake, it's a
> more persuadable piece of evidence.
Liars, damn liars and statisticians.
> > Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women. Poor people
> > have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
> > abstracts. Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
> > with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
> > cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
> "Just because you have a vagina doesn't make you my sister." --
> Sandra Cisneros.
This is a most excellent theme.
> Sorry, bzzt. You sound like other people I've met who have told me
> that they're struggling so hard just to survive, that they don't have
> anything else to give other people. It isn't a one way street. It's a
> generative thing.
> At 30, I'm still an idealist. You don't have to be alone...
Are you sure you want to do the hive mind thing with Layo? She sounds
more dangerous than Mica even.
There are practically NO women in the graduate engineering school I have
been attending. It starts eerily young. I have long ago lost count of
the number of women who have told me "I am no good at math." That is
because when they were in eighth or tenth grade and struggling their
parents didn't tell them, " yes it's tough but you still have to learn
it ", but they told them " it's ok don't worry, girls aren't supposed to
be good at math "
This is an ugly truth, but you know it's true. Usually it was the
mother who said it.
The first step is we must quit being our own worst enemies.
Bukvich
des...@my-deja.com
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <8v3p3n$q5a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > At 30, I'm still an idealist. You don't have to be alone...
>
> more dangerous than Mica even.
I don't want to do the hive mind thing with anyone. You can _support_
someone without agreeing on everything. Lord knows I fight some of my
girlfriends on the decisions I've made, and sometimes it's a real pain
in the ass.
> There are practically NO women in the graduate engineering school I
have
> been attending. It starts eerily young. I have long ago lost count
of
> the number of women who have told me "I am no good at math." That is
> because when they were in eighth or tenth grade and struggling their
> parents didn't tell them, " yes it's tough but you still have to learn
> it ", but they told them " it's ok don't worry, girls aren't supposed
to
> be good at math "
>
> This is an ugly truth, but you know it's true. Usually it was the
> mother who said it.
Yes, women are /as/ responsible for reproducing culture as men are.
Moreso, in many cases. My old advisor and her husband had a huge fight
about letting their daughter play with Barbie. It was the /husband/
who was againist it.
Go figure.
des
Jennifer Karen Faucher Thomas
> I have long ago lost count of the number of women who
> have told me "I am no good at math."
I am good at math! In fact, I'm better at math than you are because
I alone know the true answer to the Monty Hall Problem.
The answer is: phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.
I had lunch in Bakersfield today. Right now I am in a suburb thing
of LA called Sylmar and the total mathematical powers of myself
and my husband probably exceed the collective mathematical
powers of the rest of this hellish place.
Sarah Jane
Math Knowledge
Two mathematicians were having dinner in a restaurant, arguing about the
average mathematical knowledge of the American public. One mathematician
claimed that this average was woefully inadequate, the other maintained
that it was surprisingly high.
"I'll tell you what," said the cynic, "ask that waitress a simple math
question. If she gets it right, I'll pick up dinner. If not, you do". He
then excused himself to visit the men's room, and the other called the
waitress over.
"When my friend comes back," he told her, "I'm going to ask you a
question, and I want you to respond `one third x cubed.' There's twenty
bucks in it for you." She agreed.
The cynic returned from the bathroom and called the waitress over. "The
food was wonderful, thank you," the mathematician started.
"Incidentally, do you know what the integral of x squared is"
The waitress looked pensive; almost pained. She looked around the room,
at her feet, made gurgling noises, and finally said, "Um, one third x
cubed?"
So the cynic paid the check. The waitress wheeled around, walked a few
paces away, looked back at the two men, and muttered under her breath,
"...plus a constant."
Jonah Thomas
>Yes, women are /as/ responsible for reproducing culture as men are.
> Moreso, in many cases. My old advisor and her husband had a huge fight
> about letting their daughter play with Barbie. It was the /husband/
> who was againist it.
>
> Go figure.
Which one do you think was right?
Eris got a plastic bag. Jen said, "Plastic bag! She'll choke!"
and took it away from her. For a long time after that she would
grab plastic bags whenever she possibly could. Jen didn't want
her to have it, so there must be something particularly interesting
there. Look away and she'd somehow get a bag and start chewing on
it, with an expression on her face like she'd *gotten away with
something*. I started giving her plasic bags while I watched to
make sure she was OK, and after awhile she mostly lost interest --
luckily before she had any teeth, it would be hard if she could
shred a bag into pieces small enough to swallow and small enough to
choke on without leaving anything in reach.
Older kids are more complicated but that doesn't make it simpler to
forbid them things. One of my friends hated the thought of her sons
playing with toy guns and she wouldn't let them have any. She noticed
they played with bent sticks. ""Pow! I shot you!" When one of them
was a teenager he saved his babysitting money for a whole summer to
buy a special Sturm Ruger handgun and then every time he got some money
together he'd get bullets and shoot them. He got arrested and nearly
thrown out of college for having his gun collection in the dorm. Now,
he *might* have turned into a gun nut if she hadn't made such a big
deal about it, but I'm clear that telling him he couldn't have the toys
he wanted didn't help.
Jonah Thomas
> Group dynamics can be incredibly fucked up. In the early 70s some of
> the most prominent feminists (Jo Freeman, T-Grace Atkinson, even Gloria
> Steinham) were torn to shreds by their fellow sisters for taking on
> leadership roles.
"Leadership roles"? If people don't choose to follow, you can't
lead. If
they do choose to follow, why should third parties complain?
Was it perhaps something else that was the issue? I'd be upset if
somebody
started representing me in the media without my permission, and I felt
like
they were misrepresenting me.
> There needs to be a happy medium between complete
> group control and individual control.
The pragmatist's rule is:
Do whatever you want until it bugs somebody.
Then work things out with them however you can.
(That isn't how it's usually stated, usually the Pragmatist's Rule is
states:
If it feels good, do it. Until it stops feeling good, then quit.)
> I haven't seen a working model
> of this yet, but it doesn't mean it can't happen. I'm still have hope
> though.
The women's movement, like the New Left etc, started with the basic
premise
"We aren't like the evil people who do things the old way, we're
better. So
we will naturally organise ourselves in a good way instead of the bad
way."
And it didn't exactly work out like that. The problem is, if you do
things
the way the existing organisations do them, you're likely to get an
organisation like those. People will behave the ways they know how,
and
things will tend to roll down the same old channels. But if you throw
out
the old methods you don't automatically get new ones that work. The
old ways
evolved to fit particular needs, and something without an evolutionary
history
isn't likely to work particularly well. It's a puzzle. When the only
tool you
have is a hammer.... People tend to do what they know how to do. If
all you
know is oppression, get out from under and the only easy path is to
become an
oppressor yourself.
When something works, part of what it will do is to train people in
new
workable ways. They'll get involved in small ways and the new
patterns will be
clear from the start, they'll make sense and they'll get quick
workable results
for those small things. It won't take a lot of discussion, people
will just
naturally fall into it because it will be patterns that people can
fall into.
It will have to evolve but conscious people might be able to help it
along.
shebr...@my-deja.com
> >In <8uvbd0$79g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> des...@my-deja.com writes:
> >>The saddest part of all of this is that a post-feminist mindset has
> >>insidiously made its way into the female psyche. A mindset in which
> >>women are too afraid of the label "feminist," (those angry, hairy,
man-
> >>hatin' wimmin!)
>
> That's so last decade. I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
> what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
> supposed to avoid. All they know is that hot = powerful.
Do you suppose that's a new lesson and does that fall under a
stereotype that should be embraced?
That didn't
> work quite so well for the group of women who are now in their
> 30's because - if I can generalize from the Pacific NW - the
> kewl guys held insecure image-obsessed little bitches in such
> contempt, and so did the homelier of the women.
One thing that actually has changed is today's younger men, who are
nearly completely accepting of women in traditional men's roles. It is
no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't even
questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for it not
to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow for
any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step forward
for the feminists.
There was
> quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
> comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you see.
The first assumption, that women felt the pressure to be "strong"
and "independent" was necessary to a generation of women who were
facing divorce for the first time in modern history and were forced
into a role that they did not necessarily choose or want which
naturally breeded resentment. These women, some embittered and some
merely practical, saw a need to espouse a stronger mindset in a younger
generation than what they had been raised with. I am thinking here of
the societal differences just between my mother's upbringing and my
daughter's. It was a rare anomaly in my mother's day to know a family
who had gone through divorce, as it is a rare anomaly in my daughter's
to know one that hasn't. So in part, some of that was a necessary
adjustment to societal values at an individual level.
On a subjective level, I never felt any need to be equal always being
too busy being superior to men, both intellectually and sexually. The
societal difference between men's intellectuality/sexuality and women's
were that both were assumed natural things for a man, but unnatural
ones for a woman. It was obvious to me that was always only a societal
fallacy and not anything close to a truth, so I operated under the
parameters that everything in society was essentially either a lie or a
misgiving and learned to play the game without capitualting to the
rules. In other words, I cheated.
I never considered this a character issue because society is a game of
craps; not ran by the most moral or best people, so that to win the
only thing one could reasonably choose to do was to beat them at the
game which was corrupt to begin with. Some choose not to play at all
and that is also a solution. It depends what your ultimate intention
is. Personally, I'd rather drop out of a game that I have effectively
mastered than refuse to play from fear of it. To me that was the
ultimate character issue.
> "I respect a woman with a career" is secret code for "Will you be
> my mommy?"
In that, nearly every sentence from a man's mouth to a woman could be
thus interpreted. But that kind of statement from anyone to me
automatically suggests some assumed condescension from the speaker of
it. Kind of like "I respect Black People." If you have to say it,
chances are it ain't so. People that say those sorts of things are
soooooo easy.
> Extremes cause a swingback, but as generations come and go
> there's generally little perspective as to the overall trajectory of
> actions and reactions 'til the yunguns Reach a Certain Age. By
> then they've made many decisions that will shape the potential
> scope of the rest of their lives, so they end up hoping they can
> encourage their children not to make the mistakes *they* did,
> and around we go again.
And in living essentially and essentially living a life through a
framework of doing what one chooses willingly, seeking truth and not
letting anyone male or female stunt ones potential with their misguided
neuroses, one masters the game. When one masters the game, one can then
teach others how to change the rules or adapt to them, because here is
the thing: People who never learned how to fit into society, will not
be able to easily adapt to a corporate structure either. That's where
High School either does you in or makes you, regardless of whatever
platform you were thrust into. There are those who saw the game and
played the game and became cheerleaders or football heroes, and those
people manage well in the constructs of society. But they are miserable
thinkers. Then there were those who were the thinkers that were
necessary for the construct but were ostracisized by their peers.
Still, because they participated on some level, they generally went on
to college and became physicists or scientists or teachers.
Then there is the subfringe that didn't fit, didn't want to fit and
abhored the entire game entirely. And they became either enlightened
beings, psychopaths or posters to usenet newsgroups.
> >>in which women believe that equality has been achieved,
>
> Do you really think they think that?
Individually on many levels; Societally, on some.
> >>and who believe that those women who haven't availed themselves of
> >>opportunities have only themselves to blame.
>
> Oppressed people love to chew on each other. It's a go-home-and-
> kick-the-dog thing.
But that is just another facet of the game in play with virtually the
same rules.
> > Add that to the rise of
> >>of the self-help industry, which places blame for social problems at
> >>the individual level
>
> Even if being raised without, say, a father, becomes a widespread
> social ill, each individual will still have to deal with their own
> issues personally. It is all ultimately personal to the one who's in
> pain, and blaming "society" is often the least effective way to help
> yourself cope with the way *you've* been screwed. Observers
> of the social ill who have not been hurt themselves usually neither
> understand the issue realistically nor care to raise a hand to help,
> and why should they? Who here thinks rhetoric will heal a broken
> heart? Who here *knows* any pain other than their own?
> Awareness may help stop current abuses, but it won't undo the
> past, hence the need for "self-help" and the like - which by the
> way often does make reference to a larger social context.
It all boils down to the golden rule, which does away with the need for
overt analyzation of semiotic and solipsist thinking, but that is just
downright dangerous.
> >> and treats systemic problems as "personal" problems,
>
> They are personal as well.
>
> >> and you have a female populace which is mostly satisfied with
> >>$.74 on the dollar.
>
> Are you sure that politicizing these women's feelings will help
> *them* with *their* individual task of changing their response?
> I can't help but feel that even if this works, the people who will
> be helped most are the ones whose experiences most closely
> fit a mainstream model of whatever the fucked-up problem is
> purported to be. Those of us who lack common experiences
> with, pardon me, a mob of sob sisters, will be as marginalized
> as ever. I suppose that makes it a "personal problem" though.
There is also the argument of those women who choose lesser-paying jobs
or even no job at all deliberately for less responsibility and the
choice of exercising a life away from the game. But it is still a part
of the game. Especially if you are young and cute and dependent on a
man and/or society to pay your way. But, at least it is still a choice
made from ones free will, and not imposed necessarily.
Studies like these, btw, are always only political.
> I have always felt so left out of movements. I don't identify
> ever with the 'wound of the week'. If having one's problem
> publicly legitimized is the way to go, then when is my turn?
> Where's *my* acronym and *my* support group?
Wounds of the weak, even.
> I am just a throw-away from society's point of view, and all
> society wants of me is that I straighten up enough to contribute to
> the tax base. Pardon me, I'm feverish. I just had surgery
> yesterday and no doubt I'm still fucked up.
That's a horribly invasive thing. One hopes that you are taking lots of
herbs to counterbalance the kind of violence that surgery does to your
body and drinking lots of water. IOW, I hope you feel better soon.
Equality perhaps in the only sense that this society effectively
measures it, which is monetary. Wageslaving is the means by which one
is allowed to become independent, and in that we have arrived at a some
semblance of equality. McDonalds no longer cares if you are white or
black or male or female, at least not on the books. And in corporate
settings, the minority element is downright courted.
> Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women. Poor people
> have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
> abstracts. Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
> with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
> cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
Some do, some don't, but that seems to be a more spiritual argument
than a societal one. So we could argue that the real problems in this
society stem from a lack of spiritual awareness rather than societal
tolerance.
> It is to laugh. My 'sisters' are who again? Was it the ignorant
> white-trash breeders, or the educated career gals who deal
> with pussy-whipped she-men and yet live in mortal terror of cock?
Yes to both, or are you talking about only those you would willingly
choose to be kin to?
>
> But you know things get better if you dialogue, formulate a few
theories, get
> some rallies together. . .
>
> Sorry, I have no fellow [ ] people to cluster with: I'm rather
> bitter that the route to power through group identification is
> closed to me. I wanna fit in and fight for right and stuff like
> that, but my next closest mental relative is thedavid, and our
> genitalia don't match, so . . .
So it all comes down to this: We choose and reject in accordance with
our individual preferences; and that prejudice knows no societal,
ethical or intellectual bounds. But as far as how the game is played,
that is one thing that is actually equal.
> Layo
> aloooooone, so alooooooone
Lisbeth
(and we are all alone)
stu
bollocks. :)
i say that "i respect women" all the time. i also say that i "have a
great appreciation for women, what they can do, and how they do it."
i am constantly in awe of what women can achieve when they put their
body, err i mean mind, to it.
joke.
i mean i fully appreciate a woman on whatever grounds she's presenting
at the given time, be it sexual vixen, bitch/manager, or whatever. i
also appreciate and respect what women can do _to_ me, and how they can
easily (and almost instantly) make me wish i were either dead or more
alive.
so there.
hang on ... that didn't add _anything_ to the argument/conversation....
Stu.
Boniblueyz
>Older kids are more complicated but that doesn't make it simpler to
>forbid them things. One of my friends hated the thought of her sons
>playing with toy guns and she wouldn't let them have any. She noticed
>they played with bent sticks. ""Pow! I shot you!" When one of them
>was a teenager he saved his babysitting money for a whole summer to
>buy a special Sturm Ruger handgun and then every time he got some money
>together he'd get bullets and shoot them. He got arrested and nearly
>thrown out of college for having his gun collection in the dorm. Now,
>he *might* have turned into a gun nut if she hadn't made such a big
>deal about it, but I'm clear that telling him he couldn't have the toys
>he wanted didn't help.
>
My son wasn't permitted to play with guns, and he didn't care in the least. He
was happy with his My Little Pony toys (which is what he asked for, along with
a Fisher Price kitchen and assorted "feminine" toys). He did get into some
pretty nasty video games when he was around ten, and that fascination lasted
for about four years. Since it was just pressing buttons, rather than pointing
guns, it didn't freak me out, too much. Of course, you know my son is gay, and
I'm wondering if his not caring about guns is part of that whole penis
extension thingy, exclusive (for the most part) to heterosexual males.
Bonnie
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Jonah Thomas wrote on bureaucracy:
[...]
> The problem is, if you do things the way the existing organisations do
> them, you're likely to get an organisation like those. People will
> behave the ways they know how, and things will tend to roll down the
> same old channels.
And conservatives -- like you, Al Gore and Pat Buchanan -- will tend
to be as pleased as y'all usually are.
> But if you throw out the old methods you don't automatically get new
> ones that work.
"So," says Dr. Pangloss, "why even try? Keep to the Tried-'N'-True!"
> The old ways evolved to fit particular needs, and something without
> an evolutionary history isn't likely to work particularly well.
Uh, no. Again you're slopping your (conservative) take on a biological
process all over the socio-political sphere, where it does not belong.
OrganISMS evolve; organIZATIONS do NOT evolve. That is, NOW, NAMBLA,
and the U.S. Republican Party are in no danger whatever of speciating.
> It's a puzzle.
No it isn't. You're just very fond of being susceptible to puzzlement.
> When the only tool you have is a hammer....
Bummer, and you in a nailless world.
> People tend to do what they know how to do.
Which, for you, would be what?
[...]
> It will have to evolve
No. See above.
> but conscious people might be able to help it along.
So what will you be doing instead, Jonah?
The
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOheVVxz40he1RakNEQL/KACfXv8j3WAeEomgfw8Lc4mbmuqvAA8AnRnd
UWQGBVpmEn73i0KaAXWk3qyE
=47/K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
buk...@baileylink.net
Jennifer Karen Faucher Thomas <agatho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I am good at math! In fact, I'm better at math than you are because
> I alone know the true answer to the Monty Hall Problem.
Please tell Jonah.
> The answer is: phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.
That isn't it. Although frankly it is related. There is a hive mind at
work in creating those game show problems. One reason that Ph.D.
statisticians cannot fathom the solution to the problem is that they
don't pay any attention whatsoever to the human element.
One moment's careful reflection will show you that the Ph.D.'s solution
is refuted by the rational behavior of the homo economici playing the
game.
> I had lunch in Bakersfield today.
Did you call Radha?
I have been reading the journals of Sylvia Plath. She looked like my
mother and she wrote like Radha.
I fear I am falling in love with a ghost.
> Right now I am in a suburb thing
> of LA called Sylmar and the total mathematical powers of myself
> and my husband probably exceed the collective mathematical
> powers of the rest of this hellish place.
How many people live there again? I will be glad to whip up the
probability distribution function relevant to your boast.
Bukvich
Jonah Thomas
> > The answer is: phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.
>
> That isn't it.
Can you prove that?
> > I had lunch in Bakersfield today.
>
> Did you call Radha?
No, I'm too shy.
> I have been reading the journals of Sylvia Plath. She looked like my
> mother and she wrote like Radha.
>
> I fear I am falling in love with a ghost.
People who fall in love with ghosts get what they deserve:
intense masturbation sessions.
Be careful not to stain your favorite passages illegibly.
hth!
Jonah Thomas
> > The problem is, if you do things the way the existing organisations do
> > them, you're likely to get an organisation like those. People will
> > behave the ways they know how, and things will tend to roll down the
> > same old channels.
> And conservatives -- like you, Al Gore and Pat Buchanan -- will tend
> to be as pleased as y'all usually are.
I doubt that Gore or Buchanon think in those terms at all. I'm not
pleased. It looks like a constraint to me, and I want to find a way
to work around it.
> > But if you throw out the old methods you don't automatically get new
> > ones that work.
> "So," says Dr. Pangloss, "why even try? Keep to the Tried-'N'-True!"
If I was satisfied with the status quo I'd try to convince you it was so
good that we shouldn't try to find anything better. But what I'm
interested in is where to look for something better and what it's likely
to look like when we find it.
> > The old ways evolved to fit particular needs, and something without
> > an evolutionary history isn't likely to work particularly well.
> Uh, no. Again you're slopping your (conservative) take on a biological
> process all over the socio-political sphere, where it does not belong.
> OrganISMS evolve; organIZATIONS do NOT evolve. That is, NOW, NAMBLA,
> and the U.S. Republican Party are in no danger whatever of speciating.
Organisations evolve, but they evolve like ecosystems do more than like
populations do. See, a population has a lot of genomes that are mostly
similar but somewhat different, and the genes that get selected are
selected in the context of the other successful genes. But an ecosystem
has a lot of species that are all evolving in the context of other
successful species. If a species goes extinct that does nothing to the
other species except to change the context they must compete in. There
is nothing to make a species evolve for the benefit of the ecosystem --
unless some species happen to evolve to enforce that in some ways.
So -- the Republican Party has evolved considerably from the days of
Barry Goldwater. He ran on the slogan "A choice, not an echo" and
people
chose no. This time they ran with "An echo, not a choice" and it may
have worked. Certainly it did better than Goldwater. Republicans used
to stress balancing the budget. They believed that people who wanted
money for nothing were, well, parasites. But they learned better. Now
they're consistently in favor of tax cuts whether it makes any sense or
not -- because they think taxpayers would rather be greedy parasites who
spend their own money on themselves alone and get their government
services for nothing. They're all for government handouts to everybody
except people on welfare. This is because people on welfare are a
convenient symbol of government waste, and besides they very often don't
vote anyway. Why do republicans support massive handouts to retired
people but oppose tiny scraps of support for people who desperately need
it? Because retired people vote more reliably than anybody, and the
needy tend to think that voting is not worth doing.
Of course organisations change to meet changing conditions. Would you
say
the roman catholic church has not evolved in tha last 1600 years? The
US
government in the last 200 years? Microsoft in the last 20 years?
Elaine
matisse wrote:
> Layo wrote:
>
> > gsk wrote:
> > >In <8uvbd0$79g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> des...@my-deja.com writes:
> > >>The saddest part of all of this is that a post-feminist mindset has
> > >>insidiously made its way into the female psyche. A mindset in which
> > >>women are too afraid of the label "feminist," (those angry, hairy, man-
> > >>hatin' wimmin!)
> >
> > That's so last decade.
No, I don't think so, not quite yet, but we are moving that way.
> I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
> > what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
> > supposed to avoid.
But they still know that feminist is not a word you want hung anywhere near your
hatrack.
> All they know is that hot = powerful.
This is a timeless truth.
> the brain washing of 'strong' and 'independent' was a mean trick to play on women
>
> --by women, of course.
maybe it was just shortsighted and interim. Maybe not.
There is some evidence that women in traditional role settings who are taking
advantage of programs which give them means to economic self-sufficiency are also
beginning to take control of their reproduction. I can only think this is a good
thing.
>
>
> >
> > "I respect a woman with a career" is secret code for "Will you be
> > my mommy?"
> >
>
> layo, dear, it is all a code for wanting a mommy. but that line might have more
> truth to it.
You sound so mommy-like when you call people "dear".
> given your criteria, i fall into your category. there is double brainwashing
> with such a group. as my friend M and i call it, we were raised to be the perfect
> companions to professional men. We were trained to be strong independent women,
> yet trained to be nurturers.
Sounds like a fine combination of traits for both genders.
> This is a double bind of sexism that tells us we
> must have successful jobs while having successful families. It is all a bad joke
> to get us to do even more then we have historically done!
Some people have noted that the downfall of community ties and civic involvement has
coincided with women taking on careers outside the home. But TV also happened
during the same time, so quien save? Well, at least we have the internet to fix all
that.
>
>
> >
> > Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women.
Who really needed help.
> Poor people
> > have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
> > abstracts.
Poor women who got access to the birth control pill benefited from feminism.
> Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
> > with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
> > cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
> > It is to laugh.
It is.
> My 'sisters' are who again? Was it the ignorant
> > white-trash breeders, or the educated career gals who deal
> > with pussy-whipped she-men and yet live in mortal terror of cock?
> >
>
> I wish it was all as clear cut as you are putting it here. Most upper-class
> women i know (and i clean a lot of their houses) don't work. They might work a
> little, but hobbies do not really count in my book.
>
> Its all fucked up.
I'm confused about what you think about women having careers.
Elaine
Jonah Thomas wrote:
> des...@my-deja.com wrote
>
> >Yes, women are /as/ responsible for reproducing culture as men are.
>
> > Moreso, in many cases. My old advisor and her husband had a huge fight
> > about letting their daughter play with Barbie. It was the /husband/
> > who was againist it.
> >
> > Go figure.
>
> Which one do you think was right?
>
> Eris got a plastic bag. Jen said, "Plastic bag! She'll choke!"
> and took it away from her. For a long time after that she would
> grab plastic bags whenever she possibly could. Jen didn't want
> her to have it, so there must be something particularly interesting
> there. Look away and she'd somehow get a bag and start chewing on
> it, with an expression on her face like she'd *gotten away with
> something*. I started giving her plasic bags while I watched to
> make sure she was OK, and after awhile she mostly lost interest --
> luckily before she had any teeth, it would be hard if she could
> shred a bag into pieces small enough to swallow and small enough to
> choke on without leaving anything in reach.
You know, I bet you would have had a lot of fun with identical twins, Jonah.
Elaine
control groups rule!
Elaine
shebr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20001117030858...@ng-cs1.aol.com>,
> plus...@aol.com (Layo) wrote:
> > gsk wrote:
> > >In <8uvbd0$79g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> des...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > That's so last decade. I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
> > what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
> > supposed to avoid. All they know is that hot = powerful.
>
> Do you suppose that's a new lesson and does that fall under a
> stereotype that should be embraced?
Is it a stereotype? Can it be avoided at all? I think no to both. It's
basic biology. Maybe it's somewhat subject to memetic overrides. Probably
not.
>
>
>
> One thing that actually has changed is today's younger men, who are
> nearly completely accepting of women in traditional men's roles.
In corporate circles, maybe. I'm not so sure about military, some medical
elites, -surgeons, eg, definitely not umpiring/refereeing professional
men's sports, and probably not a lot of labor work.
> It is
> no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't even
> questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for it not
> to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow for
> any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step forward
> for the feminists.
Yes.
>
>
> There was
> > quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> > "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> > still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> > innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
> > comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you see.
>
> The first assumption, that women felt the pressure to be "strong"
> and "independent" was necessary to a generation of women who were
> facing divorce for the first time in modern history and were forced
> into a role that they did not necessarily choose or want which
> naturally breeded resentment.
Why were they facing divorce? Their husbands were experiencing post
traumatic stress disorder from the War (WWII)? They were entering an era
of free love (helped along by the advent of the birth control pill) which
led many to learn how they really felt about infidelity...Anyway, I think
it was free love, (it certainly wasn't hard economic times in the American
middle class in the 50's and 60's.) Women fully participated in free love,
and I think that possibly the direction of causality between divorce and
independence is the opposite way of your suggestion.
>
> On a subjective level, I never felt any need to be equal always being
> too busy being superior to men, both intellectually and sexually. The
> societal difference between men's intellectuality/sexuality and women's
> were that both were assumed natural things for a man, but unnatural
> ones for a woman. It was obvious to me that was always only a societal
> fallacy and not anything close to a truth, so I operated under the
> parameters that everything in society was essentially either a lie or a
> misgiving and learned to play the game without capitualting to the
> rules. In other words, I cheated.
Exactly how did you cheat, may I ask? A couple of examples?
>
> I never considered this a character issue because society is a game of
> craps; not ran by the most moral or best people, so that to win the
> only thing one could reasonably choose to do was to beat them at the
> game which was corrupt to begin with. Some choose not to play at all
> and that is also a solution. It depends what your ultimate intention
> is. Personally, I'd rather drop out of a game that I have effectively
> mastered than refuse to play from fear of it. To me that was the
> ultimate character issue.
How thoroughly disappointing it is to hear talk like this. But later your
mention the golden rule. I'm confused.
>
>
> > Extremes cause a swingback, but as generations come and go
> > there's generally little perspective as to the overall trajectory of
> > actions and reactions 'til the yunguns Reach a Certain Age. By
> > then they've made many decisions that will shape the potential
> > scope of the rest of their lives, so they end up hoping they can
> > encourage their children not to make the mistakes *they* did,
> > and around we go again.
>
> And in living essentially and essentially living a life through a
> framework of doing what one chooses willingly, seeking truth and not
> letting anyone male or female stunt ones potential with their misguided
> neuroses, one masters the game. When one masters the game, one can then
> teach others how to change the rules or adapt to them, because here is
> the thing:
So if you're as enlightened and self-actualized as you claim, and as you
seem to be, are you out teaching others? What are you, or would you teach
them? What are some practical tools?
> People who never learned how to fit into society, will not
> be able to easily adapt to a corporate structure either. That's where
> High School either does you in or makes you, regardless of whatever
> platform you were thrust into. There are those who saw the game and
> played the game and became cheerleaders or football heroes, and those
> people manage well in the constructs of society. But they are miserable
> thinkers. Then there were those who were the thinkers that were
> necessary for the construct but were ostracisized by their peers.
> Still, because they participated on some level, they generally went on
> to college and became physicists or scientists or teachers.
>
> Then there is the subfringe that didn't fit, didn't want to fit and
> abhored the entire game entirely. And they became either enlightened
> beings, psychopaths or posters to usenet newsgroups.
Do you feel represented in any of these categories?
>
>
> > > Add that to the rise of
> > >>of the self-help industry, which places blame for social problems at
> > >>the individual level
> >
> > Even if being raised without, say, a father, becomes a widespread
> > social ill, each individual will still have to deal with their own
> > issues personally. It is all ultimately personal to the one who's in
> > pain, and blaming "society" is often the least effective way to help
> > yourself cope with the way *you've* been screwed. Observers
> > of the social ill who have not been hurt themselves usually neither
> > understand the issue realistically nor care to raise a hand to help,
> > and why should they? Who here thinks rhetoric will heal a broken
> > heart? Who here *knows* any pain other than their own?
> > Awareness may help stop current abuses, but it won't undo the
> > past, hence the need for "self-help" and the like - which by the
> > way often does make reference to a larger social context.
>
> It all boils down to the golden rule, which does away with the need for
> overt analyzation of semiotic and solipsist thinking, but that is just
> downright dangerous.
And what about rationalizing the way you play the game in a dog-eat-dog
world? How dangerous is THAT?
>
>
> > Feminism has mostly helped upper-class women. Poor people
> > have a more fundamental problem and are not impressed with
> > abstracts. Do you think that when well-heeled women deal
> > with working-class women, they feel the common bond of their
> > cunt-bearing natures first and their class difference second?
>
> Some do, some don't, but that seems to be a more spiritual argument
> than a societal one. So we could argue that the real problems in this
> society stem from a lack of spiritual awareness rather than societal
> tolerance.
This sounds good to me. Could you say more about what kind of spiritual
awareness ought to be cultivated? It's that I'm lazy to give this a lot of
thought. I truly believe it's correct, and I want to know why it is.
>
>
>
> So it all comes down to this: We choose and reject in accordance with
> our individual preferences; and that prejudice knows no societal,
> ethical or intellectual bounds.
Well, except that society (whichever one we pay most attention to and which
has the power over us) dictates the narrow range of preferences available
that most of us believe are the universe.
Elaine
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > des...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In the early 70s some of
> > > the most prominent feminists (Jo Freeman, T-Grace Atkinson, even
> > > Gloria Steinham) were torn to shreds by their fellow sisters for
> > > taking on leadership roles.
> > "Leadership roles"? If people don't choose to follow, you can't
> > lead. If they do choose to follow, why should third parties
> > complain?
> Initially the plan was group-oriented, and those who had skills or
> education would teach the others and guide them. Only it didn't happen
> that way.
People in groups don't do what they say they do. Groups don't do what
they say they do. In general people won't follow noble plans, but they
often will do more of something after they see it working at first.
> You could blame the media, in part, for selecting out the
> most photogenic or the most scandalous or the most well-spoken of the
> women from various feminist groups. Once they got the limelight,
> that's when the shredding started.
Ah! "Leadership" meaning "media exposure"! The trouble is, the more
you depend on the media for *anything* the less initiative you have
available. It's another puzzle. This might explain why such a
disproportionate amount of innovation gets done by secret societies.
The successful ones avoid media attention and so avoid media control.
> Ultimately, however, the movement was fragmented because of competing
> discourses. Some women just wanted Equal rights, while others wanted a
> complete overhaul of the patriarchy. Lesbians wanted to introduce
> their issues into the movement, and were drowned out. They split off.
> African-american women had other goals -- they wanted to introduce
> racism into the mix. The thing that most people forget about social
> movements is that not all of the members agree on what their agenda is,
> and they become fragmented.
This is why I prefer action-oriented movements. If you have a single
item that you want to accomplish with a group, then everybody who
supports that action can join in apart from their ideology about final
goals. And then everybody who agrees with the next action can
participate in that one, however they fit in. That way you don't have
to agree on a grand discourse before you start. You *can* do that if
you want to, but it's independent of the action part. So if some women
want to spend time getting together and arguing about how they'll know
when the patriarchy has been overhauled, they can do it all they want
and it won't get in the way.
People who have to agree about final goals don't have a movement, they
have a church.
But I've noticed one of the problems with this approach is that the
media always seem to work hard at putting labels onto such movements.
If some of the members are communists, or lesbians, or whatever, then
the media will say that it's *really* a communist front, or lesbian,
etc. And if you have to court the media then you're likely to find
yourself throwing out people who agree with you, to prove you aren't
whatever unpopular thing you're getting branded as. Once again it's
better if you can find a way to do it without media involvement.
des...@my-deja.com
of
> > the most prominent feminists (Jo Freeman, T-Grace Atkinson, even
Gloria
> > Steinham) were torn to shreds by their fellow sisters for taking on
> > leadership roles.
>
> "Leadership roles"? If people don't choose to follow, you can't
> lead. If
> they do choose to follow, why should third parties complain?
Initially the plan was group-oriented, and those who had skills or
education would teach the others and guide them. Only it didn't happen
that way. You could blame the media, in part, for selecting out the
most photogenic or the most scandalous or the most well-spoken of the
women from various feminist groups. Once they got the limelight,
that's when the shredding started.
Ultimately, however, the movement was fragmented because of competing
discourses. Some women just wanted Equal rights, while others wanted a
complete overhaul of the patriarchy. Lesbians wanted to introduce
their issues into the movement, and were drowned out. They split off.
African-american women had other goals -- they wanted to introduce
racism into the mix. The thing that most people forget about social
movements is that not all of the members agree on what their agenda is,
and they become fragmented.
desnos
cut by a penny from heaven
> Some do, some don't, but that seems to be a more spiritual argument
> than a societal one. So we could argue that the real problems in this
> society stem from a lack of spiritual awareness rather than societal
> tolerance.
hmmm. i find this an interesting comment, given that your first reaction to
this thread was to point out that you are not a victim. i would first
postulate that the word courage could be substituted for the word awareness.
maybe then your first reaction would have been one of reason (IMO), not
seeming to be so "i'm not a victim, i got here on my own."
perhaps what you (and most of us) are struggling against is a sense of of the
worthlessness of believing in your own self-worth? the tools that could be
counted upon in the past are now missing. not enough people lay brick or
blacksmith or sew for profit these days. we live in the most fluid of times,
where the absurdity of life is reflected in the utter randomness of the ways
in which we die.
we fall in planes, or roll our mobile siege-towers of SUV's over in the
gutters of eight-lane superhighways. we feel the lumps in our breasts, and
know almost to the second when the tumors will consume us... and instead of
being able to cure and control we cut and cauterize. we spit on the sidewalk
in the toxic air which whips down the tunnels created by the tall buildings
in our rat-infested mazes of cities. we are dying in ever-more horrible
ways. what does that say about society?
it looks like we cannot handle the thought of being ourselves, because then
we would have to own up to the terrible things that we've done to get to this
crossroads in the scorched land. spirituality? is that what you really want
to say? or is it more of a general commitment to courage and caring? the
mouth that is closed is usually below the eye that is observant. you can't
really listen to people if your mouth is open.
i wish sometimes that USENET could take place in realtime because i would
have liked to been able to converse with you about your feelings when you
first responded to this thread. what was in your mind then? why the
immediate defense?
> So it all comes down to this: We choose and reject in accordance with
> our individual preferences; and that prejudice knows no societal,
> ethical or intellectual bounds. But as far as how the game is played,
> that is one thing that is actually equal.
i wonder if you are having the degree of angst that i'm having about the
election just past. on one hand, we are electing the president who is
supposed to be the best choice for the country. this is clearly not true,
but you will never hear a condemnation of the attitude that says "better the
[insert political party here] then me" in the popular media or the
social-mores-guided discourse that we claim functions as our free press.
more than that, we ally ourselves with these people and what they say and do,
and feel as though when our duly elected official does something in our name
which harms another amerikan (let alone another human being!) that that
action can somehow be justified by the differences espoused by the differing
political parties.
and somehow we are able to keep continuing to justify this to ourselves. i
believe that psychoanylists call this denial. we need a person to rally to.
we need someone to believe in, and trust, and nurture. we desperately need a
heroic figure to rise out of the constant fear and trepidation that keeps our
potential from crashing out into the universe in a myriad of kinetic
unkillable ways.
we each need the other.
lord clod
i think that you are right --
it will take a spiritual awakening.
but you won't be able to call it that.
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
plus...@my-deja.com
shebr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20001117030858...@ng-cs1.aol.com>,
> plus...@aol.com (Layo) wrote:
> > gsk wrote:
> > >In <8uvbd0$79g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> des...@my-deja.com writes:
> > >>The saddest part of all of this is that a post-feminist mindset
has
> > >>insidiously made its way into the female psyche. A mindset in
which
> > >>women are too afraid of the label "feminist," (those angry, hairy,
> man-
> > >>hatin' wimmin!)
> >
> > That's so last decade. I suspect today's youngsters have no idea
> > what feminism is, far less what sorts of stereotypes they're
> > supposed to avoid. All they know is that hot = powerful.
>
> Do you suppose that's a new lesson
How is that implied?
> and does that fall under a stereotype that should be embraced?
"Should"?
> > That didn't
> > work quite so well for the group of women who are now in their
> > 30's because - if I can generalize from the Pacific NW - the
> > kewl guys held insecure image-obsessed little bitches in such
> > contempt, and so did the homelier of the women.
>
> One thing that actually has changed is today's younger men, who are
> nearly completely accepting of women in traditional men's roles.
Yep, now we get to fill traditional men's roles *and* traditional
women's roles, while still getting knocked around at home. (Of course,
if that happens to you you brought it on yourself by being 'weak'.)
To the ambitious, this change is definitely exciting. To others, it's
just more to carry.
However, from what I understand you're a superbeing, so the suffering
or your inferiors is doubtless none of your concern.
> It is
> no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't even
> questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for it not
> to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow for
> any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step forward
> for the feminists.
I think this premise, that to be an equal one must weild 'authority',
that is, weild the powers associated traditionally with having a dick,
is unhelpful. So long as standing in this society is measured
by how much power you have OVER others, (some, most?) women will
continue to eat shit, and so will plenty of other people - children,
poor people, people of color. This is the nature of the pyramid. I
am not contented to merely no longer be excluded from climbing it.
That the measure of one's value is how many people one's standing on
is sick. I'd side with the people being stood on even if they were
middle-aged white males.
> > There was
> > quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> > "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> > still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> > innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
> > comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you see.
>
> The first assumption, that women felt the pressure to be "strong"
> and "independent" was necessary to a generation of women who were
> facing divorce for the first time in modern history and were forced
> into a role that they did not necessarily choose or want which
> naturally breeded resentment. These women, some embittered and some
> merely practical, saw a need to espouse a stronger mindset in a
younger
> generation than what they had been raised with.
Did it make this generation strong, or merely self-condemning when
they weren't? I think some of us were given the message that
no one could be trusted to be there for us, that life is a grim
struggle to survive and nothing more: that needing to be loved means
that one is weak. This very idea leads to accepting bad relationships
as all that one can hope for and all that one deserves, for being
'weak' enough to want them. Or alternatively, those who believed
that lovers could automatically never be trusted decided to learn
the methods of predation that they presumed (or experienced) were
being used on them, a big fat clusterfuck, self-reinforcing and
society-wide. It's hardly a good idea to try to teach people to be
strong by telling them to accept that their basic needs, in this case
love, cannot be met. They don't politely give up living. They merely
become desperate, quietly or otherwise, and settle for being victims
or abusers if they feel like that is all there is.
Good relationships between men and women will flourish when mothers
AND fathers love their children AND each other. It has to be both
taught and modeled. These relationships, not just economic parity, are
necessary for girls to grow up with 'healthy self-esteem' etc. ad
nauseum; the strength required for true equality is bestowed by LOVE
and not just MONEY.
These days kids are expected to raise themselves and extract their
strength from thin air, and by and large it's not working. They do
and will not flourish being raised by schools and getting their
validation and satisfaction in life solely from their jobs. Not
even when the pay is equal.
> I am thinking here of
> the societal differences just between my mother's upbringing and my
> daughter's. It was a rare anomaly in my mother's day to know a family
> who had gone through divorce, as it is a rare anomaly in my daughter's
> to know one that hasn't. So in part, some of that was a necessary
> adjustment to societal values at an individual level.
It was a fear- and anger-based reaction and it was not empowering to
the girls it was aimed at.
> On a subjective level, I never felt any need to be equal always being
> too busy being superior to men, both intellectually and sexually.
How nice for you.
> The
> societal difference between men's intellectuality/sexuality and
women's
> were that both were assumed natural things for a man, but unnatural
> ones for a woman.
At least _that_ trip was never laid on me. That would have been
painful.
> It was obvious to me that was always only a societal
> fallacy and not anything close to a truth, so I operated under the
> parameters that everything in society was essentially either a lie or
a
> misgiving and learned to play the game without capitualting to the
> rules. In other words, I cheated.
I thought people were sincere, alas.
> I never considered this a character issue because society is a game of
> craps; not ran by the most moral or best people, so that to win the
> only thing one could reasonably choose to do was to beat them at the
> game which was corrupt to begin with. Some choose not to play at all
> and that is also a solution. It depends what your ultimate intention
> is. Personally, I'd rather drop out of a game that I have effectively
> mastered than refuse to play from fear of it. To me that was the
> ultimate character issue.
Life is too short to win every game that gets put in your face just
to prove you can. In fact, that's a bit of a trap, unless your
temperament is such that you enjoy it more than the other things you
could be doing with your time.
> And in living essentially and essentially living a life through a
> framework of doing what one chooses willingly, seeking truth and not
> letting anyone male or female stunt ones potential with their
misguided
> neuroses, one masters the game.
I don't feel that I'm living essentially when I'm caught up in proving
my superiority to other folks (you seemed to equate that with mastering
the game, earlier).
> When one masters the game, one can then
> teach others how to change the rules or adapt to them, because here is
> the thing: People who never learned how to fit into society, will not
> be able to easily adapt to a corporate structure either.
How tragic. It's mostly a matter of spending money on clothes and
cosmetics, and showing off your dimples while you sink your shiv. It's
not that it's hard to learn, just hard to put up with every day.
> That's where
> High School either does you in or makes you, regardless of whatever
> platform you were thrust into. There are those who saw the game and
> played the game and became cheerleaders or football heroes, and those
> people manage well in the constructs of society. But they are
miserable
> thinkers.
Are they happy? Are their kids happy?
> Then there is the subfringe that didn't fit, didn't want to fit and
> abhored the entire game entirely. And they became either enlightened
> beings, psychopaths or posters to usenet newsgroups.
Is there an implied value judgment here? Otherwise I'm not sure of
your conclusion.
> It all boils down to the golden rule, which does away with the need
for
> overt analyzation of semiotic and solipsist thinking, but that is just
> downright dangerous.
Clarify?
> There is also the argument of those women who choose lesser-paying
jobs
> or even no job at all deliberately for less responsibility and the
> choice of exercising a life away from the game. But it is still a part
> of the game. Especially if you are young and cute and dependent on a
> man and/or society to pay your way. But, at least it is still a choice
> made from ones free will, and not imposed necessarily.
>
> Studies like these, btw, are always only political.
I'm not clear what you're trying to say here, unless you're just
trying to provoke me to make some sort of statement about myself.
My life as political statement?
> > I have always felt so left out of movements. I don't identify
> > ever with the 'wound of the week'. If having one's problem
> > publicly legitimized is the way to go, then when is my turn?
> > Where's *my* acronym and *my* support group?
>
> Wounds of the weak, even.
Oh, don't make me deconstruct the conflation of woundedness and
weakness. *groan*
> That's a horribly invasive thing.
That's the truth. I should have refused sedation, looking back on it.
> One hopes that you are taking lots of
> herbs to counterbalance the kind of violence that surgery does to your
> body
What sort of herbs do you recommend?
> > It is to laugh. My 'sisters' are who again? Was it the ignorant
> > white-trash breeders, or the educated career gals who deal
> > with pussy-whipped she-men and yet live in mortal terror of cock?
>
> Yes to both, or are you talking about only those you would willingly
> choose to be kin to?
I am talking about those who would willingly choose to be kin with
me.
> > Sorry, I have no fellow [ ] people to cluster with: I'm rather
> > bitter that the route to power through group identification is
> > closed to me. I wanna fit in and fight for right and stuff like
> > that, but my next closest mental relative is thedavid, and our
> > genitalia don't match, so . . .
>
> So it all comes down to this: We choose and reject in accordance with
> our individual preferences; and that prejudice knows no societal,
> ethical or intellectual bounds.
I'll go along with that, though political groups seem formed of
people who've mostly never met each other, who make common cause
according to some shared characteristic or value. So far as I know,
my values aren't held by much of anyone else.
> > Layo
> > aloooooone, so alooooooone
>
> Lisbeth
> (and we are all alone)
Well, I bet the objectivists would take you.
Layo
Jyeshta
>What sort of herbs do you recommend?
Echinacea, garlic, Vitamin C, "Efamol" Evening Primrose Oil (follow
the directions on the bottle), green tea, and chamomile tea (the
chamomile relaxes smooth muscle tissue). Green tea is good as a
general tonic but has cancer fighting properties.[1] Evening Primrose
Oil does a whole bunch of stuff -- lowers cholesterol, relieves
joint/arthritis pain, relieves symptoms of PMS (it contains the
highest levels of GLA of any food; GLA is necessary for lots of
areas of body maintenance and most people don't get it sufficiently
in their diets. It is converted into prostaglandin in the body.)
EPO is one of those things you have to "build up" in your body,
it's a longer term type of supplement. It might not be strictly
indicated to help post-surgery healing, but as a supplement for
better health generally, it has much to recommend it.
Chamomile is good for general relaxation/healing, and if you don't
want to drink it (although it's a nice drinking tea), you can make
a big pot of it and pour it into your bathwater. Inhaling the
steam of chamomile tea helps bronchial congestion, also. One
cup a day of chamomile tea is not excessive. Up to 8 small cups
of green tea can be taken per day.
Echinacea, garlic, and Vitamin C are good immune system boosters.
All of these are safe* (but don't take to excess, and always make
sure any herb has "Standardized" written on the bottle). Some
(many) herbs are not safe, especially when combined with other
drugs, or taken for long periods, or taken in excessive doses.
*But anyone who's pregnant or nursing needs to doublecheck,
especially regarding ingested chamomile.
[1] Green tea is particularly of interest to smokers; Japan has
the highest rate of smoking, yet the lowest rate of lung cancer,
which is so far anecdotally attributed to their daily consumption
of 6 to 8 cups of green tea.
--
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
> All of these are safe*
Um, yeah. If you're pregnant and take EPO, it helps
your cervix prepare for birth. It worked for me that
way, when Eris was ready for it.
Jet told me about EPO for menstrual stuff a long time
ago. He knows surprising things about women's health
and health in general.
Jyeshta
An additional note (or two): Chamomile should be avoided by anyone
allergic to daisies, or plants in the daisy family, like ragweed.
The recommended amount of green tea for daily consumption is
4 to 6 cups, not 6 to 8 cups as I wrote below.
Garlic should also be avoided by nursing mothers, as in breast
milk it can cause colic in an infant.
In <8vgofj$rcf$1...@panix6.panix.com> g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) writes:
>In <8vftqh$4d6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> plus...@my-deja.com writes:
>>What sort of herbs do you recommend?
>Echinacea, garlic, Vitamin C, "Efamol" Evening Primrose Oil (follow
>the directions on the bottle), green tea, and chamomile tea (the
>chamomile relaxes smooth muscle tissue). Green tea is good as a
>general tonic but has cancer fighting properties.[1] Evening Primrose
>Oil does a whole bunch of stuff -- lowers cholesterol, relieves
>joint/arthritis pain, relieves symptoms of PMS (it contains the
>highest levels of GLA of any food; GLA is necessary for lots of
>areas of body maintenance and most people don't get it sufficiently
>in their diets. It is converted into prostaglandin in the body.)
>EPO is one of those things you have to "build up" in your body,
>it's a longer term type of supplement. It might not be strictly
>indicated to help post-surgery healing, but as a supplement for
>better health generally, it has much to recommend it.
>Chamomile is good for general relaxation/healing, and if you don't
>want to drink it (although it's a nice drinking tea), you can make
>a big pot of it and pour it into your bathwater. Inhaling the
>steam of chamomile tea helps bronchial congestion, also. One
>cup a day of chamomile tea is not excessive. Up to 8 small cups
>of green tea can be taken per day.
>Echinacea, garlic, and Vitamin C are good immune system boosters.
>All of these are safe* (but don't take to excess, and always make
>sure any herb has "Standardized" written on the bottle). Some
>(many) herbs are not safe, especially when combined with other
>drugs, or taken for long periods, or taken in excessive doses.
>*But anyone who's pregnant or nursing needs to doublecheck,
>especially regarding ingested chamomile.
>[1] Green tea is particularly of interest to smokers; Japan has
>the highest rate of smoking, yet the lowest rate of lung cancer,
>which is so far anecdotally attributed to their daily consumption
>of 6 to 8 cups of green tea.
>--
--
des...@my-deja.com
>
> > Moreso, in many cases. My old advisor and her husband had a huge
fight
> > about letting their daughter play with Barbie. It was the /husband/
> > who was againist it.
> >
> > Go figure.
>
> Which one do you think was right?
Knee jerk reaction -- the husband. But it's complicated. My advisor
believed that her daughter would just end up playing with the barbies
of her friends, and might feel left out if she didn't have one of her
own.
And then there's my old friend from Poland, who was raised in a
feminist household, and had trouble in his late teens and early 20s
because he felt that his desire -- his male desire -- was a /bad/ and
destructive thing. It took him years to come to terms with desire.
If you could raise your children without falling into to the same old
gender roles and yet still instill in them a sense of their own self-
worth, that would be the best case scenario.
> Older kids are more complicated but that doesn't make it simpler to
> forbid them things. One of my friends hated the thought of her sons
> playing with toy guns and she wouldn't let them have any. She noticed
> they played with bent sticks. ""Pow! I shot you!" When one of them
> was a teenager he saved his babysitting money for a whole summer to
> buy a special Sturm Ruger handgun and then every time he got some
money
> together he'd get bullets and shoot them. He got arrested and nearly
> thrown out of college for having his gun collection in the dorm. Now,
> he *might* have turned into a gun nut if she hadn't made such a big
> deal about it, but I'm clear that telling him he couldn't have the
toys
> he wanted didn't help.
You could finesse it so that you don't necessarily /forbid/ the
behavior, but you don't support it either. I dunno though. I don't
have kids. My mother used to tell me, when I wanted something she
didn't want me to have, "you'll get nothing and like it!" We were
poor, and that usually inhibited me from getting what I wanted anyway.
des
buk...@baileylink.net
plus...@my-deja.com wrote, in part:
> It's hardly a good idea to try to teach people to be
> strong by telling them to accept that their basic needs, in this case
> love, cannot be met.
People do not _need_ love. In fact, I would argue that the word can no
longer be defined. The definition has been diluted to homeopathic
proportion.
That was a nice post.
Bukvich
Jyeshta
>Jet told me about EPO for menstrual stuff a long time
>ago. He knows surprising things about women's health
>and health in general.
Let's have a man-worshiping contest! My boyfriend knows
surprising things about everything! And he's cute! And
he has the fastest re-dial button on earth! And... and...
and... he's bringing food over later!
--
Jyeshta
>People do not _need_ love. In fact, I would argue that the word can no
>longer be defined. The definition has been diluted to homeopathic
>proportion.
It's known that newborns who are held and cuddled thrive in good
health, while newborns who are not held and cuddled become sickly.
Holding and cuddling are two of the physical manifestations of love.
--
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
Physical affection is neither a necessary nor sufficient
evidence of love. Whatever love may be...
What you're describing is a biological need human infants
have for close physical contact with other humans.
OTOH, the other day I told Eris, "I love you" and she said
"luuub oooo."
Jyeshta
>Jyeshta wrote:
>> In <8vh2qf$1q1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> buk...@baileylink.net writes:
>>
>> >People do not _need_ love. In fact, I would argue that the word can no
>> >longer be defined. The definition has been diluted to homeopathic
>> >proportion.
>>
>> It's known that newborns who are held and cuddled thrive in good
>> health, while newborns who are not held and cuddled become sickly.
>> Holding and cuddling are two of the physical manifestations of love.
>Physical affection is neither a necessary nor sufficient
>evidence of love. Whatever love may be...
Whew. Do ya think you could pull your brain out of the
stratosphere long enough to acknowledge the existence of
intangibles like love -- just for once, just for the hell
of it.
>What you're describing is a biological need human infants
>have for close physical contact with other humans.
Ya. Not that that's love or anything.
>OTOH, the other day I told Eris, "I love you" and she said
>"luuub oooo."
She was faking it -- according to you.
--
buk...@baileylink.net
g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) gasped out:
> It's known that newborns who are held and cuddled thrive in good
> health, while newborns who are not held and cuddled become sickly.
Sure.
> Holding and cuddling are two of the physical manifestations of love.
I say you don't know what that word means.
Define love in a post as short as this one!
Bukvich
[ ' crosspost to alt.cuddle and you WILL be voodoo-hexed ' ]
Jyeshta
>Define love in a post as short as this one!
The willingness to serve another* (or others on a collective scale)
whether or not one's care is acknowledged, known, or appreciated.
The real definition of love is the universe. Everything in the
universe, just by existing, is love. Interpersonal love (between
spouses and relatives and friends) often is mistaken as the only
form of love. And, within that subcategory, "being in love" is
often mistaken for the only 'real' love.
*And not because one hopes to accrue brownie points with 'God',
but because it just feels right to help others.
--
buk...@baileylink.net
g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) wrote:
> >Define love in a post as short as this one!
> The willingness to serve another* (or others on a collective scale)
> whether or not one's care is acknowledged, known, or appreciated.
With 99.9% of the people I have ever known, this is NOT love. This is
called being a SUCKER.
yes I am jaded.
> The real definition of love is the universe.
This is exactly my point. A word defined this broadly ain't all that
useful.
> Interpersonal love (between
> spouses and relatives and friends) often is mistaken as the only
> form of love. And, within that subcategory, "being in love" is
> often mistaken for the only 'real' love.
More concepts of very limited utility.
I have my own definition, of course. I have never found anybody
interested in it, so I shall spare you the boredom of having to scan
over it. What do you suppose would happen if David started posting in
alt.cuddle?
Bukvich
[ ' and they lived happily ever after ' ]
Jyeshta
>I have my own definition, of course. I have never found anybody
>interested in it, so I shall spare you the boredom of having to scan
>over it.
Oh, please, do tell!
>What do you suppose would happen if David started posting in
>alt.cuddle?
He'd live happily ever after.
--
plus...@my-deja.com
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> Define love in a post as short as this one!
Phosphorus. Oxytocin. Theobromine!
Layo <-- faking it
Hit1Hard
> Define love in a post as short as this one!
Lets see , if you are ready for that one.
Because this question is close to the ultimate question man can have ,
to name it : Why are we here.
Love is the ultimate <personal> realisation that :
The whole universe is you and you are the universe.
Al other things you can describe how "love" acts , shows <etc>
are only manifestations of what a lot of people think it should act ,
show...etc
So , you got the answer.. The big question NOW is , what are you going
to do
with that knowledge ?
--
Hit1Hard
Jyeshta
>In <8vjajk$f3r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> buk...@baileylink.net writes:
>>Define love in a post as short as this one!
>The real definition of love is the universe. Everything in the
>universe, just by existing, is love.
But I MUST add that everything tangible is the most warped
expression of love. When energy slows down to form a blob
of matter, it becomes DENSE. Its love expressing capacity
is then slowed to minimal levels because it has to drag its
own weight around (or be contained by it, like plants and
minerals) and deal with 'eat or be eaten', and 'fight or flight'.
This is why everything in the universe with heavy mass is
so easily further corrupted. The purer love exists at much
higher frequencies for which many of us lack adequate sensing
apparatus.
If black holes have tremendous mass, it would follow that there
is a dearth of love in them. Perhaps they are made up of the
essences and psychic residue of evil beings. (Evil is defined
as the absence of expressed love.) All just my momentary opin-
ion, of course.
--
buk...@baileylink.net
> >I have my own definition, of course. I have never found anybody
> >interested in it, so I shall spare you the boredom of having to scan
> >over it.
> Oh, please, do tell!
ok since you said please . . .
My definition of Real True Love: Knowledge + Trust + Big Attraction +
Small Repulsion + Stable Goal Overlap
You have to know them, first. There is no such thing as love at first
sight. That is lust. You have to know all about them, their good
points (everybody has them) and their bad points (everybody has those
too.)
You have to trust them. And they have to trust you.
Their good points must be pretty cool so that they have a bit of staying
power on that Big Attraction force.
Their bad points must be reasonably innocuous so they don't drive you
away with that Repulsion force. If she picks her nose, that really
isn't that big a deal. That type thing.
Their goals have to have some reasonable overlap with your own, and stay
that way, so that you can ally yourself with them over time. Alliance
is the key concept here.
It is a cruel heartless hostile world. I have known a thousand couples
who expended effort to destroy one another. If you can't depend on a
mate to be on your side, what is the point?
I don't believe she needs to be willing to hide you from the FBI. Which
is a pretty silly definition anyway, seeing how that is like the first
place they are going to go looking for you.
Lust != love (common mistake)
Infatuation != love ( " )
Neediness != love ( " )
What is sad is when you love somebody and they morph into the unloveable
right before your very eyes. You try and talk sense to them " just help
me out a little here woman " and they act like they hear you but they
are not listening. People are not generally skilled at listening. They
just keep on acting out the same old self destructive patterns over and
over and over and over.
And they wonder why they are miserable.
Go figure!
Bukvich
[ ' before you know it we will be talking about god ' ]
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
> g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) wrote:
> > buk...@baileylink.net writes:
> My definition of Real True Love: Knowledge + Trust + Big Attraction +
> Small Repulsion + Stable Goal Overlap
You're talking about long-term relationship, which to my mind is very
different from love, although certainly worth doing.
> You have to know them, first. There is no such thing as love at first
> sight. That is lust. You have to know all about them, their good
> points (everybody has them) and their bad points (everybody has those
> too.)
But then, you never ever know all about anybody.
While love-at-first-sight isn't something I'd call love either,
when you love you never know quite what it is that you love, and
that involves either an acceptance or a leap of faith. You can
accept that you don't know what you're loving and take it from
there, or you can maintain the faith that the person you love is
really truly like you imagine they are, and continue until you
learn different.
> You have to trust them. And they have to trust you.
I find that an unacceptable restriction. Most of the people I've
loved have been basically untrustworthy. So I love them and don't
trust them.
The other way around would be restricting too, if you have to love
people before you can trust them, how can you drive on the freeway?
(Oh, I remember, you take the bus and trust that being in a massive
metal wall will protect you, if the traffic doesn't work out it
will be the other guy who suffers. But anyway, driving is a
fantastic act of trust and millions of people do it every day.)
> Their good points must be pretty cool so that they have a bit of staying
> power on that Big Attraction force.
Nobody's cool enough to have staying power based on that. Or if
they are, their good points will make you feel too inferior to stick
around.
Staying power depends on continual forgiveness.
> Their bad points must be reasonably innocuous so they don't drive you
> away with that Repulsion force. If she picks her nose, that really
> isn't that big a deal. That type thing.
Agreed. You have to be able to overlook the things you have negative
judgements about, or you won't be able to keep it going.
> Their goals have to have some reasonable overlap with your own, and stay
> that way, so that you can ally yourself with them over time. Alliance
> is the key concept here.
That's for maintaining a long-term relationship. Not for love. It's
a really good thing when you can get a workable alliance, though.
> It is a cruel heartless hostile world.
I figure it's a fine neutral world that happens to have a bunch of
people in it who act cruel, heartless, and hostile.
> I have known a thousand couples
> who expended effort to destroy one another. If you can't depend on a
> mate to be on your side, what is the point?
Agreed.
> Lust != love (common mistake)
> Infatuation != love ( " )
> Neediness != love ( " )
Agreed.
> What is sad is when you love somebody and they morph into the unloveable
> right before your very eyes.
"...the death of a beautiful illusion at the hands of a ruthless gang of
experiences...."
> You try and talk sense to them " just help
> me out a little here woman " and they act like they hear you but they
> are not listening. People are not generally skilled at listening. They
> just keep on acting out the same old self destructive patterns over and
> over and over and over.
Asking them to be different for your sake is one of those old
self-destructive patterns.
> And they wonder why they are miserable.
They know why they're miserable. The person they trusted to be somebody
else is actually someone they didn't expect, and they want their
illusion
back.
Sad. Hard to palliate.
buk...@baileylink.net
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife <agatho...@ix.netcom.com> bemoaned:
> You're talking about long-term relationship, which to my mind is very
> different from love, although certainly worth doing.
We are into thread drift here. What I really wanted to discuss was why
I find the phrase "I love you" to be generally pointless.
> But then, you never ever know all about anybody.
Did you ever see Miller's Crossing? Kind of an uneven movie. Coen
brothers' adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest (fanTAStic book.)
There is a wonderful bit of dialogue in there where Marcia Hayden's
character is complaining to Gabriel Byrne's character about her lover's
shapeshifting. He simply says, "nobody ever knows anyone that well."
That is true, but I do believe your response indicates that I didn't put
my meaning together too clear, or else you didn't get it as intended.
> While love-at-first-sight isn't something I'd call love either,
> when you love you never know quite what it is that you love, and
> that involves either an acceptance or a leap of faith. You can
> accept that you don't know what you're loving and take it from
> there, or you can maintain the faith that the person you love is
> really truly like you imagine they are, and continue until you
> learn different.
Not sure what the difference is between this and settling for
dishonesty. Part of growing up is developing enough self-esteem to not
be humiliated when one of your flaws is out there in the open for others
to see. Nobody's perfect!
> I find that an unacceptable restriction. Most of the people I've
> loved have been basically untrustworthy. So I love them and don't
> trust them.
YMMV. To me trust is indispensible. If you can't trust somebody, move
on. There are other opportunities and life is short.
> The other way around would be restricting too, if you have to love
> people before you can trust them, how can you drive on the freeway?
> (Oh, I remember, you take the bus and trust that being in a massive
> metal wall will protect you, if the traffic doesn't work out it
> will be the other guy who suffers. But anyway, driving is a
> fantastic act of trust and millions of people do it every day.)
The leading cause of premature death is automobile accidents. I don't
drive. Paranoia can be a GOOD thing.
Do you all have one of those "baby on board" signs on your car?
> Nobody's cool enough to have staying power based on that. Or if
> they are, their good points will make you feel too inferior to stick
> around.
You can see the miraculous in your baby, but find it difficult to see it
in other people? You are mostly water. Some carbon some calcium some
nitrogen some trace elements reacting. Think about that.
A large fraction of people are cool enough to have staying power based
on their inherent miraculous coolness.
> Staying power depends on continual forgiveness.
Stand by your man!
> Agreed. You have to be able to overlook the things you have negative
> judgements about, or you won't be able to keep it going.
What if they like to watch television?
> That's for maintaining a long-term relationship. Not for love.
See above.
> Agreed.
> Agreed.
Hey hey, we agree agree!!
> Asking them to be different for your sake is one of those old
> self-destructive patterns.
In the particular instance I was thinking about, I was more like asking
them to be the same.
I want my old friends
I want my old face
I want my old life
Fsck this time and place.
> > And they wonder why they are miserable.
> They know why they're miserable. The person they trusted to be
> somebody else is actually someone they didn't expect, and they want
> their illusion back.
Well yeah, that is about the gist of it.
So, have you met Sarah Jane yet? She sounds like a perfect candidate to
take one look at your kid and contract Baby Rabies.
Cormac MacCarthy explains the Texas psyche in all its gory detail just
perfectly.
Bukvich
[ ' i could post an excerpt or two if you are interested ' ]
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife wrote:
> Most of the people I've loved have been basically untrustworthy.
If you say so. (I'd say most people are basically untrustworthy.)
I'd think it's bad enough that I'm so HARD TO GET ALONG WITH, eh?
> So I love them and don't trust them.
She's learning. (Right, Layo?)
[...]
> Staying power depends on continual forgiveness.
[...]
> You have to be able to overlook the things you have negative
> judgements about, or you won't be able to keep it going.
Damn, she's got THAT right. (As 'Mlle. X' surely knows by now!)
> Asking them to be different for your sake is one of those old
> self-destructive patterns.
SEE?
Duckingly,
Cuddles
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOh8IBxz40he1RakNEQK/EACgjyb5PNEfWO1J72lyyAJj7led3vgAoMvs
jcYRO7W1kFxudywndlSPxADO
=Twbp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife wrote:
>
> > Most of the people I've loved have been basically untrustworthy.
>
> If you say so. (I'd say most people are basically untrustworthy.)
>
> I'd think it's bad enough that I'm so HARD TO GET ALONG WITH, eh?
Dammit, I didn't write that. It was Jet. We've had
some confusion on account of posting from the same
program. We keep forgetting to change the headers.
I never had a problem trusting you.
shebr...@my-deja.com
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8vf108$ed7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <na...@nnrp1.deja.com>, shebr...@my-deja.com :
>
> > Some do, some don't, but that seems to be a more spiritual argument
> > than a societal one. So we could argue that the real problems in
this
> > society stem from a lack of spiritual awareness rather than societal
> > tolerance.
>
> hmmm. i find this an interesting comment, given that your first
reaction to
> this thread was to point out that you are not a victim. i would first
> postulate that the word courage could be substituted for the word
awareness.
> maybe then your first reaction would have been one of reason (IMO),
not
> seeming to be so "i'm not a victim, i got here on my own."
It wasn't deliberate. Only that there are no real sets of constraints
other than what you choose to believe if you have purposed your will to
something specific. When society (or the media or the collective
consciousness or mom or dad or the man or whatever) tells you that you
can't do this or that, what they are really doing is offering a life
preserver where we'd be better off learning to swim. Sometimes they are
well intentioned, more often they are not. I am stymied by a mindset
that is sluggish and fallow, that would rather stagnate in a cluster
than chance a wild wave. But I *have* been a victim at certain times,
that's an inescapable truth. We could haggle the specifics and I could
then adopt some sense of absolution or retribution or utter confusion,
but in the end, where does that get me? We are all victims. We wound.
We heal. We are wounded. And we heal. In the end we must learn to
forgive. But that is another post.
Is there no reasonable middleground between the terms 'victim'
and 'abuser'? Many times, people are both, sometimes something in
between. What is the antithesis of 'victim"? What is it when good
things happen to you for no apparent reason beyond your control as
opposed to bad?
> perhaps what you (and most of us) are struggling against is a sense
of of the
> worthlessness of believing in your own self-worth? the tools that
could be
> counted upon in the past are now missing. not enough people lay
brick or
> blacksmith or sew for profit these days. we live in the most fluid
of times,
> where the absurdity of life is reflected in the utter randomness of
the ways
> in which we die.
> we fall in planes, or roll our mobile siege-towers of SUV's over in
the
> gutters of eight-lane superhighways. we feel the lumps in our
breasts, and
> know almost to the second when the tumors will consume us... and
instead of
> being able to cure and control we cut and cauterize. we spit on the
sidewalk
> in the toxic air which whips down the tunnels created by the tall
buildings
> in our rat-infested mazes of cities. we are dying in ever-more
horrible
> ways. what does that say about society?
It says that in the end we die, we shuffle this mortal coil and that
hasn't changed from any other time in the history of mankind. Death is
death. How is that any different than times past? Was it less absurd
to be nailed to a post by the Cossacks or burned at the stake or
suffocating from plague or raped and mutilated by savages ? And was a
more noble or worthwhile life to be had by the expectation of the way
one would die?
Life *is* absurd when you don't have anything to live for that is worth
dying for. We are created for more than this and it weighs upon each of
us individually. Something nags from within and it isn't just
worthwhile vocational choice or the lack of it. Yes, it is worthless to
believe that your self-worth is the end rather than the means, but a
sense of self-worth is imperative. Knowing ones value is the beginning
of everything. And if you know your true value, you can't not know the
value of everyone else around you.
>spirituality? is that what you really want
> to say? or is it more of a general commitment to courage and
caring?
Let me ask you this: How can you be committed to caring without first
having some prior spiritual motivation? Committment individually or
societally or just to the principle itself?
> i wish sometimes that USENET could take place in realtime because i
would
> have liked to been able to converse with you about your feelings when
you
> first responded to this thread.
I feel the same way. I always wondered why there wasn't an angstchat
somewhere.
> what was in your mind then? why the
> immediate defense?
Statistics lie. Studies pander. I am set against the assumption that we
all must fit into a certain mold. Layo wasn't saying we do and I wasn't
arguing that she was. I was musing the train.
> we each need the other.
Amen to that. And no matter what Buk says, we all need Love. Which kind
is open to dispute.
Lisbeth
The Oracle winks.
plus...@my-deja.com
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife (Jonah?) <agatho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> > My definition of Real True Love: Knowledge + Trust + Big
Attraction +
> > Small Repulsion + Stable Goal Overlap
>
> You're talking about long-term relationship, which to my mind is very
> different from love, although certainly worth doing.
That was my thought. Happy marriage.
Having stable goal overlap is excellent. I accidentally talked my
sweetie out of the children thing, so what's left - in his words,
"anything for a weird life" - fits. We've been able to meet
all of our intermediate goals faster than I'd hoped.
The kids thing will crop up again at some point. It's worrisome
to me that as a mom I'll be so conservative, at which time our points
of view might well diverge - or they may not. (Because I'll change
so much, I view motherhood with the sort of suspicion usually reserved
for death.)
> > You have to know them, first. There is no such thing as love at
first
> > sight. That is lust. You have to know all about them, their good
> > points (everybody has them) and their bad points (everybody has
those
> > too.)
I guess I'm just intuitive or something. I hate it when I get talked
into paying attention to someone I didn't have the hots for first; it
never works.
> But then, you never ever know all about anybody.
Right. It would be hard for me to love a person who had no hidden
corners. Of course, it's not easy to trust such a person, but
letting go of control is part of what it's about.
> While love-at-first-sight isn't something I'd call love either,
> when you love you never know quite what it is that you love, and
> that involves either an acceptance or a leap of faith.
Yep. A truer summary than I'd expected of Jonah and/or Jen.
> You can
> accept that you don't know what you're loving and take it from
> there, or you can maintain the faith that the person you love is
> really truly like you imagine they are, and continue until you
> learn different.
Steve just sat down next to me without looking at the computer and
said, "Do you love the real me or just your fantasy of me?" He
wasn't serious.
> > You have to trust them. And they have to trust you.
>
> I find that an unacceptable restriction. Most of the people I've
> loved have been basically untrustworthy. So I love them and don't
> trust them.
It sets a timer though. I don't enjoy being that tense. People who
feel less vulnerable seem able to pull it off, but there's a
definite element of bullshit that gets introduced if lack of trust
equates to fear.
> > Their good points must be pretty cool so that they have a bit of
staying
> > power on that Big Attraction force.
>
> Nobody's cool enough to have staying power based on that. Or if
> they are, their good points will make you feel too inferior to stick
> around.
Oh, I'm sure he thinks he's pretty cool his own self. On the other
hand, he'd be particularly entertaining to watch flailing next to
impervious perfection. Do you think his punctured ego would make him
physically implode?
> Staying power depends on continual forgiveness.
I agree with this. The best you can hope for is good intentions and
the willingness to pay attention.
> > Their bad points must be reasonably innocuous so they don't drive
you
> > away with that Repulsion force. If she picks her nose, that really
> > isn't that big a deal. That type thing.
Honestly, everybody sucks so much. Only being able to love people who
don't suck means you were right the first time, you don't love
anybody.
> Agreed. You have to be able to overlook the things you have negative
> judgements about, or you won't be able to keep it going.
I find it impossible to 'overlook' things I have negative judgments
about, I have to transform my judgmental attitude or it's doomed.
Usually it involves looking at why whatever their trait is makes me
feel afraid. If there's no way around it, the relationship is over.
> > It is a cruel heartless hostile world.
>
> I figure it's a fine neutral world that happens to have a bunch of
> people in it who act cruel, heartless, and hostile.
That's my take. I'm not one of these people who's repelled by the
dreaded lovelessness of physical matter. How can you think that? All
my love is physical; it makes my cells light up like chinese lanterns.
> > I have known a thousand couples
> > who expended effort to destroy one another. If you can't depend on
a
> > mate to be on your side, what is the point?
>
> Agreed.
This phenomena is easily explained. I don't think I'll bother though.
> > Lust != love (common mistake)
They have a definite relationship with one another. Lust has a way
of undermining the values you'd like to think you have - in some
ways it's more honest. I look at uniting love and lust as a kind
of alchemy. I doubt I'll be able to explain this.
> > What is sad is when you love somebody and they morph into the
unloveable
> > right before your very eyes.
>
> "...the death of a beautiful illusion at the hands of a ruthless gang
of
> experiences...."
Hee. It means either that you didn't love them unless they did and
said what you wanted them to (that's not love), or that they made a
decision you don't care to live with: for example, anyone can betray.
If someone chooses to do so, it doesn't mean they morphed. Everyone
has the potential to suck horribly at all times without changing a
thing. Lots of times I love the person while despising the action.
People like to get upset about how disillusioned they are, like
everybody owes it to them to live up to their presumptions (not even
agreements, if you'll notice). The whole thing seems rather goofy and
naive, like a 3-year-old finding out there's no such thing as santa
claus.
> > You try and talk sense to them " just help
> > me out a little here woman " and they act like they hear you but
they
> > are not listening. People are not generally skilled at listening.
They
> > just keep on acting out the same old self destructive patterns over
and
> > over and over and over.
>
> Asking them to be different for your sake is one of those old
> self-destructive patterns.
Nicely said.
> > And they wonder why they are miserable.
That's just what you get when you try Scorin' With Depressed Chicks
<tm>.
But seriously, you know you are the one that's miserable. If you had
any self-esteem at all you wouldn't resort to consorting with folks
who feel so bloody awful that not even you can bring them down - who
thus presumably won't dump you promptly when your mask slips.
Actually, I can't believe you revealed that about yourself. Here,
let me throw you a towel.
> They know why they're miserable. The person they trusted to be
somebody
> else is actually someone they didn't expect, and they want their
> illusion back.
>
> Sad. Hard to palliate.
I know why I used to be miserable, and it pre-dates boys by at least
ten years.
Y'all really think the world revolves around you, don't you?
Layo
['so who's going to tell me, what's PKB?']
buk...@baileylink.net
plus...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Oh, I'm sure he thinks he's pretty cool his own self. On the other
> hand, he'd be particularly entertaining to watch flailing next to
> impervious perfection. Do you think his punctured ego would make him
> physically implode?
As a good Neitzchean, it pleases me to point out to you that your
resentment is a manifestation of a slave morality.
Of course I am egotistical. I think it would be particularly
entertaining to see you try and make me flail.
> Honestly, everybody sucks so much. Only being able to love people who
> don't suck means you were right the first time, you don't love
> anybody.
I don't believe you suck. I don't believe that anywhere near everybody
sucks. You think that everybody is a poor miserable sinner, is that it?
> > > I have known a thousand couples
> > > who expended effort to destroy one another.
> This phenomena is easily explained. I don't think I'll bother though.
Let me guess: Satan works his wicked ways.
> Hee. It means either that you didn't love them unless they did and
> said what you wanted them to (that's not love), or that they made a
> decision you don't care to live with: for example, anyone can betray.
> If someone chooses to do so, it doesn't mean they morphed. Everyone
> has the potential to suck horribly at all times without changing a
> thing. Lots of times I love the person while despising the action.
This is kind of pointless speculation. What facts you have are all of
one side. To get at the truth you would need a small army of lawyers
and pursue it through higher apellate venues of second guessing and
cross examination and Brownian-moving pit-bull histrionics.
> People like to get upset about how disillusioned they are, like
> everybody owes it to them to live up to their presumptions (not even
> agreements, if you'll notice).
Well yes, that is not a bad capsulization of what SHE did.
> The whole thing seems rather goofy and
> naive, like a 3-year-old finding out there's no such thing as santa
> claus.
Absolutely correctomundo!
> That's just what you get when you try Scorin' With Depressed Chicks
> <tm>.
> But seriously, you know you are the one that's miserable. If you had
> any self-esteem at all you wouldn't resort to consorting with folks
> who feel so bloody awful that not even you can bring them down - who
> thus presumably won't dump you promptly when your mask slips.
Courtship == unmasking you silly rabit. But yeah, I have known the
ending of this story for a long long time.
> Y'all really think the world revolves around you, don't you?
You will have to try a different tack if you want me to feel bad. Yes I
am arrogant conceited selfish egotistical. I don't make any SECRET of
it. I don't believe it is shameful.
> Layo
> ['so who's going to tell me, what's PKB?']
Pot Kettle Black would be like Layo calling somebody egotistical,
thinking it is an insult.
Ilya is absolutely right. You need to get over that.
Bukvich
[ ' for our next lesson we will do Hegel ! ' ]
Jyeshta
>My definition of Real True Love: Knowledge + Trust + Big Attraction +
>Small Repulsion + Stable Goal Overlap
Oh, ok. You're talking about partnership love. That's a subset.
>You have to know them, first. There is no such thing as love at first
>sight.
I believe there can be. But there's a distinction between love
at first sight and infatuation (don't ask me to try to analyse
it now!). For instance, I fell in love with Sparx at first
sight, and loved her intensely and forever (even though our last
4 years together were pretty bad). You could argue that there's
a difference when it comes to same-species love, but cats have
personalities, quirks, and distinguishing elements of essence
too. Humans have no fuzz. Maybe that's the problem.
>That is lust. You have to know all about them, their good
>points (everybody has them) and their bad points (everybody has those
>too.)
Of course. But I don't think you have to know all about them.
I don't think you can because (despite what self-help books say)
everyone is always changing (within their individual parameters).
>You have to trust them. And they have to trust you.
I'm not sure... there has to be at least enough trust to believe
they won't sever your body parts with a chainsaw while you sleep
but beyond that... everything's a risk. I guess I agree enough to
say, you have to trust them to the extent that you don't fear for
your life within the relationship.
>Their good points must be pretty cool so that they have a bit of staying
>power on that Big Attraction force.
Yes, this goes along with what I said a few weeks ago about
genuinely liking a person.
>Their bad points must be reasonably innocuous so they don't drive you
>away with that Repulsion force. If she picks her nose, that really
>isn't that big a deal. That type thing.
Yes.
>Their goals have to have some reasonable overlap with your own, and stay
>that way, so that you can ally yourself with them over time. Alliance
>is the key concept here.
Well, that's another ideal. Goals change.
>It is a cruel heartless hostile world. I have known a thousand couples
>who expended effort to destroy one another. If you can't depend on a
>mate to be on your side, what is the point?
Yes.
>I don't believe she needs to be willing to hide you from the FBI. Which
>is a pretty silly definition anyway, seeing how that is like the first
>place they are going to go looking for you.
>Lust != love (common mistake)
>Infatuation != love ( " )
>Neediness != love ( " )
I guess I agree. (But I still believe in love at first sight in
rare instances.)
>What is sad is when you love somebody and they morph into the unloveable
>right before your very eyes.
By changing? Everyone changes. In relationships, two people
create a third dynamic which is the relationship itself, and
this changes each individual. In every relationship, each
person becomes changed in different ways according to the dynamic
that's created with the partner. Marry thrice and you'll be
three times changed. And this is in addition to the ways in
which you're 'set' to change on your own anyway. It's like a
big coalescent energy mesh. Nothing stays the same.
The most you can hope for is that your basic natures are
sympathetic enough to each other that you can change together,
and allow for the individual changes in the Other (big "O"
because the more you get into a relationship, the more strangely
other the Other becomes; not that that's a bad thing, it's the
way relationships are -- they're learning experiences).
>You try and talk sense to them " just help
>me out a little here woman " and they act like they hear you but they
>are not listening.
Do you mean when you try to talk about a trait of hers you'd
like her to change for your sake?
>People are not generally skilled at listening.
Do you listen to her when she tries to talk to you about a trait
of yours she'd like you to change?
>They
>just keep on acting out the same old self destructive patterns over and
>over and over and over.
It depends. If it's major, like a mental illness, there's
not much one can do about it. If it's a behavior pattern, like
leaving the cap off the toothpaste, it's just a matter of learning
to put the cap back on.
>And they wonder why they are miserable.
An example or two would help here.
>Go figure!
>Bukvich
>[ ' before you know it we will be talking about god ' ]
At the moment, I don't believe in a separate God. I think God(s),
or whatever, fragmented for some reason and exists now in everything
in the universe. It's a depressing thought. Who knows what I'll
think in a week, or a month, or a year. And who does it matter to
but me, anyway? It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of "God(s)",
really. You don't have to share your toothpaste with God(s) (unless
you have MPD and s/he's one of your "crew").
--
stu
> >sight.
>
> I believe there can be.
not in the real world.
> >If she picks her nose, that really
> >isn't that big a deal. That type thing.
>
> Yes.
it is.
if you think you love somebody, take their most annoying habits, and
imagine living with THAT for years ... people don't change MUCH and
those annoying habits never will.
you're already putting up with another person by having them around, the
last thing you really need is their irritating little idiosyncracies to
boot.
> >If you can't depend on a
> >mate to be on your side, what is the point?
>
> Yes.
you can't possibly depend on a partner to stay by your side. that kind
of "unconditional love" just does not exist, nor should it ever exist
between "romantic" partners.
BAH!
> >And they wonder why they are miserable.
then they leave high-school, and they know exactly why they're miserable
-- they're alive.
blah.
Stu.
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
> > Most of the people I've loved have been basically untrustworthy.
> If you say so. (I'd say most people are basically untrustworthy.)
Yes, of course.
> I'd think it's bad enough that I'm so HARD TO GET ALONG WITH, eh?
??
> > So I love them and don't trust them.
> She's learning. (Right, Layo?)
Oops. I thought that people would notice by my distinctive
posting style who was writing that. We've been getting headers
mixed up, trying to use a single program on the road. I haven't
bothered to fix it up better since it hasn't been nearly my
highest priority recently.
plus...@my-deja.com
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
> In article <8vnl6k$n3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> plus...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Honestly, everybody sucks so much. Only being able to love people
who
> > don't suck means you were right the first time, you don't love
> > anybody.
>
> I don't believe you suck.
Oh stop. *giggle*
> > People like to get upset about how disillusioned they are, like
> > everybody owes it to them to live up to their presumptions (not even
> > agreements, if you'll notice).
>
> Well yes, that is not a bad capsulization of what SHE did.
I once loved a guy and then found out he was a rapist. Now THAT was
weird.
> > That's just what you get when you try Scorin' With Depressed Chicks
> > <tm>.
>
> > But seriously, you know you are the one that's miserable. If you
had
> > any self-esteem at all you wouldn't resort to consorting with folks
> > who feel so bloody awful that not even you can bring them down - who
> > thus presumably won't dump you promptly when your mask slips.
>
> Courtship == unmasking you silly rabit. But yeah, I have known the
> ending of this story for a long long time.
Please do not court me. I have another towel if that one's not big
enough.
> Yes I
> am arrogant conceited selfish egotistical. I don't make any SECRET of
> it. I don't believe it is shameful.
Right, you hate Ayn Rand for some different reason than that she's just
like you. But published, famous and socially influential.
> Pot Kettle Black would be like Layo calling somebody egotistical,
> thinking it is an insult.
>
> Ilya is absolutely right. You need to get over that.
Scorpios are always correct. When the two of you agree it is like a
singularity of correctness from which no light can escape.
Layo
scorpio love doll, with realistic stinger
buk...@baileylink.net
plus...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Please do not court me. I have another towel if that one's not big
> enough.
Highly unlikely that we would go for each other. I am sort of a prude.
On the other hand, the vast majority of my girlfriends have been like
suicidal and borderline, so there may be hope!
> Right, you hate Ayn Rand for some different reason than that she's
> just like you.
I don't hate Ayn Rand. I think her books are quite good. When you are
fourteen years old. I have grave doubts about the sensibility of any
adult who reads that stuff.
I have problems with Neitzsche too. His devotees have done more with it
than he ever did. His greatness was really as a kernel, more than
anything. The really weird thing is he didn't have any students. His
contemporary Brentano, who taught Freud and Husserl was way more
influential, directly, but who ever hears anything about him anymore?
Neitzsche books are interesting to read, and he is slack enough that a
bunch of smart people have succeeded in projecting loads of cool stuff
onto him that he probably wouldn't even recognize.
Objectivism is a crass example of something that has been projected onto
him that he wouldn't even recognize. The list of neat people who have
adapted his stuff is way too long go over.
I like what Radha Pria does with him!
> Scorpios are always correct. When the two of you agree it is like a
> singularity of correctness from which no light can escape.
This is very Neitzschean. Poetic, but so ambiguous that the reader can
project upon it almost anything they choose. No wonder you are so
popular.
> Layo
> scorpio love doll, with realistic stinger
Bukvich
[ ' lego girlie toy, caffeine powered ' ]
Jyeshta
>It's kind of funny that everyone has to have their own definition of
>"love." Something that everyone recognizes is important in their
>lives, but where? how? what? who? when? I guess we know why.
>I tend to think that almost any two people who would happen to get
>into a relationship could pull it off, if that was their primary
>concern. Arranged marriages tend to work out in various cultures.
Especially when the parents hire an astrologer to fix their kid
up. It's either that, or arranged to minimize the starting
poverty level. The parents of the bride have to provide a dowry
and unless they can give much, her chances for marrying a suitor
from a better off family are very slim. That's why families hope
for the birth of boys and groan at the birth of girls; boys later
bring wealth to the family via their future wives' assets, while
girls later deplete the family's assets.
>People commit to loving each other.
Or at least to working in sync. Traditional roles for the women,
usually.
>Having a choice of people seems to be where most confusion enters into
>the picture, like there should be some form of love that is more true
>or more real than others.. else, how do you choose? What Bukvich talks
>about is mostly a matter of convenience. If there is no decision to be
>made, you can just love, right? What sort of decisions hold love as a
>determining factor? Marriage? If you love someone AND you get along
>AND you share lifestyles and goals that work AND (...) --> yes?
>:>buk...@baileylink.net writes:
>:>My definition of Real True Love: Knowledge + Trust + Big Attraction +
>:>Small Repulsion + Stable Goal Overlap
>I don't see how the addition of other factors that you would use in
>making decisions in your (romantic) life necessitates a new definition
>of love. That actually seems more like an effort to sustain the fairy
>tale notion of love.. you can always keep adding factors, until there
>is only one person on this earth
or no one at all
>that would fulfill your criteria.. do
>you see what I am saying? You haven't really given a definition of
>love, so much as enumerated your requirements for a relationship.
>Not that I think the particulars of any person's conception of love
>matter all that much,
except to the people they date
>but your description sounds more like the
>arranged marriage scenario.. with one exception.. that given a choice
>you can maximize the benefits and minimize the effort, provided your
>decision-making process is sound. One thing strikes me though.. in the
>case of arranged marriages, there is usually a strong cultural premise
>that the longterm relationship is preferable (or even necessary) in a
>person's life to any conceivable alternative. Is this true for you?
IMO, the reason the contemporary western ideal is still the
longterm relationship is only that splitting up is so painful.
People in western countries don't seem to worry too much anymore
about the consequences of divorce to their sproggen.
In other cultures, it's recognized that staying together is
better for the kids, and women still have fewer options post
divorce. And their take on love seems more realistic, not
expecting the 'soul mates' thing that westerners are so hooked
on.
>Is that why it should be "love," as opposed to something else?
>[ ' before you know it we'll be applying Bayes' formula ' ]
What's Bayes' formula?
--
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
> sollilja <ceme...@bottom.sea> writes:
> >I tend to think that almost any two people who would happen to get
> >into a relationship could pull it off, if that was their primary
> >concern. Arranged marriages tend to work out in various cultures.
> >People commit to loving each other.
Sometimes they work out, sometimes not. People who believe
strongly in romance are surprised that arranged marriages could ever
work, they tend to count the hits. People in cultures with arranged
marriages who want easier divorce laws tell stories of husbands who
spend all the money on gambling and drugs, leaving their wives and
children hungry. I haven't seen statistics about how many arranged
marriages work out relative to love-marriages, and I'm not even sure
how to ask the question.
> Or at least to working in sync. Traditional roles for the women,
> usually.
Yes.
> >Having a choice of people seems to be where most confusion enters into
> >the picture, like there should be some form of love that is more true
> >or more real than others.. else, how do you choose? What Bukvich talks
> >about is mostly a matter of convenience. If there is no decision to be
> >made, you can just love, right? What sort of decisions hold love as a
> >determining factor? Marriage? If you love someone AND you get along
> >AND you share lifestyles and goals that work AND (...) --> yes?
> >:>buk...@baileylink.net writes:
> >:>My definition of Real True Love: Knowledge + Trust + Big Attraction +
> >:>Small Repulsion + Stable Goal Overlap
> >I don't see how the addition of other factors that you would use in
> >making decisions in your (romantic) life necessitates a new definition
> >of love. That actually seems more like an effort to sustain the fairy
> >tale notion of love.. you can always keep adding factors, until there
> >is only one person on this earth
> or no one at all
Yes! Leading to the conclusion that love does not exist.
"The only person I could really be with would be just like me, but
without
any of my flaws."
"Uh, Michael, I don't want you to take this wrong, but why would
somebody
like *that* want anything to do with somebody like *you*?"
> >that would fulfill your criteria.. do
> >you see what I am saying? You haven't really given a definition of
> >love, so much as enumerated your requirements for a relationship.
> >Not that I think the particulars of any person's conception of love
> >matter all that much, but your description sounds more like the
> >arranged marriage scenario.. with one exception.. that given a choice
> >you can maximize the benefits and minimize the effort, provided your
> >decision-making process is sound. One thing strikes me though.. in the
> >case of arranged marriages, there is usually a strong cultural premise
> >that the longterm relationship is preferable (or even necessary) in a
> >person's life to any conceivable alternative. Is this true for you?
>
> IMO, the reason the contemporary western ideal is still the
> longterm relationship is only that splitting up is so painful.
> People in western countries don't seem to worry too much anymore
> about the consequences of divorce to their sproggen.
Well, but consider how you'd say an alternative.
"You're the most beautiful woman in this bar, and I think you'd be
very happy with me. But I want to warn you, I never ever have sex
with the same woman twice, I'm commitment-phobic, so it would have
to be just tonight. What do you say?"
"You're exactly the sort of woman I'll want to be seen escorting to
fancy dinners and tuxedo dances and such, for the next five years.
Then I'll want to trade you in on somebody younger, and if you help
me save money well enough in those five years then I'll have enough
money to attract somebody younger in spite of being another five
years older myself."
If two people get along well now, why wouldn't they hope it would
last forever?
> In other cultures, it's recognized that staying together is
> better for the kids, and women still have fewer options post
> divorce. And their take on love seems more realistic, not
> expecting the 'soul mates' thing that westerners are so hooked
> on.
It looks to me like the "soul mates" thing is designed to help
people make hard choices. Sometimes women get into situations
where it would be clearly absurd for them to get involved with
anybody. Believing in love at first sight and soul-mates etc
helps them plunge in when all logic or common sense would tell
them not to.
Similarly, rhey can use it to get out of relationships they don't
want anymore. "I don't love you anymore and you clearly don't
love me, I don't know how I could have been so crazy. It's over."
No matter how inconvenient it is to end the relationship this
provides a non-negotiatble reason to leave now.
> >Is that why it should be "love," as opposed to something else?
> >[ ' before you know it we'll be applying Bayes' formula ' ]
> What's Bayes' formula?
This might be best with an example.
Say there's a form of cancer that shows up in 1% of people generally.
And there's a test for this form of cancer that reliably detects the
cancer when it's present, but also gives about 20% false positives,
meaning it's 20% likely to say you have it when you don't.
You take the test, and it says you have the cancer. How likely is it
that you really do?
You can work this out:
Give the test to 10,000 people. 100 of them really do have the cancer
and will test positive. Of the other 9,900 people, 20% will test
positive too, that's 1,980. So the chance that you had the cancer
before you took the test was 1 in 100. The chance that you have the
cancer after you test positive is 100 in 2,080. Slightly less than 5%.
To use the formula, you need an estimate prior to the new data. (In
this case that was the 1% of untested people who have the cancer.)
You need an estimate of how likely the data will turn out positive
when the reality is positive. (In this case that was the 100% of
cancer cases that test positive.) And you need an estimate of the
rate of false positives. (In thise case that was 20%.)
So the chance of being really positive after testing positive P(H|E)
is the original chance of being positive P(H) times
the probability of testing positive if you are positive P(E|H)
divided by the sum of
the probability you are positive and test positive P(H)*P(E|H)
with the probability you're negative and test positive P(~H)*P(E|~H)
The better your estimates of these various results, the better the
formula works. But even when you start with an initial estimate that
isn't very good, and your estimates of the true positives and false
positives aren't very good, if your estimates of true positives and
false positives are better than P(E|H)=1 P(E|~H)=0 then the new estimate
will be *improved* over the initial bad one.
I'd be more interested in applying Markof chains, perhaps as follows:
If you believe that you should only be in relationship with your true
soul-mate, and you believe that if you find the person you're with is
not your true soul-mate after all you should break up with them,
and if the probability that you discover they aren't your true
soul-mate is 50% per year,
how many years can you expect your relationship to last on average?
Jyeshta
>Well, but consider how you'd say an alternative.
>"You're the most beautiful woman in this bar, and I think you'd be
>very happy with me. But I want to warn you, I never ever have sex
>with the same woman twice, I'm commitment-phobic, so it would have
>to be just tonight. What do you say?"
<smile> That would actually probably work for me (if I weren't
involved).
>"You're exactly the sort of woman I'll want to be seen escorting to
>fancy dinners and tuxedo dances and such, for the next five years.
>Then I'll want to trade you in on somebody younger, and if you help
>me save money well enough in those five years then I'll have enough
>money to attract somebody younger in spite of being another five
>years older myself."
I doubt people actually plan this type of thing. It happens
because something has occurred within the relationship for
which one or both of the partners lack the inner resources to cope.
>If two people get along well now, why wouldn't they hope it would
>last forever?
Yes, true. But then we have to look at what it means for any
given set of partners to think they're getting along well.
>It looks to me like the "soul mates" thing is designed to help
>people make hard choices. Sometimes women get into situations
>where it would be clearly absurd for them to get involved with
>anybody.
Please insert one or two explicit examples here.
>Believing in love at first sight and soul-mates etc
>helps them plunge in when all logic or common sense would tell
>them not to.
--
Jyeshtha
In <n3s22toe4ef60vuja...@4ax.com> sollilja <ceme...@bottom.sea> writes:
>g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) wrote:
>>sollilja <ceme...@bottom.sea> writes:
>[...]
>>IMO, the reason the contemporary western ideal is still the
>>longterm relationship is only that splitting up is so painful.
>>People in western countries don't seem to worry too much anymore
>>about the consequences of divorce to their sproggen.
>>
>>In other cultures, it's recognized that staying together is
>>better for the kids, and women still have fewer options post
>>divorce.
>I've never seen any sort of divorced parents --> fucked up child
>correlation,
All I have to go on is the testimony of people whose parents
got divorced. Some say it's damaging, others say other things.
My opinion, which should not be construed as fact, is that
*in general* it's better for kids to grow up with both parents,
unless the parents are crazy. Even then, assuming the kids
aren't locked in and get to see what happens in lots of other
families, they're probably better off with two crazy parents.
I think the determining factor is the extent of the craziness.
>although I have noticed that happy parents --> happy
>children.. if it takes a divorce to make the parents happier people, I
>think that is probably a better alternative than staying together. But
>happiness is relative, and our society is permissive to divorce.
>Do you think it shouldn't be?
No. I welcome as much choice and freedom for humans as possible.
>Or should parents be more responsible?
Yes. Considering that most people seem to pop out their
sproggen with about as much prior thought, planning, and
consideration as it takes to make doodoo (no implied value
judgment here about those two very different products), I'd
say there's considerable room for improvement there.
>>And their take on love seems more realistic, not
>>expecting the 'soul mates' thing that westerners are so hooked
>>on.
>If you are making a choice of people, perhaps a lifelong decision,
>then it may benefit you to believe that there is a "right" choice.
Yes. But disillusionment is universal. There are choices
that are bad, fair, good, and better, but never a "right"
choice in any sense other than who will put you through
the most changes so that you end up having accomplished
the most personal growth. By that criterion, one's worst
choice could be one's right choice. It depends what you
want from a relationship. If only fun and companionship
(like I thought I wanted), then you'd pick someone with
whom there'd be a tacit agreement never to argue, or get
too 'deep'. Of course, at the first catastrophe, like
one partner getting ill or something, the relationship
would shatter. Neither partner would know how to share
anything more of themselves than the pleasantries they'd
been accustomed to. I think this is why so many relation-
ships crash; people are looking for anesthetic 'happiness'.
>I don't think the concept of "soul mates" is unique to Western
>culture, but we tend to have more flexibility in our choices.
Well, romantic love as an ideal seems cross-cultural. But
look at what really is lived day to day. In some cultures,
there's polygamy (where's the soul mate concept when there's
one man and several women?), in others arranged marriages for
profit. So, we've taken the soul-mate thing here in the west
and run with it. (I don't believe in the popular concept of
soul-mates; I believe we all have many soul-mates who incon-
veniently incarnate as family members, or people we never meet,
or who don't incarnate concurrently with us at all.)
>>>[ ' before you know it we'll be applying Bayes' formula ' ]
>>
>>What's Bayes' formula?
>It was a joke. Offhand reference to the Monty Hall problem and having
>a sound decision-making process, along with Buk's 50-50 answer ...
>divorce rates ... 50% in America, eh?
>(It made me chuckle.)
Jyeshta
>No. I welcome as much choice and freedom for humans as possible.
What a stupid thing to say! Substitute: I welcome as much choice
and freedom for all lifeforms, earthly and otherwise. Some re-
strictions apply (like when it infringes unnecessarily on the
choice and freedom of another lifeform). This is another of those
ideals that can never be quite realized. Earth is built on a
foundation of predation. Not exactly Utopian.
--
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On 26 Nov 2000, Jyeshta wrote:
[...]
> Earth is built on a foundation of predation.
I thought it was rocky. Or are you speaking metaphysically again?
> Not exactly Utopian.
Nor coherent or cogent.
The
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOiHTsRz40he1RakNEQJCsACfTmKRU1JpP+apFT+aGNzDl4XWoWMAoK+c
MizJmIY63oAr9tKvwMZLyZFi
=XYG9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jyeshta
>On 26 Nov 2000, Jyeshta wrote:
>> Earth is built on a foundation of predation.
>I thought it was rocky.
But seething, at the core...
>Or are you speaking metaphysically again?
...making plates shift. (Precarious for china, especially when
dining chez moi.)
--
loosel...@hotmail.com
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> explain
> away
> apologists
Women still vote for men, a male world, the patriarchy. Despite being
a majority of the electorate. Go figure.
---
all power to the soviets!
cut by a penny from heaven
> Women still vote for men, a male world, the patriarchy.
moreover, the people who shape the debate about how we should live our lives
hold everyone to such a narrow standard it is impossible to compete. note
that what we've come to identify as cultural stereotypes does not preclude
those stereotypes from being used as measuring sticks of comparison when
examining if one is worthy of praise or denigration. witness the hoopla that
i just heard from a lawyer the other night who said that he felt unfairly
treated because he is asked to stay later at work more frequently than the
women who have families. he even went to add that he felt that women who
have families are contributing less and are worth less to the company; there
was no coroborating evidence for this claim other than the above.
> Despite being a majority of the electorate. Go figure.
yep. this country has a marvelous way of providing just enough education and
information for people of normal intelligence to keep their own selves down.
> all power to the soviets!
it'll be a few generations before those sad souls can even begin to reconcile
the horrible things successive regimes did to them.
lord clod
vote
lord
clod!
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
buk...@baileylink.net
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> witness the hoopla that i just heard from a lawyer the other night
> who said that he felt unfairly treated because he is asked to stay
> later at work more frequently than the women who have families. he
> even went to add that he felt that women who have families are
> contributing less and are worth less to the company; there
> was no coroborating evidence for this claim other than the above.
It derives from the theory that ninety-nine percent of life is showing
up. The reason it is wrong is that most work is make-work. Most
employees, male and female, are really not much more than warm bodies.
If you earned your salary this year (I most certainly did not), you
probably earned it in two or three shining weeks of unbelievably
bounteous productivity.
People who work seventy hours a week and think they are doing anything
more than jumping through hoops are clueless.
If it is any consolation, just imagine what this guy's personal life is
liable to be like.
Bukvich
[ ' define love in twenty sentences or less ! ' ]
shebr...@my-deja.com
<plus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vftqh$4d6
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...in which I snipped:
> > One thing that actually has changed is today's younger men, who are
> > nearly completely accepting of women in traditional men's roles.
>
> Yep, now we get to fill traditional men's roles *and* traditional
> women's roles, while still getting knocked around at home. (Of
course,
> if that happens to you you brought it on yourself by being 'weak'.)
Even when not getting knocked around at home, it's true that women
today are expected to fill roles as both breadwinner and maker and that
is definitely not for the weak.
> > It is
> > no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't
even
> > questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for it
not
> > to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow for
> > any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step
forward
> > for the feminists.
>
> I think this premise, that to be an equal one must weild 'authority',
> that is, weild the powers associated traditionally with having a dick,
> is unhelpful.
Equality in reference to rights not character. Wielding authority as a
bad thing depends on more than who's in charge. Queens have wielded
authority, Cleopatra wielded authority, so is your argument against
women, abuse of power or just the whole rotten lot of people?
As working is no longer a question of choice for many women in this
society, women need to be wiser about corporate culture in the same
context that men are. Arguing whether women in the workplace is good
for society itself is a seperate issue, one that I'd more likely than
not agree with you on based on at least this post.
> So long as standing in this society is measured
> by how much power you have OVER others, (some, most?) women will
> continue to eat shit, and so will plenty of other people - children,
> poor people, people of color.
Do you think that societal standing is the reason people mistreat each
other?
> That the measure of one's value is how many people one's standing on
> is sick. I'd side with the people being stood on even if they were
> middle-aged white males.
Who says the measure of value is determined by the number of people one
has the ability to oppress?
> > > There was
> > > quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> > > "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> > > still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> > > innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
> > > comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you
see.
> >
> > The first assumption, that women felt the pressure to be "strong"
> > and "independent" was necessary to a generation of women who were
> > facing divorce for the first time in modern history and were forced
> > into a role that they did not necessarily choose or want which
> > naturally breeded resentment. These women, some embittered and some
> > merely practical, saw a need to espouse a stronger mindset in a
> younger
> > generation than what they had been raised with.
>
> Did it make this generation strong, or merely self-condemning when
> they weren't?
The mindset or the situation being what it was? When have women not
been self-condemning? Has there ever been a generation so strong it
didn't ultimately fall?
I can't say it's done anything to make this generation stronger; if
anything it's given greater opportunities for failure.Women are more
empowered in some ways thanks to technology, mindset and civil rights
while society has largely suffered in others because of women
being taken away from the home, the moral acceptance of adultery and
divorce, and an all around apathy for human life. But I don't think
feminism was purporting to care for all of the social ills, either.
>I think some of us were given the message that
> no one could be trusted to be there for us, that life is a grim
> struggle to survive and nothing more: that needing to be loved means
> that one is weak.
Sure, I think that statement applies to both men and women
pretty equally.
> Good relationships between men and women will flourish when mothers
> AND fathers love their children AND each other.
So true.
>It has to be both
> taught and modeled. These relationships, not just economic parity,
are
> necessary for girls to grow up with 'healthy self-esteem' etc. ad
> nauseum; the strength required for true equality is bestowed by LOVE
> and not just MONEY.
Economic parity allows opportunity where none previously existed
and is necessary in a world where women are largely devalued and
considered a subspecies. But I'll agree Love is ultimately the answer.
> These days kids are expected to raise themselves and extract their
> strength from thin air, and by and large it's not working. They do
> and will not flourish being raised by schools and getting their
> validation and satisfaction in life solely from their jobs. Not
> even when the pay is equal.
Yep.
> > I am thinking here of
> > the societal differences just between my mother's upbringing and my
> > daughter's. It was a rare anomaly in my mother's day to know a
> > family who had gone through divorce, as it is a rare anomaly in my
> > daughter's
> > to know one that hasn't. So in part, some of that was a necessary
> > adjustment to societal values at an individual level.
>
> It was a fear- and anger-based reaction and it was not empowering to
> the girls it was aimed at.
I'm sure that's true. The women that I grew up around who had been
abandoned weren't living angry lives as much as desperate ones. They
weren't out burning bras or rallying behind Betty Friedan but that
isn't to say they weren't resentful either. Just sad, forgotten women
who had never really chosen to enter the workforce, who didn't have a
lot of opportunities and were trying to figure out ways to feed the
kids.
> > And in living essentially and essentially living a life through a
> > framework of doing what one chooses willingly, seeking truth and not
> > letting anyone male or female stunt ones potential with their
> misguided
> > neuroses, one masters the game.
>
> I don't feel that I'm living essentially when I'm caught up in proving
> my superiority to other folks (you seemed to equate that with
> mastering the game, earlier).
Awareness of ability is not equal to assumption of superiority or to any
need to prove it. By living essentially, I only mean that you get clear
of other peoples junk and choose to live authentically rather than
blindly accepting whatever is set in front of you.
> > When one masters the game, one can then
> > teach others how to change the rules or adapt to them, because here
> > is
> > the thing: People who never learned how to fit into society, will
> > not
> > be able to easily adapt to a corporate structure either.
>
> How tragic. It's mostly a matter of spending money on clothes and
> cosmetics, and showing off your dimples while you sink your shiv.
It's
> not that it's hard to learn, just hard to put up with every day.
You'll not hear me disagree with how hard it is to put up with. But it's
also a matter of survival for many, unless your /choice/ is to live off
society. Even then, you are employed by the welfare machine, and that's
some of the most demeaning and grueling work there is.
Working in general does not allow you much leverage unless you find a
way to rise above the system without becoming a part of it.
> > That's where
> > High School either does you in or makes you, regardless of whatever
> > platform you were thrust into. There are those who saw the game and
> > played the game and became cheerleaders or football heroes, and
those
> > people manage well in the constructs of society. But they are
> miserable
> > thinkers.
>
> Are they happy? Are their kids happy?
That too.
> > There is also the argument of those women who choose lesser-paying
> jobs
> > or even no job at all deliberately for less responsibility and the
> > choice of exercising a life away from the game. But it is still a
part
> > of the game. Especially if you are young and cute and dependent on a
> > man and/or society to pay your way. But, at least it is still a
choice
> > made from ones free will, and not imposed necessarily.
> >
> > Studies like these, btw, are always only political.
>
> I'm not clear what you're trying to say here, unless you're just
> trying to provoke me to make some sort of statement about myself.
> My life as political statement?
Nope. I was referring to the original study that started all of this
and how it doesn't account for all women such as those who deliberately
choose jobs that pay less for less reponsibility, or those who choose
not to work; and that such studies are always political with reference
to whatever group is funding them.
>
> > > I have always felt so left out of movements. I don't identify
> > > ever with the 'wound of the week'. If having one's problem
> > > publicly legitimized is the way to go, then when is my turn?
> > > Where's *my* acronym and *my* support group?
> >
> > Wounds of the weak, even.
>
> Oh, don't make me deconstruct the conflation of woundedness and
> weakness. *groan*
Now that could be fun!
> > One hopes that you are taking lots of
> > herbs to counterbalance the kind of violence that surgery does to
your
> > body
>
> What sort of herbs do you recommend?
That's too risky without knowing more about your past and present
health including what your surgery was for, what other health issues
you have, what drugs your taking, any other herbs or supplements you
are on, etc. E-mail me if you're interested.
> > > It is to laugh. My 'sisters' are who again? Was it the ignorant
> > > white-trash breeders, or the educated career gals who deal
> > > with pussy-whipped she-men and yet live in mortal terror of cock?
> >
> > Yes to both, or are you talking about only those you would willingly
> > choose to be kin to?
>
> I am talking about those who would willingly choose to be kin with
> me.
> > So it all comes down to this: We choose and reject in accordance
with
> > our individual preferences; and that prejudice knows no societal,
> > ethical or intellectual bounds.
>
> I'll go along with that, though political groups seem formed of
> people who've mostly never met each other, who make common cause
> according to some shared characteristic or value.
That pretty much goes for Usenet as well.
> > > Layo
> > > aloooooone, so alooooooone
> >
> > Lisbeth
> > (and we are all alone)
>
> Well, I bet the objectivists would take you.
I'd still be alone.
plus...@my-deja.com
shebr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > It is
> > > no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't
> even
> > > questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for it
> not
> > > to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow
for
> > > any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step
> forward
> > > for the feminists.
> >
> > I think this premise, that to be an equal one must
weild 'authority',
> > that is, weild the powers associated traditionally with having a
dick,
> > is unhelpful.
>
> Equality in reference to rights not character. Wielding authority as a
> bad thing depends on more than who's in charge.
I didn't say it was a bad thing.
> Queens have wielded
> authority, Cleopatra wielded authority, so is your argument against
> women, abuse of power or just the whole rotten lot of people?
I often have a hard time following your logic. In this case, I'm
at a loss as to how I've made an argument against any of those things.
> As working is no longer a question of choice for many women in this
> society, women need to be wiser about corporate culture in the same
> context that men are. Arguing whether women in the workplace is good
> for society itself is a seperate issue, one that I'd more likely than
> not agree with you on based on at least this post.
Okay.
Re: corporate culture, I'd like to point out that maintaining that
professional 'look' is more expensive for women than it is for men
as well as more time-consuming. Hair, makeup, manicure, clothes,
shoes, accessories. I feel that women are sized up based on what
they wear and how they look much more than men are, that is, their
likely competence is rated based on this. It's bullshit. How do
you think women ought to respond?
> > So long as standing in this society is measured
> > by how much power you have OVER others, (some, most?) women will
> > continue to eat shit, and so will plenty of other people - children,
> > poor people, people of color.
>
> Do you think that societal standing is the reason people mistreat
each
> other?
Um, I'll say yes. Perception of societal standing and how much, based
on that, you can get away with.
> > That the measure of one's value is how many people one's standing on
> > is sick. I'd side with the people being stood on even if they were
> > middle-aged white males.
>
> Who says the measure of value is determined by the number of people
one
> has the ability to oppress?
What do you think it's widely and currently based on?
First you said that this generation's reaction was based on suddenly
being confronted with divorce. Do you disagree that most divorces
are initiated by women? I'm not following your flow of thought.
> >I think some of us were given the message that
> > no one could be trusted to be there for us, that life is a grim
> > struggle to survive and nothing more: that needing to be loved means
> > that one is weak.
>
> Sure, I think that statement applies to both men and women
> pretty equally.
I agree. I don't think that dragging women down to where men have been
kept emotionally (through what I'd call systematic abuse) has done
anyone much good.
> >It has to be both
> > taught and modeled. These relationships, not just economic parity,
> are
> > necessary for girls to grow up with 'healthy self-esteem' etc. ad
> > nauseum; the strength required for true equality is bestowed by LOVE
> > and not just MONEY.
>
> Economic parity allows opportunity where none previously existed
> and is necessary in a world where women are largely devalued and
> considered a subspecies. But I'll agree Love is ultimately the answer.
When I made the same amount as my boyfriends I wasn't any happier; in
fact, I was once stuck paying all the bills. Being treated like crap
while supporting the household single-handedly too is equality? I
suppose you could say that money is a tool but that you have to know
how to use it; I say that if you have the skills to create good
relationships with money, you can also create them without it. By
the same token, if you're set up to be abused, you'll be just as
likely to be mistreated if you have your own money as if you don't.
Enh, making your own money gives only one kind of leverage: if you're
willing to walk away, you can. But if you have kids together it's
not so easy. What kind of respect is it that's only grudgingly
granted because the woman can financially afford to move out? Fuck
that, I'd rather know how it is with him straight up.
> > > I am thinking here of
> > > the societal differences just between my mother's upbringing and
my
> > > daughter's. It was a rare anomaly in my mother's day to know a
> > > family who had gone through divorce, as it is a rare anomaly in my
> > > daughter's
> > > to know one that hasn't. So in part, some of that was a necessary
> > > adjustment to societal values at an individual level.
> >
> > It was a fear- and anger-based reaction and it was not empowering to
> > the girls it was aimed at.
>
> I'm sure that's true. The women that I grew up around who had been
> abandoned weren't living angry lives as much as desperate ones. They
> weren't out burning bras or rallying behind Betty Friedan but that
> isn't to say they weren't resentful either. Just sad, forgotten women
> who had never really chosen to enter the workforce, who didn't have a
> lot of opportunities and were trying to figure out ways to feed the
> kids.
Yeah, and the men could rationalize not taking responsibility because
after all, she can work. It makes choosing to have a family seem
pretty stupid, which I also resent. Mothers are not respected; why,
look at the vulnerable position she's put herself in! She wasn't
smart enough to keep *that* from happening to her?
> Awareness of ability is not equal to assumption of superiority or to
any
> need to prove it. By living essentially, I only mean that you get
clear
> of other peoples junk and choose to live authentically rather than
> blindly accepting whatever is set in front of you.
That sounds good. I'm not clear how it meshes with being superior
to men, was that a separate thought?
> Working in general does not allow you much leverage unless you find a
> way to rise above the system without becoming a part of it.
I'll agree with that.
> > > One hopes that you are taking lots of
> > > herbs to counterbalance the kind of violence that surgery does to
> your
> > > body
> >
> > What sort of herbs do you recommend?
>
> That's too risky without knowing more about your past and present
> health including what your surgery was for, what other health issues
> you have, what drugs your taking, any other herbs or supplements you
> are on, etc. E-mail me if you're interested.
Well, I appreciate the offer and Jyeshta's suggestions, but I'm
recovered (yay) - I did do the tea and garlic.
> > > > Layo
> > > > aloooooone, so alooooooone
> > >
> > > Lisbeth
> > > (and we are all alone)
> >
> > Well, I bet the objectivists would take you.
>
> I'd still be alone.
I'm not speaking existentially.
Geez, claiming we're all fundamentally alone is like claiming we're
all fundamentally dead.
Layo
Melia
On 19 Nov 2000, Boniblueyz wrote:
[blahblahblah]
> I'm wondering if his not caring about guns is part of that whole penis
> extension thingy, exclusive (for the most part) to heterosexual males.
Man-oh-man, you do like trotting out tired old stereotypes, dontcha, Bon.
The finest cigar collections I have ever seen were in the homes of gay
friends of mine...with the exception of my own, of course. It doesn't get
much more penis-extending than a big, fat Cuban...cigar, of course.
Add to that they they also drive the coolest cars, and your theory is all
washed up.
Guns? Guns are for pussies. Real men kill one another with a well-turned
phrase and a fabulous outfit.
Maybe your boy just didn't like guns. It's happened, you know. Not
everything is about the fact that he's gay.
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, matisse wrote:
[...]
> there is also a way in which people just aren't responsible
> for their own decisions any more.
Assuming you meant "anymore" -- and that anyone ever was --
I'm still tempted to tell you not to slop around your self-
excusing whimpers as if that constituted judgment.
> This is the postmodern world.
"We gonna pawty like it's 1999."
> I do think that arranged marriages are most likely
> about as good as marriages based on love.
Tell that to the bruised and bleeding village women, dear.
> Relationships are relationships.
"Tautologies yield only tautologies."
> It isn't so much about likes or dislikes
...Or respect or self-respect...
> as it is about communication, compassion and stick-to-it-ness.
And platitudes. Never forget to pack those vapid li'l platitudes.
Cuddles,
The
P.S. So "Matisse", do you come equipped with a big fat dowry?
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOiRemBz40he1RakNEQKXEQCcDnrJrgtFB+GgMg6+8rxaSTgDvmkAn1MM
6VDtaxu95bgauCotTU6r7/rk
=ylnr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
matisse
Jyeshtha wrote:
> lja <ceme...@bottom.sea> writes:
>
> >g...@panix.com (Jyeshta) wrote:
> >>sollilja <ceme...@bottom.sea> writes:
>
> >>
> >>In other cultures, it's recognized that staying together is
> >>better for the kids, and women still have fewer options post
> >>divorce.
>
i am not so sure about that. DUTY plays a large role.
>
>
> All I have to go on is the testimony of people whose parents
> got divorced. Some say it's damaging, others say other things.
> My opinion, which should not be construed as fact, is that
> *in general* it's better for kids to grow up with both parents,
> unless the parents are crazy. Even then, assuming the kids
> aren't locked in and get to see what happens in lots of other
> families, they're probably better off with two crazy parents.
> I think the determining factor is the extent of the craziness.
don't forget that two models are better than one --most of the time. Besides that, less stress, two sets of hands, etc.
>
>
>
> >If you are making a choice of people, perhaps a lifelong decision,
> >then it may benefit you to believe that there is a "right" choice.
>
> Yes. But disillusionment is universal. There are choices
> that are bad, fair, good, and better, but never a "right"
> choice in any sense other than who will put you through
> the most changes so that you end up having accomplished
> the most personal growth. By that criterion, one's worst
> choice could be one's right choice. It depends what you
> want from a relationship. If only fun and companionship
> (like I thought I wanted), then you'd pick someone with
> whom there'd be a tacit agreement never to argue, or get
> too 'deep'. Of course, at the first catastrophe, like
> one partner getting ill or something, the relationship
> would shatter. Neither partner would know how to share
> anything more of themselves than the pleasantries they'd
> been accustomed to. I think this is why so many relation-
> ships crash; people are looking for anesthetic 'happiness'.
>
there is also a way in which people just aren't responsible for their own decisions any more. This is the postmodern world.
I do think that arranged marriages are most likely about as good as marriages based on love. Relationships are relationships. It isn't so much about likes or dislikes as it is about communication, compassion and stick-to-it-ness.
J
Boniblueyz
>On 19 Nov 2000, Boniblueyz wrote:
>
>[blahblahblah]
>> I'm wondering if his not caring about guns is part of that whole penis
>> extension thingy, exclusive (for the most part) to heterosexual males.
>
>Man-oh-man, you do like trotting out tired old stereotypes, dontcha, Bon.
>
Well, you know me. I guess it is an old stereotype, but I have a hard time
picturing gay men feeling comfortable at NRA gatherings. Anyway, I was careful
to qualify by saying "for the most part."
>The finest cigar collections I have ever seen were in the homes of gay
>friends of mine...with the exception of my own, of course. It doesn't get
>much more penis-extending than a big, fat Cuban...cigar, of course.
>
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>Add to that they they also drive the coolest cars, and your theory is all
>washed up.
>
That's true. Except there are certain cars that are absolutely the exclusive
domain of heterosexual men. The Vette, for example, is a car that we used to
refer to as "cunt catchers." Seth wouldn't be caught dead in one. He drives a
Riviera.
>Guns? Guns are for pussies. Real men kill one another with a well-turned
>phrase and a fabulous outfit.
>
I couldn't agree more. It takes a real man to wear pink.
>Maybe your boy just didn't like guns. It's happened, you know. Not
>everything is about the fact that he's gay.
>
Give me time. This is all still fairly new to me. I can't help but over-analyze
everything.
Bonnie
shebr...@my-deja.com
plus...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8vvfq7$1t3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> shebr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > It is
> > > > no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't
> > even
> > > > questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for
it
> > not
> > > > to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow
> for
> > > > any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step
> > forward
> > > > for the feminists.
> > >
> > > I think this premise, that to be an equal one must
> weild 'authority',
> > > that is, weild the powers associated traditionally with having a
> dick,
> > > is unhelpful.
> >
> > Equality in reference to rights not character. Wielding authority
as a
> > bad thing depends on more than who's in charge.
>
> I didn't say it was a bad thing.
You're right, you said "unhelpful". I take it all back.
>
> > Queens have wielded
> > authority, Cleopatra wielded authority, so is your argument against
> > women, abuse of power or just the whole rotten lot of people?
>
> I often have a hard time following your logic. In this case, I'm
> at a loss as to how I've made an argument against any of those things.
Keep in mind I have been heavily medicated these last days battling the
flu, and by virtue of this am sadly and obviously not superbeing
material. Anyway, see above. I was operating under the influence.
> > As working is no longer a question of choice for many women in this
> > society, women need to be wiser about corporate culture in the same
> > context that men are. Arguing whether women in the workplace is
good
> > for society itself is a seperate issue, one that I'd more likely
than
> > not agree with you on based on at least this post.
>
> Okay.
>
> Re: corporate culture, I'd like to point out that maintaining that
> professional 'look' is more expensive for women than it is for men
> as well as more time-consuming.
Sure, but the same is true even outside of corporate culture, and we'd
do well to ask: What's with that?
> Hair, makeup, manicure, clothes,
> shoes, accessories. I feel that women are sized up based on what
> they wear and how they look much more than men are, that is, their
> likely competence is rated based on this. It's bullshit. How do
> you think women ought to respond?
Sized up, yes. Rated? Believe me, even a hot bod won't help if you are
a poor performer. Might you get a higher rating if you perform equally
well with say, a homelier counterpart? Perhaps, but performance will
be the thing that drives it, or corporations will fail. Still, we are a
culture that makes assessments of value based on physical appearance,
and that's an internal chancre with roots far deeper than corporate
culture don't you think?
> > > So long as standing in this society is measured
> > > by how much power you have OVER others, (some, most?) women will
> > > continue to eat shit, and so will plenty of other people -
children,
> > > poor people, people of color.
> >
> > Do you think that societal standing is the reason people mistreat
> each
> > other?
>
> Um, I'll say yes. Perception of societal standing and how much, based
> on that, you can get away with.
But would you say that perception is reality?
>
> > > That the measure of one's value is how many people one's standing
on
> > > is sick. I'd side with the people being stood on even if they
were
> > > middle-aged white males.
> >
> > Who says the measure of value is determined by the number of people
> one
> > has the ability to oppress?
>
> What do you think it's widely and currently based on?
That's a huge net. Whose measure of value are we talking about?
I don't disagree that most divorces today are initiated by women. My
reflection was about how strength and independence in women became
forefront issues where they had not previously existed from necessity,
at least from a societal standpoint.
Necessity being the mother of intention and all that.
> > >I think some of us were given the message that
> > > no one could be trusted to be there for us, that life is a grim
> > > struggle to survive and nothing more: that needing to be loved
means
> > > that one is weak.
> >
> > Sure, I think that statement applies to both men and women
> > pretty equally.
>
> I agree. I don't think that dragging women down to where men have
been
> kept emotionally (through what I'd call systematic abuse) has done
> anyone much good.
Would you elaborate upon where men have been kept emotionally as
opposed to women?
> > >It has to be both
> > > taught and modeled. These relationships, not just economic
parity,
> > are
> > > necessary for girls to grow up with 'healthy self-esteem' etc. ad
> > > nauseum; the strength required for true equality is bestowed by
LOVE
> > > and not just MONEY.
> >
> > Economic parity allows opportunity where none previously existed
> > and is necessary in a world where women are largely devalued and
> > considered a subspecies. But I'll agree Love is ultimately the
answer.
>
> When I made the same amount as my boyfriends I wasn't any happier; in
> fact, I was once stuck paying all the bills. Being treated like crap
> while supporting the household single-handedly too is equality?
Would you have been happier making less? Did your happiness have
anything to do with your ability to make that kind of money or more to
do with the fact you got stuck paying the bills (which isn't at all
equal or fair)?
> I
> suppose you could say that money is a tool but that you have to know
> how to use it; I say that if you have the skills to create good
> relationships with money, you can also create them without it. By
> the same token, if you're set up to be abused, you'll be just as
> likely to be mistreated if you have your own money as if you don't.
Money as a tool to exist independently in this society as opposed to
women in Saudi Arabia and have more opportunities for individual
choice, yes. Not as a tool with which to cultivate relationships
(although having money definitely makes a loving relationship easier in
that it is one less very-important-thing to fight about).
> Enh, making your own money gives only one kind of leverage: if you're
> willing to walk away, you can. But if you have kids together it's
> not so easy.
And if you have kids together, then money is absolute in the event you
need to leave. It's one thing to choose homelessness as a free-willed
adult; quite another to subject your children to it.
> What kind of respect is it that's only grudgingly
> granted because the woman can financially afford to move out? Fuck
> that, I'd rather know how it is with him straight up.
Arguably that's another problem far deeper than money.
You can't ever stack the odds in your favor one hundred percent.
Mothers are not respected; why,
> look at the vulnerable position she's put herself in! She wasn't
> smart enough to keep *that* from happening to her?
See what I mean?
> > Awareness of ability is not equal to assumption of superiority or to
> any
> > need to prove it. By living essentially, I only mean that you get
> clear
> > of other peoples junk and choose to live authentically rather than
> > blindly accepting whatever is set in front of you.
>
> That sounds good. I'm not clear how it meshes with being superior
> to men, was that a separate thought?
I meant that I never felt like I had some hypothetical ground to cover
just to maintain an even/equal footing because men were in many ways so
mediocre and therefore inferior. I thought this was on their part, a
lifestyle choice. I got older and a little wiser and realized this was
not necessarily true on all counts.
> > Working in general does not allow you much leverage unless you find
a
> > way to rise above the system without becoming a part of it.
>
> I'll agree with that.
>
> > > > One hopes that you are taking lots of
> > > > herbs to counterbalance the kind of violence that surgery does
to
> > your
> > > > body
> > >
> > > What sort of herbs do you recommend?
> >
> > That's too risky without knowing more about your past and present
> > health including what your surgery was for, what other health issues
> > you have, what drugs your taking, any other herbs or supplements you
> > are on, etc. E-mail me if you're interested.
>
> Well, I appreciate the offer and Jyeshta's suggestions, but I'm
> recovered (yay) - I did do the tea and garlic.
I'm glad you are better. Don't forget milk thistle for the liver to
counteract the anesthesia and any other meds. Milk Thistle being
something everyone should be taking anyway as this is a highly toxic
age we are living in.
>
> > > > > Layo
> > > > > aloooooone, so alooooooone
> > > >
> > > > Lisbeth
> > > > (and we are all alone)
> > >
> > > Well, I bet the objectivists would take you.
> >
> > I'd still be alone.
>
> I'm not speaking existentially.
Were you speaking objectively then?
> Geez, claiming we're all fundamentally alone is like claiming we're
> all fundamentally dead.
One way or the other, I'd say so.
Melia
On 29 Nov 2000, Boniblueyz wrote:
> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Yeah. Right. As if.
> >Add to that they they also drive the coolest cars, and your theory is all
> >washed up.
>
> That's true. Except there are certain cars that are absolutely the exclusive
> domain of heterosexual men.
You have a lot to learn about all of this. That much is clear.
> >Guns? Guns are for pussies. Real men kill one another with a well-turned
> >phrase and a fabulous outfit.
>
> I couldn't agree more. It takes a real man to wear pink.
I said "fabulous", not "nancy." Pink indeed. How very eighties.
> >Maybe your boy just didn't like guns. It's happened, you know. Not
> >everything is about the fact that he's gay.
> Give me time. This is all still fairly new to me. I can't help but over-analyze
> everything.
What's there to overanalyze? The boy's gay. It's not like he's worshipping
Satan with kitty sacrifices in the garage (although if he were, I would
speculate that the two conditions of being are not directly related).
matisse
shebr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <plus...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vftqh$4d6
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...in which I snipped:
>
> > > One thing that actually has changed is today's younger men, who are
> > > nearly completely accepting of women in traditional men's roles.
> >
> > Yep, now we get to fill traditional men's roles *and* traditional
> > women's roles, while still getting knocked around at home. (Of
> course,
> > if that happens to you you brought it on yourself by being 'weak'.)
>
> Even when not getting knocked around at home, it's true that women
> today are expected to fill roles as both breadwinner and maker and that
> is definitely not for the weak.
>
nice point.
>
> > > It is
> > > no longer an anomaly to have a woman for a boss and really isn't
> even
> > > questioned. For women to have these roles of authority and for it
> not
> > > to be the exception in part may be what it takes to really allow for
> > > any notion of true "equality". In that sense, that is one step
> forward
> > > for the feminists.
> >
> > I think this premise, that to be an equal one must weild 'authority',
> > that is, weild the powers associated traditionally with having a dick,
> > is unhelpful.
>
> Equality in reference to rights not character. Wielding authority as a
> bad thing depends on more than who's in charge. Queens have wielded
> authority, Cleopatra wielded authority, so is your argument against
> women, abuse of power or just the whole rotten lot of people?
>
> As working is no longer a question of choice for many women in this
> society, women need to be wiser about corporate culture in the same
> context that men are. Arguing whether women in the workplace is good
> for society itself is a seperate issue, one that I'd more likely than
> not agree with you on based on at least this post.
>
"equality" in the work force, i.e. equality in "the public", hinders women
and society more often than not. not only does the division of labor cause
even more stresses and pressures, but it also creates an assumption of
equality of socialization and thereby task ability, i.e. it ignores that we
are different, albeit by socialization. It also degrades traditional women
work and ignores the vital and essential function of the private economy.
While it can lead to better treatment of women, 'proving' oneself as a
capable being is not an example american society tends to SEE. African
Americans are still stupid, lazy trash. Women are still toys of amusement,
etc. etc. Who do we dress for, after all?
the public/private split serves many functions, and the blurring of the two
economies really only destroys the latter, thereby leading to the full
affirmation of the public, i.e. patriarchal society. Or rather, as i see it,
the final victory of capitalism over the human spirit.
>
> > So long as standing in this society is measured
> > by how much power you have OVER others, (some, most?) women will
> > continue to eat shit, and so will plenty of other people - children,
> > poor people, people of color.
>
> Do you think that societal standing is the reason people mistreat each
> other?
>
it isn't social standing, per say, but rather ressentimal, i.e. freedom
conceived as freedom from and the basic nature of desire as mimetic.
>
> > > > There was
> > > > quite a lot of pressure to _appear_ to be "strong" and
> > > > "independent". The whole thing was a joke of course - men
> > > > still controlled women, and the pretty women were still considered
> > > > innately more valuable - but the thin, hypocritical veneer was
> > > > comforting to those who'd been raised with feminist ideals, you
> see.
> > >
> > > The first assumption, that women felt the pressure to be "strong"
> > > and "independent" was necessary to a generation of women who were
> > > facing divorce for the first time in modern history and were forced
> > > into a role that they did not necessarily choose or want which
> > > naturally breeded resentment. These women, some embittered and some
> > > merely practical, saw a need to espouse a stronger mindset in a
> > younger
> > > generation than what they had been raised with.
and this was a *good* thing. we can finally leave, if we must.
> >
> > Did it make this generation strong, or merely self-condemning when
> > they weren't?
>
> The mindset or the situation being what it was? When have women not
> been self-condemning? Has there ever been a generation so strong it
> didn't ultimately fall?
>
as G would say, Women's sin is sloth.
>
> I can't say it's done anything to make this generation stronger; if
> anything it's given greater opportunities for failure.Women are more
> empowered in some ways thanks to technology, mindset and civil rights
> while society has largely suffered in others because of women
> being taken away from the home, the moral acceptance of adultery and
> divorce, and an all around apathy for human life. But I don't think
> feminism was purporting to care for all of the social ills, either.
depends on who you talk to. there are many founding mothers (laughter) that
were socialist revolutionaries to the core.
>
> >I think some of us were given the message that
> > no one could be trusted to be there for us, that life is a grim
> > struggle to survive and nothing more: that needing to be loved means
> > that one is weak.
>
> Sure, I think that statement applies to both men and women
> pretty equally.
>
the difference might be, however, that women were still taught to need a
man.
>
> >It has to be both
> > taught and modeled. These relationships, not just economic parity,
> are
> > necessary for girls to grow up with 'healthy self-esteem' etc. ad
> > nauseum; the strength required for true equality is bestowed by LOVE
> > and not just MONEY.
>
> Economic parity allows opportunity where none previously existed
> and is necessary in a world where women are largely devalued and
> considered a subspecies. But I'll agree Love is ultimately the answer.
>
i disagree (not about the love part). WOuld my ability to afford a
'tiffany's" turkey dinner for my daughter help her more or less than my
ability to provide a good home cooked thanksgiving dinner? As a female news
anchor joked about the other day, "i picked up our dinner at Jewel." Which,
in the end, would be a more nurturing, healthy environment for my daughter?
Economic parity is only a true asset if the partnership might end. Women
have been dually socialized while men havnen't. Equality of job sharing
only works when equal socialization of all roles has occurred. As long as
socialization genderizes, economic parity isn't a goal i will strive for. I
would rather master the art of making homemade pasta than focus on making
100k if at the end of the day i still have to make dinner. Besides, i don't
need that much money, and i have no desire to ever make as much as my
current mate. I don't need that much money. I have more important things
to worry about, like making good pasta. That is, after all, one of the few
real pleasures of my life. Work sure as hell ain't, and that even includes
when i feel as if my job is a hobby. There are more things to life
than......
besides that, an efficient, more effective distribution of roles and thereby
tasks is always better than 'equalizing.'
J
matisse
buk...@baileylink.net wrote:
>
>
> Bukvich
>
> [ ' define love in twenty sentences or less ! ' ]
>
you changed it, but i bite. i am working on getting drunk on 25 beers or
less. (and in this case, it is all about the object)
1.cupiditas- fearful possession
a. aesthetic: mimetic
b.romantic:projection
c.objectification: self-diffusion
2.caritas- godly
a. unconditional: eternal annoyance: family
b. platonic
J
catu...@my-deja.com
matisse <mat...@dp.com> wrote:
> > All I have to go on is the testimony of people whose parents
> > got divorced. Some say it's damaging, others say other things.
> > My opinion, which should not be construed as fact, is that
> > *in general* it's better for kids to grow up with both parents,
> > unless the parents are crazy. Even then, assuming the kids
> > aren't locked in and get to see what happens in lots of other
> > families, they're probably better off with two crazy parents.
> > I think the determining factor is the extent of the craziness.
My parents weren't crazy each by themselves. They were making each other
crazy. There was no resolution; something evil grew up between them and
kept growing with everything that anyone tried to do. They kept choosing
to stay around "for the children." I had enough sense at age 12 to tell
them to get a divorce. Life would have been better for them, and for
"their children", and for everyone else around, if they had divorced
when there was still time rather than stay in there for form and then
finally do the right thing when they had no more energy to own what was
good in them and the child was profoundly fucked up by their
backandforth and detested them both. My younger brother was spared and
is doing well.
>
> I do think that arranged marriages are most likely about as good as
marriages based on love. Relationships are relationships. It isn't so
much about likes or dislikes as it is about communication, compassion
and stick-to-it-ness.
Katroberts
crazy. There was no resolution; something evil grew up between them and kept
growing with everything that anyone tried to do. They kept choosing to stay
around "for the children."<
Same here. My parents didn't like living with each other after about 2 years
together, but "did the right thing and stayed together for the children." They
divorced when I was 11, my sister 14.
But I was fortunate in that they actually liked each other, just couldn't live
together, so their divorce was friendly and although they never fought -- they
just never did "anything." They didn't speak, they never kissed (hello and
goodbye like I saw my friends' parents did) just ~nothing.~
When they divorced, they both were happy, we saw way more of dad, and since,
like I said, they genuinely liked each other, we saw no fighting or little jabs
from one parent to us about the other parent.
And when both my parents started dating here and there, each was genuinely
happy for the other.
I know I'm lucky. I'm glad, also, to know that the ~nothing~ I saw around the
house was not normal, it was simply them. Neither re-married, and when my mom
passed away 14 years ago I thought my dad took it the worse. As I said, they
were still so close, just simply couldn't take living with each other.
And yes, the kids suffer. You always wonder if "you" did something wrong to
make them separate. I'm lucky in that although we lived with mom, dad was a
constant in our lives. Dad broke his ankle and mom took care of him. Mom broke
her hip and dad came over and made the house "hip break convenient."
KJ
Dav
Jyeshta <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >You have to know them, first. There is no such thing as love at first
> >sight.
There is such a thing as an attraction at first sight (and it may be a
mental attraction, it doesn't have to be physical every time) which when it
has deepened into love some time later is looked back upon as 'love at first
sight'. Of course, you don't get the depth of love which exists after a year
or two with someone when you first meet them, but it is not uncommon for the
beginnings of that love to start at a first meeting.
However, I would also say that it is an experience not open to the cynical
or unromantic. If you basically don't trust people and you meet new
experiences with doubt and the expectation of disappointment then you'll
never leave yourself open to such a situation. That's just a general
comment, feel free to opt in or out at your convenience.
Dav
Jyeshta <g...@panix.com> wrote
>
> >It's kind of funny that everyone has to have their own definition of
> >"love." Something that everyone recognizes is important in their
> >lives, but where? how? what? who? when? I guess we know why.
Why's that kind of funny? There are billions of human-beings, each one
different, why should their experiences have to be the same? Add in the fact
that love feels different depending on which of those other billions you
have fallen in love with and the possibilities are even greater.
Dav
Melia <me...@bayarea.net> wrote
> What's there to overanalyze? The boy's gay. It's not like he's worshipping
> Satan with kitty sacrifices in the garage (although if he were, I would
> speculate that the two conditions of being are not directly related).
Oh come now Melia, the knife used in the sacrifice is surely a
penis-extension?
Melia
Yes, and I guess the kitty sacrifice concept is fairly transparent
also. Ah, me.
cut by a penny from heaven
> If you earned your salary this year (I most certainly did not), you
> probably earned it in two or three shining weeks of unbelievably
> bounteous productivity.
actually, i do productive work for about three-quarters of my time at work.
this is because i do tech support.
> People who work seventy hours a week and think they are doing anything
> more than jumping through hoops are clueless.
if you recognize this, how come no one else does? i hold that the same thing
holds true for measuring one's self-worth -- that no one is really worth that
much more than anyone else, under the standards usually applied (education,
social status, hardworking-ness). but we use these flawed definitions and
standards all the time to reward or punish people all the time, and castigate
those who would try and make a more realistic standard or definition.
> If it is any consolation, just imagine what this guy's personal life is
> liable to be like.
i already know what it's like. he's really handsome, but more often than not
him and his republican friend billy (who is a pig, but one with a good heart
to his friends, including me) are over billy's house with a coupla hookers.
go figure.
> [ ' define love in twenty sentences or less ! ' ]
love is the feeling for another being which causes one to think about the
other intangibles, like abstract emotions, and situations that can arise in
life, without coercion.
lord clod
all
words
key
--
The world I mock still breaks my heart.
-Layo
cut by a penny from heaven
patio:
> cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8vf108$ed7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <na...@nnrp1.deja.com>, shebr...@my-deja.com :
> It wasn't deliberate. Only that there are no real sets of constraints
> other than what you choose to believe if you have purposed your will to
> something specific. When society (or the media or the collective
> consciousness or mom or dad or the man or whatever) tells you that you
> can't do this or that, what they are really doing is offering a life
> preserver where we'd be better off learning to swim. Sometimes they are
> well intentioned, more often they are not. I am stymied by a mindset
> that is sluggish and fallow, that would rather stagnate in a cluster
> than chance a wild wave. But I *have* been a victim at certain times,
> that's an inescapable truth. We could haggle the specifics and I could
> then adopt some sense of absolution or retribution or utter confusion,
> but in the end, where does that get me? We are all victims. We wound.
> We heal. We are wounded. And we heal. In the end we must learn to
> forgive. But that is another post.
well, no. i see what you are saying about the collectively decided
arbitrarily decided upon "norm," but there are examples everyday of people
who buck the norm and lead lives and produce works which are derived from
their own definitions of what is normal. the artists of our society do this
regularly -- so too the inventors and engineers -- they are some of the
problem solvers, even of problems which haven't even been expressed in
society.
but the continuing dynamic of human societies is that people make a
difference. i believe that helping people feel as though their potential can
be realized is one of the most important things we as humans can bring
about... this attitude is reflected in our laws and our wishes for our
children, and in the dreams we whisper to our pillows at night. what is the
dream you had before you knew that some dreams can't come true? that's the
dream we all had and lost, just because of the society we grew up in.
> Is there no reasonable middleground between the terms 'victim'
> and 'abuser'? Many times, people are both, sometimes something in
> between. What is the antithesis of 'victim"? What is it when good
> things happen to you for no apparent reason beyond your control as
> opposed to bad?
well, sometimes something falls from the sky, and its effect on you is bad.
sometimes the sky has been primed with something which will have a bad effect
on you; the priming of the sky can be a concious act, carried forth into
fruition by someone's volition. that's still bad, but there is at least a
chance to change that initial act of priming. victim implies victimizer.
that is bad. we have to change the role of victimizer before we can hope to
get rid of people who are that victimizer's victims.
there is a good question in there about what is it that makes good things
happen to one person or another, and i feel that if the role of victimizer is
removed, people who were formerly victims won't have any other label other
than "being." and then it would be unnecessary to define bad things that
were done to someone by someone else, thereby negating the need to create
dichotomies.
> > what does that say about society?
> It says that in the end we die, we shuffle this mortal coil and that
> hasn't changed from any other time in the history of mankind. Death is
> death. How is that any different than times past? Was it less absurd
> to be nailed to a post by the Cossacks or burned at the stake or
> suffocating from plague or raped and mutilated by savages ? And was a
> more noble or worthwhile life to be had by the expectation of the way
> one would die?
uh, i never said that death was not without its sense of the absurd, i merely
pointed out that it is fraught with a sense that it is more absurd because of
what we value as our lives, and what we value as a sense of accomplishment
about our lives. the absurdity of dying in a plane wreck is compounded by
the reason(s) we are in the plane to begin with. we have made up these
arbitrary rules about our own importance, and distributed them in such an
agressive manner and to such a degree that we actually believe that three
hours from paris to new york is intrinsically better than five hours.
if a cossack were to take over my village, i would at least be able to
understand that in a visceral way (no pun intended); moreover, i would be
able to at least have some control over the way i died. i might even escape
to eventually take over a village of my own! with a plane, or the inflated
and spurious sense of security gained in a SUV, i have no chance of that
during an equipment failure or something similar.
> Life *is* absurd when you don't have anything to live for that is worth
> dying for. We are created for more than this and it weighs upon each of
> us individually. Something nags from within and it isn't just
> worthwhile vocational choice or the lack of it. Yes, it is worthless to
> believe that your self-worth is the end rather than the means, but a
> sense of self-worth is imperative. Knowing ones value is the beginning
> of everything. And if you know your true value, you can't not know the
> value of everyone else around you.
and what is one's true value? what is it predicated on, and what are its
tenets? i'm not just asking you, because this is sort of my point.
> >spirituality? is that what you really want
> > to say? or is it more of a general commitment to courage and
> caring?
>
> Let me ask you this: How can you be committed to caring without first
> having some prior spiritual motivation? Committment individually or
> societally or just to the principle itself?
oh yes. i can look at my mom or my sister and know that i care without a
sense of spirituality at all. i may, however, not be able to contemplate the
future or our places in it without some sense of the universe and our places
in it. and isn't that what spirituality is ultimately all about?
i do think that it takes an _enormous_ amount of courage to commit to caring
about a person. and i do believe that for an individual commitment to work
it will take a commitment from us ALL to care for us ALL.
> Statistics lie. Studies pander. I am set against the assumption that we
> all must fit into a certain mold. Layo wasn't saying we do and I wasn't
> arguing that she was. I was musing the train.
but what about the underling truth of the notion that women's contributions
to society are not as highly valued as men's merely because they are woment?
you could have responded to that while separating out your feelings about the
validity of the numbers or the rigorousness and impartiality of the
scientists involved in making the study.
> Amen to that. And no matter what Buk says, we all need Love. Which kind
> is open to dispute.
the first time we seriously talked in junior high school about the rev. dr.
martin luther king in one western civ. the teacher introduced the agape
concept. i have been in love with love every since.
lord clod
just tell me
you didn't vote
for nader
Jyeshta
>Jyeshta <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
Actually, Bukvich wrote:
>> >You have to know them, first. There is no such thing as love at first
>> >sight.
[...]
I might sometimes try to help, but at least I never misattribute
quotes...
--
loosel...@my-deja.com
cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <pu...@nnrp1.deja.com>, buk...@baileylink.net got down:
>
> > If you earned your salary this year (I most certainly did not), you
> > probably earned it in two or three shining weeks of unbelievably
> > bounteous productivity.
>
> actually, i do productive work for about three-quarters of my time at
work.
> this is because i do tech support.
Asking people if the shift key is down != productive work.
> if you recognize this, how come no one else does? i hold that the
same thing
> holds true for measuring one's self-worth -- that no one is really
worth that
> much more than anyone else, under the standards usually applied
(education,
> social status, hardworking-ness). but we use these flawed
definitions and
> standards all the time to reward or punish people all the time, and
castigate
> those who would try and make a more realistic standard or definition.
Yes. This is a problem.
Which ties in slightly with your electoral comments.
The reason that it makes no difference who you vote for is that the
role of the president in american politics is largely symbolic. He's
there to distract people from what's Really Going On and provide a nice
consoling paternal figure. It comes from watching too much
professional sports.
Have you read 1984? The President is, like, Big Brother dude.
Congress, Senate, the Party.
The goal of american political life is to disenfrancise the general
population so that the established oligarchies don't have too much
trouble getting to the trough to feed. The two party system is just
one of the mechanisms by which the powerful insulate their position.
If you're not a Republican or a Democrat you're not going to get
elected. If you get elected as a Republican or Democrat, you're not
going to kick over the trough of Tasty Goodies.
Every four years you are offered an essentially meaningless choice
between Coke and Pepsi. Coke or Pepsi then proceed to pick your pocket
for the benefit their paymasters. Coke and Pepsi /do/ taste
different. Both Coke and Pepsi rot your teeth.
---
brain frying... no time to copy...
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 loosel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> cut by a penny from heaven <lord...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > actually, i do productive work for about three-quarters of
> > my time at work. this is because i do tech support.
> Asking people if the shift key is down != productive work.
Sure it is. Without someone to hold their hands and wipe their
butts, and of course make sure they fail to steal everything in
the building, most people who are gainfully employed would not
be. (How can you have any pudding with the SHIFT key down?)
Read more Foucault, dude. He had capitalism nailed down.
The
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOi1miBz40he1RakNEQJ0dwCfTOBOZT1b+UyRfie4c09VyMaqZZgAoOAt
JPGlFDOZS7H8FHE5EpscPTJD
=ev58
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J. Thomas
> > > If you earned your salary this year (I most certainly did not), you
> > > probably earned it in two or three shining weeks of unbelievably
> > > bounteous productivity.
> > actually, i do productive work for about three-quarters of my time at
> > work. this is because i do tech support.
> Asking people if the shift key is down != productive work.
Why not? While it seems at first glance that digging a ditch is
productive work but sitting in an office shuffing papers deciding where
the ditches should be is not. But if you're digging a ditch in the
wrong
place because the paper shuffler made a mistake, how productive are you?
If you repair broken machines that somebody needs to use, that's
productive. And if you teach people who need to use a machine how to
do it, that's productive too. And isn't that what Clod is doing? We
have no way to know how good he is at it without calling him and trying
him out, and even then we won't know how ne does with his normal run
of incompetent clients, but there's no particular reason to think he
isn't being as productive as other tech support people.
The economy generally makes so little sense these days, it might be
better to figure that whatever people will pay you to do is productive
work. You're at least doing something that somebody wants enough to
pay for. This is a bad sort of reductionism but it isn't clear how
to do it right.
> The reason that it makes no difference who you vote for is that the
> role of the president in american politics is largely symbolic.
I agree with your argument except -- who you vote for does make a
symbolic difference.
> The goal of american political life is to disenfrancise the general
> population so that the established oligarchies don't have too much
> trouble getting to the trough to feed. The two party system is just
> one of the mechanisms by which the powerful insulate their position.
> If you're not a Republican or a Democrat you're not going to get
> elected. If you get elected as a Republican or Democrat, you're not
> going to kick over the trough of Tasty Goodies.
It's interesting that some of our most dynamic presidents have been
people who got there by accident -- Teddy Rooseveldt, Truman, etc.
Johnson was dynamic but so deeply enmeshed in the system that he didn't
make as much difference as usual.
> Every four years you are offered an essentially meaningless choice
> between Coke and Pepsi. Coke or Pepsi then proceed to pick your pocket
> for the benefit their paymasters. Coke and Pepsi /do/ taste
> different. Both Coke and Pepsi rot your teeth.
Suppose we changed the system so we picked a president at random every
four years. Would you like that better?
shebr...@my-deja.com
I defy you to show me success of any nature without corporate
involvement behind it.
> but the continuing dynamic of human societies is that people make a
> difference. i believe that helping people feel as though their
potential can
> be realized is one of the most important things we as humans can bring
> about... this attitude is reflected in our laws and our wishes for our
> children, and in the dreams we whisper to our pillows at night. what
is the
> dream you had before you knew that some dreams can't come true?
that's the
> dream we all had and lost, just because of the society we grew up in.
Helping people feel that they can realize their potential or actually
realizing it? And why is it we feel that we *are* beneath our
potential, anyway? Where does this impression initially stem from?
My dream was to create music and be able to live accordingly. Our band
diverged in syncopated rhythm at a time when dance music was all anyone
wanted to hear, wrote a lot of objectivist-existentialist lyrics and
had a hard time finding places that would let us play even for cover.
It became easy to capitulate, to settle. Soon enough, we started
learning songs people could dance to and became successful as a cover
band, but no one felt good about it.
Perspective: One night, you look across a sea of grey faces all
cheering you on holding plastic cups in offering, the moment freezes
and you realize you are killing everything that you ever believed in.
Or, you resign yourself to the notion that you are at least being
creative as opposed to an office job and kid yourself with the
accolades of a lushful crowd of wannabes. So we have to define the
dream itself. To sacrifice what is your essence for success, whether it
is compromising your creativity in order to do what you want or
compromising your ethics in order to survive still amounts to the same
thing. It isn't society's doing that initially destroys the dream as
much as it is capitulating to our undoing societally.
>
> > Is there no reasonable middleground between the terms 'victim'
> > and 'abuser'? Many times, people are both, sometimes something in
> > between. What is the antithesis of 'victim"? What is it when good
> > things happen to you for no apparent reason beyond your control as
> > opposed to bad?
>
> well, sometimes something falls from the sky, and its effect on you
is bad.
> sometimes the sky has been primed with something which will have a
bad effect
> on you; the priming of the sky can be a concious act, carried forth
into
> fruition by someone's volition. that's still bad, but there is at
least a
> chance to change that initial act of priming. victim implies
victimizer.
> that is bad. we have to change the role of victimizer before we can
hope to
> get rid of people who are that victimizer's victims.
Explain more about the priming of the sky. Let's look at the victimizer
though. What is his purpose, from where does he operate?
> there is a good question in there about what is it that makes good
things
> happen to one person or another, and i feel that if the role of
victimizer is
> removed, people who were formerly victims won't have any other label
other
> than "being." and then it would be unnecessary to define bad things
that
> were done to someone by someone else, thereby negating the need to
create
> dichotomies.
Only removing the role? How do you mean?
> > > what does that say about society?
>
> > It says that in the end we die, we shuffle this mortal coil and that
> > hasn't changed from any other time in the history of mankind. Death
is
> > death. How is that any different than times past? Was it less
absurd
> > to be nailed to a post by the Cossacks or burned at the stake or
> > suffocating from plague or raped and mutilated by savages ? And was
a
> > more noble or worthwhile life to be had by the expectation of the
way
> > one would die?
>
> uh, i never said that death was not without its sense of the absurd,
i merely
> pointed out that it is fraught with a sense that it is more absurd
because of
> what we value as our lives, and what we value as a sense of
accomplishment
> about our lives. the absurdity of dying in a plane wreck is
compounded by
> the reason(s) we are in the plane to begin with.
So it's whatever put you on the plane that carries the faction of
absurdity? If I were flying to donate a kidney, I might at least feel
better about my death than if I were traveling on business?
> we have made up these
> arbitrary rules about our own importance, and distributed them in
such an
> agressive manner and to such a degree that we actually believe that
three
> hours from paris to new york is intrinsically better than five hours.
It is if you hate to fly, anyway.
> if a cossack were to take over my village, i would at least be able to
> understand that in a visceral way (no pun intended); moreover, i
would be
> able to at least have some control over the way i died. i might even
escape
> to eventually take over a village of my own! with a plane, or the
inflated
> and spurious sense of security gained in a SUV, i have no chance of
that
> during an equipment failure or something similar.
But how would you necessarily have more control as opposed to now? I'm
not quite following how this age is any different or more absurd.
People have always sought to make their personal worlds more secure.
Witness moats and chastity belts.
> > >spirituality? is that what you really want
> > > to say? or is it more of a general commitment to courage and
> > caring?
> > Let me ask you this: How can you be committed to caring without
first
> > having some prior spiritual motivation? Committment individually or
> > societally or just to the principle itself?
>
> oh yes. i can look at my mom or my sister and know that i care
without a
> sense of spirituality at all. i may, however, not be able to
contemplate the
> future or our places in it without some sense of the universe and our
places
> in it. and isn't that what spirituality is ultimately all about?
By committment to caring, I mean without emotional investment. I mean
can anyone commit to care for those that are strangers to them where
there is no possible payoff or return without spirituality for any
given length of time?
> i do think that it takes an _enormous_ amount of courage to commit to
caring
> about a person. and i do believe that for an individual commitment
to work
> it will take a commitment from us ALL to care for us ALL.
So why has this not yet happened?
> > Amen to that. And no matter what Buk says, we all need Love. Which
kind
> > is open to dispute.
>
> the first time we seriously talked in junior high school about the
rev. dr.
> martin luther king in one western civ. the teacher introduced the
agape
> concept. i have been in love with love every since.
Yep. Agape is the key.
Jonah Thomas
> > well, no. i see what you are saying about the collectively decided
> > arbitrarily decided upon "norm," but there are examples everyday of
> > people who buck the norm and lead lives and produce works which are
> > derived from their own definitions of what is normal. the artists of
> > our society do this regularly -- so too the inventors and engineers --
> > they are some of the problem solvers, even of problems which haven't
> > even been expressed in society.
> I defy you to show me success of any nature without corporate
> involvement behind it.
I know a guy who collects fossils. He's a farmer in rural Alambama.
Over
the last forty years he's found a lot of places where fossils show up,
and
every so many years he revisits them to find the new fossils that have
weathered out of the rock since he was there last.
The main corporate involvement is that the government paid contractors
(who were incorporated to reduce their responsibility) to grade the
roadcuts
that are some of his sites, and every now and then the government pays
contractors to cover some of his sites with asphalt. Also he's willing
to ride cars or trucks to his places, and the transportation industry is
corporate.
But if you'd heard of him it would be because the corporate media had
decided to expose him as a celebrity. It's very hard to get many people
to hear of you without corporate involvement -- and if people do hear
about you without the media pushing you, the media will start calling
you a "cult phenomenon".
You have gotten involved in the system to the point that you have let
the system define success for you. Of *course* you can't see success
that doesn't involve corporations -- the corporate culture has defined
it that way.
> My dream was to create music and be able to live accordingly. Our band
> diverged in syncopated rhythm at a time when dance music was all anyone
> wanted to hear, wrote a lot of objectivist-existentialist lyrics and
> had a hard time finding places that would let us play even for cover.
> It became easy to capitulate, to settle. Soon enough, we started
> learning songs people could dance to and became successful as a cover
> band, but no one felt good about it.
If you want to make money, you have to do what people are willing to pay
for. It's hard to convince people to pay for something they've never
heard of, so the easiest ways are to do what they already expect or to
get corporate support to publicise you as something people ought to
like.
These aren't the only choices but they're the easy ones.
If you want to do something new, it's better to do it as a hobby until
you have something that the media might want to push. Then you can
cash in -- probably not making as much money as you could have by
imitating something successful, and others may make more money than you
do, by imitating you. But it's the default approach if you want to be
creative and still make money from it.
> Perspective: One night, you look across a sea of grey faces all
> cheering you on holding plastic cups in offering, the moment freezes
> and you realize you are killing everything that you ever believed in.
> Or, you resign yourself to the notion that you are at least being
> creative as opposed to an office job and kid yourself with the
> accolades of a lushful crowd of wannabes. So we have to define the
> dream itself. To sacrifice what is your essence for success, whether it
> is compromising your creativity in order to do what you want or
> compromising your ethics in order to survive still amounts to the same
> thing. It isn't society's doing that initially destroys the dream as
> much as it is capitulating to our undoing societally.
It's natural to want to do exactly what you want to, all the time,
regardless of what anybody else wants. In an ideal world we could all
be artists and have the government pay us to create whatever art we
thought we wanted to create, independent of what the other artists like.
But the way we do it now, you spend part of your time supporting
yourself
and try to find enough time and money beyond that to do what you want
part of the time. The more creatively you balance those, the better
your chances.
> > if a cossack were to take over my village, i would at least be able to
> > understand that in a visceral way (no pun intended); moreover, i
> > would be able to at least have some control over the way i died. i
> > might even escape to eventually take over a village of my own! with a
> > plane, or the inflated and spurious sense of security gained in a SUV,
> > i have no chance of that during an equipment failure or something similar.
> But how would you necessarily have more control as opposed to now? I'm
> not quite following how this age is any different or more absurd.
> People have always sought to make their personal worlds more secure.
> Witness moats and chastity belts.
By today's standards, things used to make more *sense* than they do now.
Like, if the crops failed you could starve. If you farmed and *your*
crops failed you could starve while others did well. Cause and effect
were clearly related. If somebody came by and robbed you, you knew
where
you stood. The king's tax collectors weren't significantly different
from
other robbers; you knew where you stood with them too.
But now you can go for days buying things with a credit card and never
touching the paper money that officially represents spendable wealth,
that the government issued and that the government inflates at will.
You can get overdrawn on your credit card if you lose your job as a
quality inspector at a factory that makes children's toys. The taxes
were taken out of your direct-deposited paycheck before you ever saw
the pay. Your silly meaningless job might give you health insurance
that you couldn't buy if you were moderately well-off but unemployed,
and if you get bladder cancer from the toxic waste in your drinking
water you can get special surgery and chemotherapy that you couldn't
possibly pay for out of your own pocket -- for what good it does you.
It all seems more complicated, and the cause-effect chains have gotten
so long and intricate and loopy that you can't tell what any of it
means.
On the other hand, in the bad old days people didn't seem to believe in
their short simple cause-effect chains. Is there a drought that makse
the crops fail? It's Gods' Will. Does the king start a senseless war
that results in his neighbors' armies trampling your land? His
astrologer
told him the alternatives were worse. People believed in superstitions
that nowadays seem quaint and silly, but they were real to those people
and they kept the situations from making any more sense than today's
world
does to us.
> By committment to caring, I mean without emotional investment. I mean
> can anyone commit to care for those that are strangers to them where
> there is no possible payoff or return without spirituality for any
> given length of time?
Sure, every bodhisattva has done that. It's a fun hobby but you can't
do it all the time, you have to support yourself part of the time.
David 'Cuddles' O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Jonah Thomas wrote:
[...]
> It's very hard to get many people to hear of you without corporate
> involvement -- and if people do hear about you without the media
> pushing you, the media will start calling you a "cult phenomenon".
HELLO, EVERYBODY!
Phenomenally,
'TheDavid(TM)'
- --
"The Higgs boson is the cause of Gulf War syndrome." NY Times 12 Sept 00
"I'm the lamest drama queen I've ever heard of." -Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOi6yHxz40he1RakNEQIg5gCg10ti1jSx5arAljLM2uZhCHez2T8An3Fo
98mRuz8EhJ1SEspHu3qx46ZC
=gZIT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
shebr...@my-deja.com
It isn't system involvement or the taint of my corporate-influenced
soul as much as it is semantics. Success according to The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language by definition implies
either one of two things:
a)The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted:
attributed their success in business to hard work.
or
b) The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success. The
extent of such gain.
The irony in the words that I chose was by assuming the definition as
the latter based on the context of the preceding posts: ' I defy you to
*show* me success of any nature without corporate involvement behind
it'. In other words, if you can show it to me by example, then
definition number two applies, and in order to have fame and
recognition there is *always* a corporate influence because such are
the times we live in. (This message incidentally has been brought to
you by Magitronic).
If you intimate an archetype of anything else, it may fall under
definition one, but you can't really *show* it to me as an object of
success in the definitive sense and the logic would not follow to
assume that I meant anything else. If I had, you could have easily
added growing houseplants, raising a cat or balancing your checkbook,
all of which can be considered 'successful' in some measure, but not to
the extent of the content of the post or the context with which I was
using it.
I could even your use of the word 'successful' here to argue that you
proved my point above. Let's agree that in order to do what you want to
do, it's necessary to think and do outside of the given parameters,
especially with concepts such as 'success'.
> > Perspective: One night, you look across a sea of grey faces all
> > cheering you on holding plastic cups in offering, the moment freezes
> > and you realize you are killing everything that you ever believed
in.
> > Or, you resign yourself to the notion that you are at least being
> > creative as opposed to an office job and kid yourself with the
> > accolades of a lushful crowd of wannabes. So we have to define the
> > dream itself. To sacrifice what is your essence for success,
whether it
> > is compromising your creativity in order to do what you want or
> > compromising your ethics in order to survive still amounts to the
same
> > thing. It isn't society's doing that initially destroys the dream as
> > much as it is capitulating to our undoing societally.
>
> It's natural to want to do exactly what you want to, all the time,
> regardless of what anybody else wants. In an ideal world we could all
> be artists and have the government pay us to create whatever art we
> thought we wanted to create, independent of what the other artists
like.
And what government would ever agree to that kind of limitless
expression as well as pay to have it rendered?
> But the way we do it now, you spend part of your time supporting
> yourself
> and try to find enough time and money beyond that to do what you want
> part of the time. The more creatively you balance those, the better
> your chances.
Yep. Because I choose my vocation as vocation and create in my free
time I am free to create exactly what I want and even then there are
varying degrees of artistic freedom, critics and never enough
supporters.
It still doesn't lessen the absurdity, because that as a concept is so
subjective to culture, belief system, situation, individual etc. The
same things still happen today. Does that make it less absurd?
If we argue it on those grounds, then seems that it is more about
expectation, or dying in ways that makes sense. I'd argue we can expect
to die, and in any time, there were absurd ways to go. This
generation's nihilism is not based on the fact that death is absurd,
it's founded on the fact that their perception of life is.
>
> But now you can go for days buying things with a credit card and never
> touching the paper money that officially represents spendable wealth,
> that the government issued and that the government inflates at will.
> You can get overdrawn on your credit card if you lose your job as a
> quality inspector at a factory that makes children's toys. The taxes
> were taken out of your direct-deposited paycheck before you ever saw
> the pay. Your silly meaningless job might give you health insurance
> that you couldn't buy if you were moderately well-off but unemployed,
> and if you get bladder cancer from the toxic waste in your drinking
> water you can get special surgery and chemotherapy that you couldn't
> possibly pay for out of your own pocket -- for what good it does you.
Even if you could touch the money, money is only a representation of
the gold behind it and that system has been in place for centuries. I
don't think it made life any more meaningful them than it does now.
Credit, debt--those things have existed for thousands of years, just in
different suits. People died from plague and there was no known cause
or faction. Your examples are further proof of the life-as-absurdity
concept, but why do you think time has made things so different when
really, so little has changed?
> It all seems more complicated, and the cause-effect chains have gotten
> so long and intricate and loopy that you can't tell what any of it
> means.
>
> On the other hand, in the bad old days people didn't seem to believe
in
> their short simple cause-effect chains. Is there a drought that makse
> the crops fail? It's Gods' Will. Does the king start a senseless war
> that results in his neighbors' armies trampling your land? His
> astrologer
> told him the alternatives were worse. People believed in
superstitions
> that nowadays seem quaint and silly, but they were real to those
people
> and they kept the situations from making any more sense than today's
> world
> does to us.
So in the end it is all about perspective. But are you really
juxtaposing the ages of old as opposed to today's society when saying
that hardly anyone puts any credence in astrology, God or superstitions
or saying that for a vast majority it is anything less than real?
Lisbeth
The Oracle sighs.
J Thomas
> > But if you'd heard of him it would be because the corporate media had
> > decided to expose him as a celebrity.
<shebreathes explains at length that this was her point.>
> > > My dream was to create music and be able to live accordingly. Our
> > > band diverged in syncopated rhythm at a time when dance music was
> > > all anyone wanted to hear, wrote a lot of
> > > objectivist-existentialist lyrics and had a hard time finding
> > > places that would let us play even for cover. It became easy to
> > > capitulate, to settle. Soon enough, we started learning songs
> > > people could dance to and became successful as a cover band, but no
> > > one felt good about it.
> > If you want to make money, you have to do what people are willing to
> > pay for. It's hard to convince people to pay for something they've
> > never heard of, so the easiest ways are to do what they already
> > expect or to get corporate support to publicise you as something
> > people ought to like. These aren't the only choices but they're the
> > easy ones.
> > It's natural to want to do exactly what you want to, all the time,
> > regardless of what anybody else wants. In an ideal world we could
> > all be artists and have the government pay us to create whatever art
> > we thought we wanted to create, independent of what the other artists
> > like.
> And what government would ever agree to that kind of limitless
> expression as well as pay to have it rendered?
An ideal one, of course.
> > But the way we do it now, you spend part of your time supporting
> > yourself and try to find enough time and money beyond that to do what
> > you want part of the time. The more creatively you balance those,
> > the better your chances.
> Yep. Because I choose my vocation as vocation and create in my free
> time I am free to create exactly what I want and even then there are
> varying degrees of artistic freedom, critics and never enough
> supporters.
If you care about supporters or critics then you have limits on it
beyond
your limited means. On the other hand if you don't care about those
things then quite likely you'll never make money at it.
> > By today's standards, things used to make more *sense* than they do
> > now. Like, if the crops failed you could starve. If you farmed and
> > *your* crops failed you could starve while others did well. Cause
> > and effect were clearly related. If somebody came by and robbed you,
> > you knew where you stood. The king's tax collectors weren't
> > significantly different from other robbers; you knew where you stood
> > with them too.
> It still doesn't lessen the absurdity, because that as a concept is so
> subjective to culture, belief system, situation, individual etc. The
> same things still happen today. Does that make it less absurd?
The idea that it's absurd may be a modern one. The absurdity isn't in
our stars, but in ourselves.
> If we argue it on those grounds, then seems that it is more about
> expectation, or dying in ways that makes sense. I'd argue we can expect
> to die, and in any time, there were absurd ways to go. This
> generation's nihilism is not based on the fact that death is absurd,
> it's founded on the fact that their perception of life is.
Yes.
> Even if you could touch the money, money is only a representation of
> the gold behind it and that system has been in place for centuries. I
> don't think it made life any more meaningful them than it does now.
A whole lot of people were mostly doing barter. I have something you
want, you have something I want, let's trade. This seems more
meaningful than exchanging tallies in a bank computer for something
that's made out of plastic in china.
> Credit, debt--those things have existed for thousands of years, just in
> different suits.
I read an account by a man who left backwoods missouri in the 1890's to
go to the big city and get an education. He needed money and he went to
a man who had it. The man sat in his log cabin (that had a safe in it)
and looked at him in the flickering firelight. "I'll do it. I'll take
a chance on you." And he lent him $500 on the boy's promise that he'd
repay it with interest. I say there's a basic difference between this
and filling out a mass-mailed postcard to get a Visa card, and paying
your minimum balance each month to avoid getting a bad credit rating.
> People died from plague and there was no known cause
> or faction. Your examples are further proof of the life-as-absurdity
> concept, but why do you think time has made things so different when
> really, so little has changed?
The technical difference is that now so much more of it is human stuff
that's done in a way that's basically arbitrary. Life insurance, dental
insurance, income taxes, banking, the media, etc. We have fallen into
these patterns mostly by accident. (Sure, at each step somebody thought
he could make a profit from it, but mostly nobody was thinking about the
long term.) It used to be, when there was an epidemic it was God's Will
and people prayed or got drunk or whatever. Now we get a slow epidemic
and some specialists figure out how to exclude the sick ones from
coverage while other specialists figure out how much to raise
everybody's premiums, and the media explain about safe sex.
It isn't the same.
> > On the other hand, in the bad old days people didn't seem to believe
> > in their short simple cause-effect chains. Is there a drought that
> > makes the crops fail? It's Gods' Will. Does the king start a
> > senseless war that results in his neighbors' armies trampling your
> > land? His astrologer told him the alternatives were worse. People
> > believed in superstitions that nowadays seem quaint and silly, but
> > they were real to those people and they kept the situations from
> > making any more sense than today's world does to us.
> So in the end it is all about perspective. But are you really
> juxtaposing the ages of old as opposed to today's society when saying
> that hardly anyone puts any credence in astrology, God or superstitions
> or saying that for a vast majority it is anything less than real?
I'm sure many more people believe in astrology now than then, because
now there's more belief in life's absurdity.