Is there a connection between the two? Is there a good philosophical argument in favor of radically changing our patriarchal society? Is there a philosophical argument--rather than an emotional or psychological one--in favor of changing the mode of thought of the typical angry male image? (Is anyone out there familiar with Jackson Katz's "Tough Guise", which deals effectively with this topic on a sociological level?) And, conversely, are there any effective philosophical arguments in favor of male domination (rather than women are stupid and weak and only useful as sex objects or feminists are all ugly cows)?

Women have been shown to use both hemispheres of their brains in the use of vocabulary, visual-spatial perception, and emotion, all areas in which men use only one hemisphere. (The only exercise men use both hemispheres and women use one is in language mechanics.) The corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres, is up to 23% thicker in the female brain, relative to brain size. (from The Owner's Manual for the Brain, by Pierce J. Howard, PhD.)

The dominator model (wether male or female, doesn't matter), leads to warfare. Warfare combined with technology may lead to total destruction of life on Earth, or at least a big setback in terms of intelligent life.

Maybe so! to be contd..

yes. you fucking god damned women.
i hate all of you.
i appoligise if that is harsh sounding.

existabrent

allow me a minute, thanks:

What about violence on a smaller scale? I have read, from different sources, that men are the primary perpetrators of domestic violence and that women are the primary abusers of children (from different sources, as I said). Which is true? Certainly there are more men are hitting women than there are women hitting men.

yes. you fucking god damned women.
i hate all of you.
i appoligise if that is harsh sounding.

existabrent

Thank you, Existabrent. It was getting entirely too serious here.

Is there a connection between the two? Is there a good philosophical argument in favor of radically changing our patriarchal society? Is there a philosophical argument--rather than an emotional or psychological one--in favor of changing the mode of thought of the typical angry male image? (Is anyone out there familiar with Jackson Katz's "Tough Guise", which deals effectively with this topic on a sociological level?) And, conversely, are there any effective philosophical arguments in favor of male domination (rather than women are stupid and weak and only useful as sex objects or feminists are all ugly cows)?\
I've always hated this bullshit. I can not stand, one single bit, to be put down anymore than I am already. I simply can not. So here I am going to give you a taste. Lick your lips. Rub rub. Laugh.
You sorry sorry, people.

I know I sound rude but please listen.
At another thread at
philosophyforums.com

There is a thread titled "the death of masculanity"
Imagine for a second although you have no ability to: you are a man.
Not that that gets me down, although it does.

I for one, have LONG considered these problems.
They're not much more, are they?
The death of masculanity. Let me ask you several questions, trust me I want to be your friend.
More than you want to be mine ha!
Actually, I don't really want to ask you questions.

I want to make you spill your beans. About women. All men aren't aganist women. While ALL women are aganist men. I've made several threads aganist this. And in the book i am about to quote from, you will see that the line of arguementation hasn't quite been ended,
that is,
if as a women you desire only women to exist.
At that point in time, you are the worst living creature on the planet. And I will attack you at every aspect that is possible. I will bring you down to the level of a degrader or whatever form you can imagine. I will implement fucking the shit out of a women to castrate her, or bleach her. I will make this answer known. Evil genius. I will show how you are shit. I will make you shit.
If you will make me shit.
Anyway, I will copy some out of a book.
These are my personal opinions only (not to call them personal, perhaps personal......)

Reasoning is of feminine nature: it can only give after it has recieved.
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER,
The World as Will and Representation
There is no female mind. The brain is not an organ of sex. As well speak of the female liver.
CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILLMAN,
Women in Economics, 1898


I will quote no more as I type this myself.

The question is not, "Are there brain sex differences?" ut rather, "What is going to be our response to these differences?" Psychobiological research is slowly but surelly inching toward scientific proof of a premise first articulated by the psychologist David Wechsler over twenty years ago.

"The findings suggest that women seemingly call upon different resources or different degrees of like abilities in exercising whatever it is we call intelligence. For the moment, one need not be concerned as to which approach is better or 'superior.' But our findings [i]do confirm what poets and novelists have often aasserted, and the average layman long believed, namely, that men not only behave, but 'think' differently from women."



The Brain, the Last Frontier
Richard M. Restak, M.D.
`

Sure, ending there, I'd have to say, that i'm done.
OUT

May I ask if you're lesbian :)

*boy yo yoing................
:(

What about violence on a smaller scale? I have read, from different sources, that men are the primary perpetrators of domestic violence and that women are the primary abusers of children (from different sources, as I said). Which is true? Certainly there are more men are hitting women than there are women hitting men.
you're missing the point, dear bisexual love.

do not, answer me: do not women desire the abstract form of literal castration on all men?
that would be, all women, and I
have to say,
Men are nice to women. AT least nicer than women are to men.
Be a man for a seccond. Have comfortable balls :D
ALL HAPPY AND WONDERFUL.
THINK
for ONE Seccond PLEASE!

I like your issues raised. Unfortunately, no so much. I will agree with you men are mean.
hehe,
love

I appoligise.
Your thread deserves more attention.
love,
eb

I have read, from different sources, that men are the primary perpetrators of domestic violence and that women are the primary abusers of children.That doesn't exactly correlate with the anecdotal evidence, which is of such volume that I have a hard time not taking it seriously.

I think most kids get slapped and spanked mostly by their mothers just because they spend more time with their mothers. But it's only recently that we got hard-nosed and started calling that "domestic violence." Even I the pacifist grudgingly acknowledge the possbility that a kid might need to be spanked on rare occasions.

The term used to be reserved for something more than that. Paddling with an actual paddle like our sadistic schoolteachers used to make in wood shop. Whipping with a belt or a stick. Plain old hitting with a fist. There used to be kids who showed up at school looking like they'd fallen out of a tree or been run over by horses. They'd show up in the ER with bruises so bad they required medical care, or even broken bones.

And these injuries were perpetrated by fathers. For every harried mom who lost her cool and whalloped her kid with a kitchen utensil, there were a hundred cruel, calculating fathers who would spend time creating a weapon (or forcing the kid to cut a sapling and strip off the branches to make a good switch), marching him out to a shed where mom couldn't see and interfere, and just generally premeditating it so the lame excuse of a temper tantrum couldn't even be used.

I knew boys whose fathers just started fights with them like schoolyard bullies. Let them fight back freely but overwhelmed them with superior size and strength and just pounded the living crap out of them over and over again, more than once a month. One friend, at age 25, said that the happiest day of his life was when he became slightly bigger and stronger than his father. He came within an inch of killing him and nobody in his family tried to stop him.

I just shudder to think of that guy having kids of his own. Was he the one in twenty (or whatever) who overcame the handicap and didn't pass it on?

I always wondered whether the sudden explosion of judo and karate classes for kids slightly younger than my generation was society's way of preparing them to thwart abusive fathers. Do any of you Boomers have a point of view on that?

u kallin me a boomer, WHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUuuuuuu

I think women are problably slightly more violent than men. They just don't do as much damage - or the damage isn't reported.

As far as violence to children is concerned, I'm against it, but I also see a lot of parents who don't have a clue what kind of discipline to use as an alternative - and so the tantrums rule!

Is there a connection between the two? Is there a good philosophical argument in favor of radically changing our patriarchal society? Is there a philosophical argument--rather than an emotional or psychological one--in favor of changing the mode of thought of the typical angry male image? (Is anyone out there familiar with Jackson Katz's "Tough Guise", which deals effectively with this topic on a sociological level?) And, conversely, are there any effective philosophical arguments in favor of male domination (rather than women are stupid and weak and only useful as sex objects or feminists are all ugly cows)?

I'm sure there's a connection between feminist views and domestic violence in some households but I think there's an even greater connection between substance abuse and domestic violence.

In all cases, I think respect is the key to curtailing domestic violence. Respect yourself and treat all members of your household with respect...
Your partner, your children, your parents, your pets...

I think you're right, Wilmet. An interesting feminist philosophical point of view is that Trust will bridge the gap between men's and women's ways of ethical thinking. And mutual respect is the key to trust, no?

I think women are problably slightly more violent than men. They just don't do as much damage - or the damage isn't reported.

As far as violence to children is concerned, I'm against it, but I also see a lot of parents who don't have a clue what kind of discipline to use as an alternative - and so the tantrums rule!

That is an interesting viewpoint, and probably pretty accurate.

That doesn't exactly correlate with the anecdotal evidence, which is of such volume that I have a hard time not taking it seriously.

I think most kids get slapped and spanked mostly by their mothers just because they spend more time with their mothers. But it's only recently that we got hard-nosed and started calling that "domestic violence." Even I the pacifist grudgingly acknowledge the possbility that a kid might need to be spanked on rare occasions.

The term used to be reserved for something more than that. Paddling with an actual paddle like our sadistic schoolteachers used to make in wood shop. Whipping with a belt or a stick. Plain old hitting with a fist. There used to be kids who showed up at school looking like they'd fallen out of a tree or been run over by horses. They'd show up in the ER with bruises so bad they required medical care, or even broken bones.

And these injuries were perpetrated by fathers. For every harried mom who lost her cool and whalloped her kid with a kitchen utensil, there were a hundred cruel, calculating fathers who would spend time creating a weapon (or forcing the kid to cut a sapling and strip off the branches to make a good switch), marching him out to a shed where mom couldn't see and interfere, and just generally premeditating it so the lame excuse of a temper tantrum couldn't even be used.

I knew boys whose fathers just started fights with them like schoolyard bullies. Let them fight back freely but overwhelmed them with superior size and strength and just pounded the living crap out of them over and over again, more than once a month. One friend, at age 25, said that the happiest day of his life was when he became slightly bigger and stronger than his father. He came within an inch of killing him and nobody in his family tried to stop him.

I just shudder to think of that guy having kids of his own. Was he the one in twenty (or whatever) who overcame the handicap and didn't pass it on?

I always wondered whether the sudden explosion of judo and karate classes for kids slightly younger than my generation was society's way of preparing them to thwart abusive fathers. Do any of you Boomers have a point of view on that?

The anecdotal testimonies are sad and the implications of the perpetuation of abuse in a vicious cycle is frightening. But I think there are solutions, and I would like to address the following to Existabrent also. Although, the bigger the problem, the harder the solution--even the solutions to small problems seem to grow immensely in scope when we finally face them and start to ascend the steps toward solving them.
Here is one (general, not specific) solution, proposed in the film "Tough Guise" by Jackson Katz. We men can learn to accept ourselves as not always strong, not always heroic, not always stoic. We can allow ourselves to be dependent. Dependency, when not excessive, can actually enhance relationships with friends and lovers. We can allow ourselves to be vulnerable. If we allow ourselves to feel vulnerable, we allow ourselves to be sensitive, to sense both good and bad stimuli. If we are sensitive to being hurt, we are better equipped to recognize when others are hurt, as well, and we can learn to treat people better with each interaction that results from learning we have just hurt someone, unintentionally. We can allow ourselves to portray an image that is less than perfect, less than intimidating. If we appear to be imperfect and not intimidating, then we are approachable and likeable, and potential candidates for behavior modeling by those who choose to look up to us.
And respect others. By "respect" I mean "take another look." Try constantly to recognize that everyone has burdens, anger, weakness, loss, hopes, strength, bitterness, fear, at one time or another. We all desire our share of respect. If we were in their mind/body and they were in ours, would we not still be worthy of respect? Would they?

It sounds like what you're saying is that we should be more "whole" and try at least a little bit to adopt some of the characteristics that are stereotypes for women. We've come back in a circle to the original premise.

It sounds like what you're saying is that we should be more "whole" and try at least a little bit to adopt some of the characteristics that are stereotypes for women. We've come back in a circle to the original premise.

Yes, that IS what I am saying. Isn't that a good thing?

is it possible for you to say anything at all aganist my post
*confused as HELL*

This is stupid.
She speaks of changing our society. Feministic ideas(etc). Stupid shit, real stupid shit.
The next thing to happen is women is the only living creature (except for animals).
If that is the case, then I intend to ignore this thread.
It is so stupid, that only god can kill you.

What I've never understood is when women call themselves "Feminist" and then advocate that women are BETTER than men. Even in the fight for "equality" there are always contradictions - in the case of domestic violence, wouldn't it appear, logically, the more society breaks gender stereotypes, the more domestic violence there would be? Men beat each other up all the time, but they refrain from beating up women just because they're women.

you do know, how many contradicitons (I AM THE BIGGEST FREAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE LOL) there are in, well, even that?

there are more "superior" males in this world than females are superior to males.
as mush sexist crap as you will bring about, you can't beat that statement.
nor that men are the makers lol.
regardless, i'm a butterfly when it comes to criticism and love.
hahaha.
fuck me.

you do know, how many contradicitons (I AM THE BIGGEST FREAK ABOUT THIS ISSUE LOL) there are in, well, even that?

there are more "superior" males in this world than females are superior to males.
as mush sexist crap as you will bring about, you can't beat that statement.
nor that men are the makers lol.
regardless, i'm a butterfly when it comes to criticism and love.
hahaha.
fuck me.

I agree, you are a freak about this issue. But I enjoy reading your statements. They are (dare I say it?) entertaining. Thank you for continuing to respond, despite your aversion to my ideas.

What I've never understood is when women call themselves "Feminist" and then advocate that women are BETTER than men. Even in the fight for "equality" there are always contradictions - in the case of domestic violence, wouldn't it appear, logically, the more society breaks gender stereotypes, the more domestic violence there would be? Men beat each other up all the time, but they refrain from beating up women just because they're women.

It is interesting how many women are against feminism. That's okay with me.
I must disagree with you, however, on your statement that the more society breaks gender stereotypes, the more domestic violence would be. Think of how adrenaline works. The more you stimulate it, the stronger the response gets. The same is true of the neuro-biochemical process that results in sexual excitement. When you get to the point where you've lost control of your anger, and perhaps even of your sex drive, you can't intelligently choose what object or person you take your anger out on. Ergo, men who are used to beating up on men find themselves beating up on their wives and/or children. This is also a part of the process that perpetuates the cycle of child abuse. Victims grow angry and resentful, and the strongest model they have for dealing with their anger is their abuser, so when they become parents, they find themselves in their abusing parent's shoes. Please keep the comments coming.

Women are aganist feminism because it is abusive.
You are sexist.
I will advoid your ideas of changing our society, because, your beans smell bad. Not only do they smell bad, but they taste, bad too. I guarentee you with 100% accuracy that this issue has already been presented.
yes.. *laugh*: i am entertaining. I am entertaining because nothing I say is wrong.
That's the unfortunate part, about it however...
What are your ideas? "Ban" men their balls? Ban men their naturality? What do you suggest, you haven't once. All men are gay, ok, that's grey. Great, I mean. Oh, no, you are a pissant. I'm sorry....

Let me see what it is your trying to do.
You are a feminist hypocrite. If you are able to contridict my statement there, I will listen.
In every other case, you will remain, a feminist hypocrite. You feminists are the worst type of humanity, especially when such a line of thought is already done and over with. Feminism is a thing of the past.

Let me wonder, have you ever noticed that... AHRRMM... there is a thing called Post Modernism?

i wonder if you have ever even read. Wait, you're lesbian, that's right.
Sucks because I can't even say shit to you. You're too busy with your achedemia that your bullshitin around. Why do I advoid your posts? Because they miss the point entirely. They're stupid. They continue the same line of thought of (just a passing participant): here is what we should do, men are violent, (bla bla bla), yet... you talk about it in such a way, as if you are VERY seroius about it. ANd that is annoying as hell. I think most would agree with me?no :D

in every case, your arguements to say the least are lack of beans.
I am guessing you would have men castrated at birth, or one nut removed.
if not, ...
well...
What are you saying.
You are stupid.

my chance to express my ideas:
you are stupid. you are stupid because you are a woman. ... please don't bann me. you are stupid because you women always say shit like that; it's only the women. I assure you that you are the only one who creates the violence; you and your castrating ideals.
stick a fork in it shudder woman.

"It is interesting how many women are against feminism." (sorry can't work out how to quote) (existabrent - please don't make a comment about female inability with technology)
Well, i'm not exactly against feminism. It is annoying though, how most men automatically assume you're a feminist...!
Of course I don't agree that women should be shoved in the kitchen and should clean the house, or should give up their careers to raise their children, or should do whatever their husbands/brothers/fathers tell them to otherwise get beaten. But, I do think that male dominance (NOT 'superiority') is natural.
And my comment was merely saying "in theory" that's how it should work. Obviously, it doesn't.
Also, gender 'stereotypes' do not come from nowhere, and although some females may think otherwise, they are usually not too derogatory. Stereotypes like women are obsessed with their weight and clothes...more often than not, they ARE. You don't see men running around complaining that women automatically assume they're sloppy and lazy!

my chance to express my ideas:
you are stupid. you are stupid because you are a woman. ... please don't bann me. you are stupid because you women always say shit like that; it's only the women. I assure you that you are the only one who creates the violence; you and your castrating ideals.
stick a fork in it shudder woman.

History ceaselessly unfolds, and, someday, not today, perhaps, the pendulum begins to swing the other way.

Yes, Eb, I have noticed Postmodernism. Kindly read the following:

Postmodern philosophy is a radical criticism of Western philosophy, because it rejects the universalizing tendencies of philosophy. It applies to movements that include post-structuralism, deconstruction, multiculturalism, neo-relativism, neo-marxism, gender studies and literary theory. It emerged beginning in the 1950s as a rejection of doctrines such as positivism, Darwinism, materialism and objective idealism.
Postmodern philosophy emphasizes the importance of power relationships, personalization and discourse in the "construction" of truth and world views. In this context it has been used by critical theorists to assert that postmodernism is a break with the artistic and philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment, which they characterize as a quest for an ever-grander and more universal system of aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge. Postmodern philosophy draws on a number of approaches to criticize Western thought, including historicism, and psychoanalytic theory.
Postmodern philosophy is criticised for prizing irony over knowledge, and giving the irrational equal footing with the rational.
Some see postmodernism as essentially a kind of semantic gamesmanship, more sophistry than substance. Postmodernism's proponents are often criticised for a tendency to indulge in exhausting, verbose stretches of rhetorical gymnastics, which critics feel sound important but are ultimately meaningless.

I have also noticed something that you seem to do quite a bit in your responses to my rhetoric--"attack the messenger." Have you ever noticed that one? In case you are not familiar with the complete phrase (which, I assure you, is forgivable), it goes like this: "When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." I see, of course, that you have attacked my message plenty of times, although I'm not always clear on your meaning(Why the multiple references to beans?), but you also seem to favor launching attacks against me personally, rather than continue to try arguing your point until you've reached an effective conclusion to justify your strong reactions. Methinks he doth protest too much, :p and perhaps he knows deep down I have a point. I do not fretfully wait for your reply. I expect more of the same from you, and that will only serve to further my conviction.

"It is interesting how many women are against feminism." (sorry can't work out how to quote) (existabrent - please don't make a comment about female inability with technology)
Well, i'm not exactly against feminism. It is annoying though, how most men automatically assume you're a feminist...!
Of course I don't agree that women should be shoved in the kitchen and should clean the house, or should give up their careers to raise their children, or should do whatever their husbands/brothers/fathers tell them to otherwise get beaten. But, I do think that male dominance (NOT 'superiority') is natural.
And my comment was merely saying "in theory" that's how it should work. Obviously, it doesn't.
Also, gender 'stereotypes' do not come from nowhere, and although some females may think otherwise, they are usually not too derogatory. Stereotypes like women are obsessed with their weight and clothes...more often than not, they ARE. You don't see men running around complaining that women automatically assume they're sloppy and lazy!

I have no problem with your acceptance of stereotypes. Everybody must generalize, if we are to be able to think; the world is just too complex not to look for similarities among groups. But to say things like, "All black men are good at sports," "All jews are save and invest their money judiciously," or "All males are naturally dominant," is going a little too far. I'm sure you have come across dominating women or submissive men. And even nature changes. I'm sure that the men of today are not nearly as aggressive of the "men" from the dawn of civilization. Evolution changes people, my dear, and we are a society that is highly dependent upon technology (Look at us right now!)--and knowledgeable of how to use it to facilitate our survival--and evolutionary adaptations like knocking out your partner and dragging her into your cave are just not necessary for the continued reproductive success of our species any longer. And, yes, we have tendencies which we associate with a particular sex, some of which may be innate or natural, but we choose how to behave in response to internal as well as external stimuli. If we know a certain behavior makes us or someone else miserable, we can choose to work at discontinuing that behavior and work at seeking alternatives that work for ourselves as well as others. ;)

I am a feminist, and everyone should be. During the reign of feminine values on Earth just after we invented agriculture in the fertile crescent, humanity existed in relative peace with little sign of warfare, suitable worship of life creation, creativity and ecstatic psychedelic religion.

In the 1950's domestic violence was hardly thought of as a problem. Women had little economic power, and often tolerated horrible conditions, having nowhere to turn. With the rise of feminism (which is actually just a re-discovery), we now pay serious attention to this kind of violence. Our society is a more fair and just place because of it.

I am a feminist, and everyone should be. During the reign of feminine values on Earth just after we invented agriculture in the fertile crescent, humanity existed in relative peace with little sign of warfare, suitable worship of life creation, creativity and ecstatic psychedelic religion.

In the 1950's domestic violence was hardly thought of as a problem. Women had little economic power, and often tolerated horrible conditions, having nowhere to turn. With the rise of feminism (which is actually just a re-discovery), we now pay serious attention to this kind of violence. Our society is a more fair and just place because of it.

Thank you, Spidergoat. I can finally rest for a bit. I grew weary of "talking to testosterone." I hope it is obvious that I am a feminist (although a man). And I have long felt averse to those who believe that merely a strong conviction in their incidental beliefs is all the proof they need that their arguments are correct. I have also recently sought evidence of the past prevalence of a matriarchal society and, so far, only found mentions of the possibility of such an existence during my brief search of the internet. I am encouraged to hear confirmation of it from another person. I have been preparing for a presentation on "the abuse of women and children and how it relates to ethics." Could you tell me where I could find a clear source of "the reign of feminine values," as you aptly put it? And when you say "we," I assume you mean "women" invented agriculture in the fertile crescent? That is awesome information. It's incredible that such information remains so deeply hidden that I was even unable to find one obvious source of it during my internet search. I guess I just didn't have enough specifics to do an adequate search.

I vote we break out the genetic engineering kit and get rid of gender alltogether.
Its just getting in the way anyhow.

Hell yeah clockwood.
What is your conviction, lesbian woman? I will continue to attack your dreaded points, until you castrate the next man.

Thank you, Spidergoat. ....
Cooperative values doesn't mean ignoring who you are or eliminating gender. It's just a model for society based on mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. I suggest reading "The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Eisler to learn more about this period of early civilization.

http://www.partnershipway.org/index.html

Cooperative values doesn't mean ignoring who you are or eliminating gender. It's just a model for society based on mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. I suggest reading "The Chalice and the Blade" by Riane Eisler to learn more about this period of early civilization.

http://www.partnershipway.org/index.html

Thank you for your respectful suggestion.
By the way, I would never suggest eliminating gender, or ignoring who you are. In fact, a part of who you are is how you place yourself among and relate to people of a different sex, race, orientation, etc. And that, in turn, gives people feedback for their own response which also becomes a part of their identity.
I suppose that respect of differences is all that is called for, which should lead to the ability of all of us with differing traits to trust each other to accept and respond acceptably to those differences. When you have an attitude of disrespect, it is like saying, "All that matters is me and what I want. And you are not conforming to my wishes," which leads to hostility, which leads to violence.

I don't quite know if this answers the question at hand, and I didn't quite bother to read all of the thread.
But the role of men and women has a historical background. Think back to when we were hunters and gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. The woman gets pregnant and spends 9 months creating a child. After the 9 months she now has the chore of feeding it and taking care of it until the child can fend for itself.

So for each child it is a few years of her life that she is quite handicapped when it comes to going out into the wilderness, running tens of kilometers a day and trying to catch something to eat or whatnot. It makes historical sense that the man would become the "stronger" and more aggresive gender, as it was much easier for him to go out and to the physical work while the woman tended to the children.

And alot of civilizations tended to have many children. A family with 5 children was not uncommon, geeze just look back 3 generations ago, how many children were in your great grandparents family? Not all of them would survive, or be successful in order to take care of the family as they got older. Thats like 20 years of the womans life raising children.

In today's context it does not matter anymore. We live in big cities, where woman can work at home, drive to the grocery store, and have maybe 1 or 2 children. What we have physically is a remnant of hundred of thousands years evolution. We needed the roles of men and women in order to survive as a species. It doesn't matter anymore, or at least as not to as big of an extreme as it once did.

The trick is to understand that although our gender roles don't "need" to be different, we ARE different, due to our history. Ignoring our physical make-up and evolutionary traits (as some feminist groups suggest) is beyond stupidity. Just realize that we are living in a time where both sexes can fight the same war, even though one might have have a certain advantage on a certain battleground

if you expect much the same from me, only know i'm going to continue my point until yours falls. haha. i'm kidding, but there are many, and already completed, pages about this elsewhere. what, should i copy something from my book, just to amuse you? no i've already entertained you enough? oh, you're paying attention to my male gender. "i suppose this and that": it's unfortunate that spider goat for example and so many other greats, quit being like me and are themselfs, only to be attacked by the feminists.

this is about my pov but i should calm it down a little maybe? fine. it is ... stupid, to suggest such things as have already been suggested and are over with. that is why i created a thread called "this is all BS" or something in the free thoughts. certainly i could give a better response than this, but this is just a POST to tell maybe some things? i don't know.

anyway, the "feminism" debate issue deal thingey is another POV that just sucks. lol. it's just a pov, it's just some crap.
i think intellectual crap is stupid and everyone here shouldn't act so smart, they're fuckin' themselfs up.

anyway, ifyou're still reading, what?
lol. what is the point in this thread?
i like it, but....

I think you're right, Wilmet. An interesting feminist philosophical point of view is that Trust will bridge the gap between men's and women's ways of ethical thinking. And mutual respect is the key to trust, no?

Hi jopoblo,

Not sure that it's a feminist point of view... I think mutual respect bridges the gap between people in general, whether it be men and women, adults and children, etc...

I think many people who have posted here misunderstand feminism, at least the cultural kind. The idea is not necessarily to eradicate masculinity, but to enable women to assert their skills in the areas in which they believe they can contribute, as in being more sensitive than men to differences in individual situations and to the need to support relationships.

We already understand this.

Please, present us your theory.
I at least will listen.

Well, I don't have the time to research the historical definitions of feminism and present them to you. But I can offer you my own ideas, based on my recent readings. These are the things I like about "feminist" perspectives, anyway. Perhaps the exact definition of the word matters less than how it is used.

I just finished two books on women in Indian cultures. Their role, which they enjoyed and, in fact, resisted changing, even during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century when European settlers crowded them out of their vast territories, was to carry on the family heritage, to provide agricultural services for their tribe and their families, to direct actions of justice via exacting retaliation for any murder of a family member, and to generally support their culture and tribal community. I think their "natural" role shows what women are capable of. I mean, they can have a pretty powerful sway if we allow them, and they could employ their feminine instincts--excuse the cliche term; it's not intended in that way--so that they help to sustain and hold together the community. Their knack for "other-thinking" or selfless-thinking can not only lead to a compassionate attitude and respect toward individuals, but a support of the larger members of the groups to which they belong as well (be they family, work, military, political, etc.). I think that is the gist of it.