Women Rule: Kick Out Corrupt Old Men & Apply Here

[wolram]

You can always choose to ignore the issues and leave it to the people to take care of themselves while you and your top officials feast on chocolate and waste the taxpayers' money on extravagant outings to the spa.

Well that's a fine kettle of fish, you will have to watch out for revolting pesants if you start down this road.:grumpy:

 

[Evo]

Well that's a fine kettle of fish, you will have to watch out for revolting pesants if you start down this road.:grumpy:

I thought all peasants were revolting. Smelly, dirty, well, you know..they're peasants.

 

[wolram]

Ok, that's more in line with my idea of what the job is. I believe the sisters and Arildno all get to have our own private planes for fabulous vacations at the tax payer's expense. You don't want the people in charge of your fate to become stressed.

My first meeting is next week on the Island of Mustique. Wolram, you're coming too.

I can not i am incorruptable and for the masses, you have let me down :grumpy: you, you sheocrats.

 

[Evo]

I can not i am incorruptable and for the masses, you have let me down :grumpy: you, you sheocrats.

But this is for the "good" of the masses. We will be discussing ways to improve things. But we need to do it in relaxing surroundings.

 

[wolram]

But this is for the "good" of the masses. We will be discussing ways to improve things. But we need to do it in relaxing surroundings.

Ok then, but i will not eat or drink to much and i only want an average room.

 

[marlon]

WOW! Talk about unwarranted generalization! And contradicted by my own work experiences. I had a female boss and female coworkers on more than one occasion, and all was copacetic and we got a lot accomplished.

Well, indeed a generalization. The "unwarranted" part i don't get, but let's forget about that.

Now, i am sure that everyone has their own personal anecdotes that contradict the very words that i have written down. I am not going to deny such anecdotes but they are completely useless because they do NOT denote the general trend that i was outlining. Besides, in the example you give about your own work experience there is at least one guy involved (YOU). The guy acts as some kind of equilibrium influence in the all female environment, just like the woman will do in the opposite situation. Aside that, what is your point ?

regards
marlon, lover of all women

 

[marlon]

And hard rock music to flush his mozart infested ears :P

Please, let it be Guns 'n' Roses

marlon

 

[marlon]

I find it impossible to comment on such a sweeping statement

Ok, i can understand what you are saying here.

i would have to leave the proposed
candidates to give some input.

I agree completely. However, this is something entirely different than the original content of this thread, no ?

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

this thread offends me.

:rofl: Me too.

Besides, i think it is an OUTRAGE that Venus Williams wants to gain as much money as Roger Federer when both win the Wimbledon Championships. C'mon, the male tennisgame is much more intense and difficult than the female game. Women just have to play three sets and the average match takes about 1 hour. The guys play max 5 sets and the average match takes 2 to 3 hours.

Please, i can nolonger stand this male discrimination.

marlon, protector of the oppressed males

 

[wolram]

Ok, i can understand what you are saying here.



I agree completely. However, this is something entirely different than the original content of this thread, no ?

regards
marlon

Hmm, these threads do drift some what, i have noted that women seem to
band together for short periods only and then disperse, also they seem to snipe, (take one guy out at a time) which maybe good tactics, but this is showing a trend of possible hostility within the group.

 

[marlon]

Hmm, these threads do drift some what, i have noted that women seem to
band together for short periods only and then disperse, also they seem to snipe, (take one guy out at a time) which maybe good tactics, but this is showing a trend of possible hostility within the group.

My point exactly.

marlon

 

[wolram]

http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/psych.html

Hmmm,

 

[honestrosewater]

http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/psych.html

Hmmm,

Haha, go, Naomi Weisstein. I think this first paragraph is especially worth reading.

It is an implicit assumption that the area of psychology which concerns itself with personality has the onerous but necessary task of describing the limits of human possibility. Thus when we are about to consider the liberation of women, we naturally look to psychology to tell us what “true” liberation would mean: what would give women the freedom to fulfill their own intrinsic natures. Psychologists have set about describing the true natures of women with a certainty and a sense of their own infallibility rarely found in the secular world. Bruno Bettelheim, of the University of Chicago, tells us (1965) that “we must start with the realization that, as much as women want to be good scientists or engineers, they want first and foremost to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers.’ Erik Erikson of Harvard University (1964), upon noting that young women often ask whether they can “have an identity before they know whom they will marry, and for whom they will make a home”, explains somewhat elegiacally that “much of a young woman’s identity is already defined in her kind of attractiveness and in the selectivity of her search for the man (or men) by whom she wishes to be sought...” Mature womanly fulfillment, for Erikson, rests on the fact that a woman’s “somatic design harbors an ‘inner space’ destined to bear the offspring of chosen men, and with it, a biological, psychological and ethical commitment to take care of human infancy.” Some psychiatrists even see the acceptance of woman’s role by women as a solution to societal problems. “Woman is nurturance...,” writes Joseph Rheingold (1964), a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, “anatomy decrees the life of a woman... when women grow up without dread of their biological functions and without subversion by feminist doctrine, and therefore enter upon motherhood with a sense of fulfillment and altruistic sentiment, we shall attain the goal of a good life and a secure world in which to live it.” (p. 714)

I'd like to ask Dr. Rheingold who the "we" is that will be attaining the good life. It sounds to me like I am a slave in his utopia. I wonder if he's still alive and has the same opinion.

Anywho, the reason this scared me more than other similar writings, at first, is that these things were written just 40 years ago by people who you wouldn't normally suspect of crackpottery. (Of course, most gender equality progress is still very recent -- women in the US just got the right to vote in 1920 -- not even a hundred years ago.) All's well that ends well, though, as the rest of the article is her making a simple demand of these scientists and their theories: Prove it.

Thanks for sharing, woolie. I think it's a good read.

 

[turbo]

Please, let it be Guns 'n' Roses

marlon

Holy crap! Axl Rose sings like a rusty hinge! Sweet Child of Mine could be used as an instrument of torture.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, indeed a generalization. The "unwarranted" part i don't get, but let's forget about that.

The "unwarranted" part is that it's not true.

Now, i am sure that everyone has their own personal anecdotes that contradict the very words that i have written down. I am not going to deny such anecdotes but they are completely useless because they do NOT denote the general trend that i was outlining.

If everyone has a few anectdotes to contradict you, then how much of a general trend could it possibly be? And where do you get this notion of a trend from anyway? From your own anectdotal experience? You're simply wrong that such a trend exists. I've worked in plenty of environments that were all female (I attended a women's college; it was inevitable that the student organizations and committees were all female), and we got plenty accomplished and all worked together just fine.

Besides, in the example you give about your own work experience there is at least one guy involved (YOU). The guy acts as some kind of equilibrium influence in the all female environment, just like the woman will do in the opposite situation. Aside that, what is your point ?

If having a male present changes the group dynamic, and you're male, how can you even begin to claim you know how an all female group works when no men are present?

 

[arildno]

Haha, go, Naomi Weisstein. I think this first paragraph is especially worth reading.
I'd like to ask Dr. Rheingold who the "we" is that will be attaining the good life. It sounds to me like I am a slave in his utopia. I wonder if he's still alive and has the same opinion.

Anywho, the reason this scared me more than other similar writings, at first, is that these things were written just 40 years ago by people who you wouldn't normally suspect of crackpottery. (Of course, most gender equality progress is still very recent -- women in the US just got the right to vote in 1920 -- not even a hundred years ago.) All's well that ends well, though, as the rest of the article is her making a simple demand of these scientists and their theories: Prove it.

Thanks for sharing, woolie. I think it's a good read.

Yet another piece of evidence that psychiatrists and psychologists are NOT doing science, and never have done.
They are caught up in fashionable establishment ideas of their own time and create "pathologies" out from these.
That has not changed markedly since the time of Freud, and, a century earlier, the time of the phrenologists.

 

[rcgldr]

The guy acts as some kind of equilibrium influence in the all female environment

So this is another case of observation, or mere presence, can affect the outcome? Brings up an old question I have:

If a man says something in a forest, and there's no woman to hear the man, is the man still wrong?

And here is another example, of how women have helped men in their careers:

reftrain.wmv

 

[Moonbear]

If a man says something in a forest, and there's no woman to hear the man, is the man still wrong?

:rofl: More importantly, is it still his fault? I have a running joke with one of my male friends...I'm always right, and if I'm not, it's his fault.

 

[honestrosewater]

Yet another piece of evidence that psychiatrists and psychologists are NOT doing science, and never have done.
They are caught up in fashionable establishment ideas of their own time and create "pathologies" out from these.
That has not changed markedly since the time of Freud, and, a century earlier, the time of the phrenologists.

Well, I think I understand where you're coming from, but some subfields of psychology seem to me to be producing fine work. Are you talking about the clinical side of things or maybe psychopathology in particular or certain approaches?

 

[wolram]

How come my thread about( women should rule), has ended up discusing
psychiatrists and how come you all seem to know so much about them?

 

[arildno]

Hint: hysteria...

 

[wolram]

Hint: hysteria...

I did notice, but thought it best not say any thing, so hey people chill out
untwist those nickers and have a nice cup of tea.

 

[Evo]

I did notice, but thought it best not say any thing, so hey people chill out
untwist those nickers and have a nice cup of tea.

Can you mkae some cucumber sandwiches? :!)

 

[wolram]

Can you mkae some cucumber sandwiches? :!)

Sure i can, i will do the ones with the crust cut off and cut in triangles
and we can have strawberries and cream and fancy cakes covered with lashings of sprinkles

 

[Evo]

Sure i can, i will do the ones with the crust cut off and cut in triangles
and we can have strawberries and cream and fancy cakes covered with lashings of sprinkles

mmmmmm :!)

 

[brewnog]

Sure i can, i will do the ones with the crust cut off and cut in triangles

Forget that, Evo would prefer a whole cucumber, sliced lengthways, on a french stick. That's how to do it...

 

[wolram]

Arildno, it is your fault my thread has gone to pot :grumpy: .

 

[Lisa!]

Arildno, it is your fault my thread has gone to pot :grumpy: .

He deserves to get a ribbon for hijacking threads!

 

[wolram]

He deserves to get a ribbon for hijacking threads!

I quite agree, come hither didno and allow me to pin this ribbon on you.
wow that is a big ornate special looking pin.

 

[arildno]

Moi??
A ruiner of threads?
I can't believe it!

Well, then, back to topic:
I think women should rule because it is natural for them to lacquer their toe-nails, but for men, that's just..weird.

Any counter-arguments?

 

[honestrosewater]

Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain.

 

[Astronuc]

Actually - Atecone boes dad thnigs tob rain.

 

[Astronuc]

Referring back to hrw's post on a previous page, which quotes Naomi Weisstein -

Bruno Bettelheim, of the University of Chicago, tells us (1965) that “we must start with the realization that, as much as women want to be good scientists or engineers, they want first and foremost to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers.’ Erik Erikson of Harvard University (1964), upon noting that young women often ask whether they can “have an identity before they know whom they will marry, and for whom they will make a home”, explains somewhat elegiacally that “much of a young woman’s identity is already defined in her kind of attractiveness and in the selectivity of her search for the man (or men) by whom she wishes to be sought...” Mature womanly fulfillment, for Erikson, rests on the fact that a woman’s “somatic design harbors an ‘inner space’ destined to bear the offspring of chosen men, and with it, a biological, psychological and ethical commitment to take care of human infancy.” Some psychiatrists even see the acceptance of woman’s role by women as a solution to societal problems. “Woman is nurturance...,” writes Joseph Rheingold (1964), a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, “anatomy decrees the life of a woman... when women grow up without dread of their biological functions and without subversion by feminist doctrine, and therefore enter upon motherhood with a sense of fulfillment and altruistic sentiment, we shall attain the goal of a good life and a secure world in which to live it.” (p. 714)

The comments of Bettelheim, Erikson and Rheingold are rather unfortunate, and seem rather patronizing or condescending. The statements attempt to apply a certain behavior to a large population in one a one-size-fits-all, when it doesn't.

As my wife points out - "Women come in a full range of human
possibility just like men, dogs, cats and chimpanzees. For some women,
nurturing is everything, for others there has to be something else.
All human psychology needs to accept variations in genetics and
predispositions."

 

[arildno]

As my wife points out - "Women come in a full range of human
possibility just like men, dogs, cats and chimpanzees. For some women,
nurturing is everything, for others there has to be something else.
All human psychology needs to accept variations in genetics and
predispositions."

Your wife is a very intelligent person.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Dr. Rheingold.

 

[wolram]

Women do seem to think in a different way to men, evidenced by the things they like around them, there are some that break the general patern but they are few.