Revisiting Feminism: INFJ (or other type) perspectives

[Stu]

Holy F##king Sh##!

Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war

(really? is there any proof of that at all?)
The very idea that liberal academics would flee Germany as the Nazis took over and later influence the the intellectual life of the country most responsible for the DE-Nazificaton of Germany is enough to convince me of the wrongness of the left and the absolute truthiness of the extreme far right.

Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.

What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism?

there is no definition of cultural marxism offered in this text. unless you count this

..............an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society

but it appears that this is the sort of marxism that is being referred to, because we all know that if we allow the intellect of the female to control the body of the female then western civilization is truly doomed.

Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs’s first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary’s public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying Western culture itself.

What is “Political Correctness”? by William S. Lind

Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory

Gramsci was a communist, that's what the communists did. Because they allied with and in many cases subverted other groups in their societies which tried to overthrow the cultural oppression they endured does not mean that those groups ascribed to the communists totalitarian political and social model.

'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s.

The Authoritarian Personality (Studies in Prejudice)
by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford, Betty Aron, Maria Hertz Levinson, William Morrow
Rebecca's review Jun 03, 12

5 of 5 stars
bookshelves: anti-fascist-his-project
Read from May 13 to June 29, 2013


This book has been debunked by contemporary social psychologists for its flawed execution, Freudianism, and confirmation bias. Having read some of these critiques first, I was surprised to find that the book was much more nuanced, compassionate toward its subjects (including the "high scorers") and liberal on matters of sexuality than most of the contemporary critics give it credit for. I can understand why it's had such a huge influence.

It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin [15] and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author [16] of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training. Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military [17] personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

It would appear the Lewin a psychologist was trying to identify and change sociopath behavior. can you believe it?

Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care.

another radical idea!

Fromm was an impressive pschologyst, influential writer, peacenik and student of DT Suzuki. His work Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis is well worth reading, unless you fear the corruption of you mind by the cultural marxists.

 

[muir]

I'm going to take the discussion in what might seem a bit of a bizarre direction now but believe me it will all tie in and make sense when seen as a whole

A while back a forum member @Stu recommended a book in the recommend a book thread. The book was called ''The dream culture of the neanderthals''



I had been speaking to stu about the nebra sky disk in his avatar and he mentioned the possible neanderthal connection to that artifact. So i read the book and it was very interesting because it tied into a number of things i was looking into at that time as well as various concepts i had discussed on the forum such as jungs idea of the anima and the animus as well as the kabbalistic concept of balancing the male and female pillars of the tree of life

Another relevant balance is that identified by the buddhists who warn people of straying either to self indulgent nihilism at one end of the spectrum or self isolating acetisism at the other end of the spectrum...they advocate a 'middle way' between the two extremes and it is that balancing act that i was referring to earlier in this thread where men can be strong (but not oppressive) and compassionate (without being a pushover)

I had also watched around that time a short film, recommended to me by a friend, made by the german film director herzog called ''the cave of forgotten dreams''

Here's a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZFP5HfJPTY

Here's the whole film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U3A0lNYTdI

What the author of the book Stan Gooch is suggesting is that the neanderthals were not the mindless idiots they are often presented as by the media. What he is suggesting is that they were actually a matriarchal society who were very creative and that they or a hybrid species might be behind the cave art

he is suggesting that their focus was on lunar worship

This ties into Robert Graves idea put in his book 'the white goddess' that there used to be a more matriarchal society across europe that was then usurped by a patriarchal society; for example he suggests that the Minoan culture was a matraicrhal culture with priestesses

In my country (scotland) we had the old lunar witch cults that were also across europe which margaret murray wrote about

We have examples of how different cultures expressed themselves in different ways for example the spartans of greece were very masculine and warlike whislt the athenians were more cultured

This male/female dichotomy is even expressed in the order of the classical columns with the curly ionic style being female and the plainer doric style being male and the more elaborate corinthean being a fusion of the two:



So we have now had 2000 years of a patriarchal judeo-christian, patricarchal culture but way before this there may have been a matriarchal society

So in the judeo-christian society there is a big emphasis on property rights and on marriage and the family. In matriarchal societies people aren't coupled up so much...they all mate with each other and they each raise each others young as a community. Neanderthals were probably more gatherers than hunters and probably had a largely vegetarian diet. Cro magnon man on the other hand were hunters.

The neanderthals didn't just dissapear though they interbred with cro-magnon man to create a new hybrid. Gooch also argues that certain groups of modern humans have higher proportions of neanderthal DNA than other groups. He says that the celtic peoples and the jews have higher percentages of neanderthal DNA than other groups

Gooch is jewish

At some point the calander was changed from a lunar calander that had 13 months in the year plus 1 day which gave rise to the saying 'a year and a day'; in fact here in scotland we used to have a tradition where a man and woman would pair up for a year and day to decide if they were a good match before deciding if they were going to marry. This was called 'hand fasting'

The calander was then changed to a 12 month solar calander. The sun is seen as a male symbol...a phallic symbol; the moon on the other hand was noticed by the neanderthals (sleeping outside under the night sky) to affect womens menstrual cycles

Even today jewish people have various taboos around menstrual blood and menstruating women and in the occult it is held to have magickal powers

If you think about scandinavean myths of trolls they are probably a folk memory of neanderthals:



Trolls were strongly against christianity and what is christianity? It is a patriarchal solar phallic religion with a death and rebirth solar god. Despite this the need for a female influence that came from the people ensured that a female deity emerged from christianity in the form of Mary

so what would be a modern day expression of the matriarchal collectivist neanderthals? Well....marxist socialism would

Marxist socialism wants to break down the family unit and property rights, it wants to make everyone into a community, it wants the children to be raised by the state.

And who created it: marx and engels, two jews

Even today the head of the jewish rockefeller family david rockefeller (funder and promoter of feminism through the rockefeller foundation and his media empire along with hungarian jew george soros through his foundation and his organisation: ''the open society institute'') wrote his thesis at universoty on fabian socialism (and he's a trillionaire...talking about 'socialism'!)

Who are the main leaders behind feminism...lets take a look (please excuse the dramatic voice over at the start!)

[video=youtube;bQiRGcXEyUo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQiRGcXEyUo[/video]

So who provided the intellectual groundwork for feminism? The frankfurt school did and who are the frankfurt school? They are german jews; its a jewish school who combined the jewish political school of thought of marx with the work of jewish psychoanalsyt Sigmund Freud

Anyone seeing a theme here?

Have you ever watched the jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman? She likes to make jokes about christianity but also about how hairy jewish womens arms are! Well the neanderthals were quite hairy!

The neanderthals were said to live communally and may well have had sex opnely in public without shame....this is certainly said of the celtic people (some of my ancestors). Gooch says in his book that he thinks that jewish women are more....erm...moist ie sexually receptive than other women. I don't know if that's true and i don't think my partner would be very happy about me conducting field work on that particular point

So how could such schools of thought gain so much influence in the US that they could influence not only the media but also the education establishment?

Well what controls the government in the US is MONEY and who has the money? The central banking families have the money. There are 8 primary families behind the federal reserve bank in the US four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers of New York, Lazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York. Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3] The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century. (dean henderson's 'Big oil and their bankers in the persian gulf')

These very same families funded trotsky (real name bronstein...a jew) and lenin (part jewish) and provided them with trained revolutionaries to go back into russia and take it over (like they are doing in the Ukraine at the moment). Whilst in the US Trotsky received support from the jewish masonic B'nai Brith lodge (george soros has been behind the recent 'colour revolutions' in europe)

The bolsheviks was a jewish movement and it crushed the other group, the mensheviks

Here's a quote from an article in the Illustrated Daily Herald by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from around that time where he tries to make a distinction between bolshevik jews and zionist jews amongst the international jewry:

” …the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

Churchill was incorrect in making a distinction as both the bolsheviks and the zionists were funded and supported by the jewish central bankers who use the hegelian dialectic principle of playing both ends against the middle

The fascist zionist current can today be seen manifested as the ruling right wing Likud party of Israel

So all these 'liberal' movements are really about moving people closer to a centrally controlled state socialist system. This system will be a totalitarian system which is to say that the state will have total control over every aspect of peoples lives

So in a metaphorical sense we could be said to be moving from an unbalanced patriarcal system that was domineering to an unbalanced matriarchal system that is going to be smothering

In order to force this society into being the banking cabal have taken over the big pharma industry and the field of psychiatry and just as they are using oestregen and BPA to feminise men they are also using psycho-active drugs to control the population

What i'd advocate is the middle way between the two; i also advocate men and women coming together in common cause to do that rather than being corralled into a new system they didn't choose whilst being made to fight each other

 

[La Sagna]

In matriarchal societies people aren't coupled up so much...they all mate with each other and they each raise each others young as a community.

I don't know about all the rest of it, but if this description shows what a world ruled by women would be like, forget equality, let's go for the rule of women. Because this sounds pretty good to me

 

[muir]

I think violence against men should be under the purview of feminism, actually. Since feminism, as @La Sagna pointed out in an earlier post, by definition is meant to grapple with equality for both genders. Actually, the concept of some women abusing men and getting in trouble less for it (because of views that women are weak and men should be strong enough to defend themselves) is sickening. It is extremely sexist, in the exact same way that argues that women should not "flaunt" their bodies in a way that draws attention, otherwise they invite violence.

Except to call it 'feminism' isn't equal is it?

How about calling it: 'humanism'? lol

Well, the fact that it is sexist is one thing, but it is deeply unfair to these male victims, who often get mocked by both genders for their emotionally scarring experience. I do think this is a very important topic to address and I think it should be brought to the forefront of public attention.

Can you think of any solutions? Any steps people could take? The only things I can think of is raising awareness until enough people understand how wrong it is that these male victims aren't taken care of, or protected by the system, or validated for their terrible experiences.

I think people need to understand that there are certain cultural drivers operating beneath the surface of our society

I think if people can become consciously aware of them then they are able to then take a more objective and discearning stance on things instead of being swept along with various cultural memes (and becoming 'unwitting dupes of the new world order')

in short people need to see how they are being manipulated

 

[muir]

I don't know about all the rest of it, but if this description shows what a world ruled by women would be like, forget equality, let's go for the rule of women. Because this sounds pretty good to me

I advocate a sort of anarchist communist system so i am very much on board with a balance between personal freedoms and responsiblities to the community

The problem with this drift towards the 'matriarchal' society is that it is going to come at a cost. In order for them to achieve this they are going to create a totalitarian police state where the individual is completely controlled by the state to the point of having no privacy and having microchips planted under our skin, being tracked everywhere we go, spied on all the time (think orwells 1984)

See for example all the recent NSA spying revelations and the drone flights over US soil and creation of various 'terror' laws etc

So it could be argued that nazi germany was at the other end of the spectrum...fascism is a very masculine energy...very domineering

Nazism was unbalanced force, but equally if you go to the other end of the spectrum as the marxists are trying to do then we find that we are smothered by the state (the 'nanny state')

At either end we lose our freedoms! And do you know who always wins and who funds both these strands: the central bankers!

Thats why i advocate a middle way

 

[say what]

Sorry! That was a typo- I meant empowers!

I can see what you’re saying, and I think at the root of it, we both want the same thing- we just differ on what we’re calling it.

I see the fact that there's a stigma against feminism in the first place as a problem in itself.

I think this is a big issue- but I think it stems from the third movement. I just see feminism as something that is much broader than it should be- but again, I think it goes back to how feminism is defined.

If feminism essentially means equality for women, and women are afraid to apply the word feminist to themselves, that's extremely problematic, IMO. I have to question why many people see this as a negative thing.

The basis of feminism is equality for women, but through the moments of feminism (especially the third), I believe that it’s been manipulated into something that is misrepresented.

I don’t dislike feminists, or wouldn’t apply feminism to my work – I just don’t think it’s the right term for what it’s trying to do.

What is the difference between what feminism is and what it has become?

The goals of feminism have changed drastically since it emerged in the late 19th century. This makes sense given the changes in culture and society- but I personally don’t think many of the issues feminist are fighting are solely gender issues – and for me, I think using feminism to approach complex issues, clouds the impact of other social, political and geographical inequalities.

I do recognize the stigma. It's what makes me so angry. The stigma is the problem. Not feminism.

I battle with this too. The stigma is a part of why I don’t want to identify with feminism…I think the stigma clouds a lot of work done through feminism.

I can't really wrap my mind around what you're getting at. How can we just focus on people as a whole when different groups of people have vastly different levels of privilege and specific problems? "Equality for all" means nothing while we're living in a society that is still heavily gendered. If one day we reach the point where issues of gender, race, orientation, status, etc. are all solved, then maybe we can just be humanists because no group's problems would require specific attention. But that is not the world we live in today. And having different groups that specialize in certain issues—like feminism for gender issues—in no way must detract from other groups' problems.

I’m not articulating what I’m saying – but essentially I believe we are all equal, and when you approach a topic, such as women in a male dominated profession, you can’t just view it as a gender issue – it’s so much more complex than that. I would rather go in with the ideology of a ‘humanist’, and apply feminist theory (not feminism) to the situation to understand the engendered nature of the work force…but I would also apply a range of other theoretical frameworks to understand it from different perspectives.

We need specific subsets of people dealing with the issues related to them because these issues are way too complex, and no one can understand them better than the people who experience them.

I agree! I think we just approach it in different ways!

There's also the fact that the patriarchal mindset permeates our culture in so many ways that we're blind to because we've never known an alternative.

Completely agree! But the patriarchal impact on society encompasses gender, race, class, geography, agism…and for me, taking a feminist approach doesn’t do it justice- but that’s just my opinion.

Take almost any subject, like "history." This is a neutral term that suggests an unbiased view of the past. But the way it's taught, it might as well be called "history according to white males." Same with more specialized subjects like art history. The whole notion of fine art (traditionally) is based on European males. Almost all the artists we elevate to "genius" status are European males. Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Picasso... There were plenty of other people creating art throughout history, though mainstream textbooks would have you believe that this specific group is the pinnacle of art. But if you take a women's and gender studies course that focuses on art, you begin to see how biased our cultural ideas on art are. How non-white and female artists were erased from history.

You could say this about race. You could take an aboriginal art class and look at how art is predominately white. And while feminist would say that feminism covers this, I just feel that a movement – largely pushed by middle/upper class white women – just doesn’t get full get at it. But that’s just me.

We haven't yet neutralized this bias. We've barely started, and it's so complex it will probably never be reversed completely.

I agree!

If we go back to just focus on humanity as a whole without making distinctions, we'll inevitably fall back into the default mode that is non-inclusive. It takes a concerted effort to find the whole truth.

I agree. We just have different perspectives. I think applying a gendered lens to all these issues is somewhat the same thing!





****************

I have to thank everyone for the great discussion. As a white woman (and I think I've been pretty privileged in my life) I've struggled a lot (and as you can see here, I still struggle!) with understanding my position with feminism. So thank you for making me think, and continue to reevaluate where I fall ...I'm still not sure!

 

[say what]

I'm still confused one thing, though. I thought your problem with feminism was that it was too specialized now, branching off into issues that aren't specifically about gender. But here you're criticizing it for catering more to upper/middle class white women (which I agree is a problem). Wouldn't it be a good thing, then, that there are sub movements within feminism that deal with the intersection of race and class with gender issues? Or did I misunderstand something you said?

This is a good question- and I'll be honest...I'm not 100% sure what I think!

But how I see feminism is that it came out of a movement that was for women - and largely disregarded the impacts of race, class, etc. While it's important, I think feminism is slightly flawed in this way, and may actually hinder movements for women who are also dealing with race, class, sexuality, etc. issues. However, taking feminism and using it to investigate gender only is still fine, but it's missing a piece- recognizing that, and accepting that is what I wish the public would do for feminism (because I believe there are many feminists that believe this, but popular opinion sees feminism dealing with gender - and disregards all the other issues around society).

When feminism expanded it did bring in these other social components, but it's still under this hierarchy of 'gender' with the foundations being in white, western, upper class women. I like that black colonialism came out of feminism- I think that's important because it recognizes the different sects of injustice, and that they overlap. But I think calling it "feminism" doesn't do it enough justice, because it's more.

Ok...I've found my point

I don't like the term "feminism" to describe all of the theories, frameworks, ideologies that are used to understand and explore inequality. I would rather a new term- one that doesn't come with the history of feminism....I am proposing "Happy peoples" as this new term.


....I need my afternoon coffee..I'm crashing here!

 

[muir]

@muir

I abhor any type of violence but domestic violence is particularly insidious, whoever does it whoever. I do believe though that the problems inherent in female against male domestic violence are different than the ones that are contained in male against female domestic violence.

I have a direct experience trying to help a man who was a victim of domestic abuse. He was charged with assaulting his wife when the truth was that he was simply defending himself as she was trying to choke him. He lived with us for a number of months while his case was going through the system and he was not allowed to go home because she was there. He's a caring, mild-mannered man who works in a very macho male-dominated field and I can tell you that he had a lot of support from the other men to leave her and I tried to help him also with self-esteem issues and trying to help him to look at the situation objectively. She put him through hell and even tried to set him up to be caught in too close proximity to her by following him and calling the police on him. He ended up having to go to anger-managed and alcohol treatment (he does have a problem with alcohol). He went right back to her after the court stuff was all over and he is still living with her. The situation has been frustrating for us because now he's too embarassed to even speak to us because he knows that we didn't think he should go back with her.

I think this story demonstrates what often happens in cases where the man is being physically abused by the woman, he usually ends up the one being charged. He could have had her charged but he chose not to. You could see the imprint of her fingers on his neck from her choking. I can tell you though that he received an awful lot of support, even from the very 'macho' men he works with but he made his decision to stay with her.

I think the difference is that men are generally much stronger than women. So, even though I think he is crazy to stay with her and he has put himself in a situation where he could end up in a mess again I do not fear for his safety and life as much as I would if he was a woman being physically abused by a man. I do worry about his safety, but not as much, because he is much stronger than she is.

I also think that in many cases the stigma for men is a self-stigma because they don't want to see the situation for what it really is.

Its not 'self stigma' in the sense that it is also tied to the perceptions of others

Have you ever read 'men are from mars, women are from venus'?

You know how men go into their 'cave' and brood (lick their wounds) then come out after psychically healing themselves. Many guys in britain have potting sheds at the end of their garden they escape to! Some guys have studies and some have garages and some use the pub...but they often need somewhere to go to work through their feelings

So for guys there is a thing about not wanting to be seen to be incompetant. Now this might also be linked to 'thinking' cognitive types. My partner is an INTJ and she is highly competant and being competant is very important to her and she respects other competent people.

INFJ's on the other hand might be more focussed on how trustworthy a person is

But anyway...more guys are thinking types than feeling types...and as a generalisations they like to feel competent. A guy might feel shamed by feeling incompetent in his relationship if he is being abused....it implies he can't solve his own problems

That was the main thrust of that book wasn't it....that guys tend to try to solve peoples problems whereas women try to sympathise with them...generalisations but probably have some validity

You have stated that you believe that there is a biological difference between men and women. In that case, you have to admit that the vast majority of violence is committed by men, not just violence against women but violence against other men as well, or violence against themselves in the form of violent suicide. There really is no denying the numbers on that one. That is why domestic violence committed by men against women receives more attention, it is definitely more common and it is more often deadly. So, although I completely agree that adressing female against male violence is also important I do not believe that the impact of that is nearly as great or detrimental to society as domestic violence of men against women, and children of course.

I think that there is a biological aspect AND a cultural aspect

I don't think that abuse is just about hitting people. I think abuse can be verbal as well. There have been experiments done where guys have had heart monitors attached to them and then they have gone shopping. Whereas women often get a lot of pleasure from shopping, its been found that many guys actually find it stressful! It makes their adrenaline spike to unhealthy levels

So what else does a guy find stressful? What else sends his adrenaline levels soaring? Conflict will often do that. I think in ouir modern society there is probably a lot of conflict between people and i think if you add problems like money troubles (see economic crisis and austerity) or confusion over gender roles then there will be even more pressures on relationships and more conflict and more abuse (of whatever kind)

I also think that the figures for health problems for example for heart attacks has changed since women entered the work place. It used to be the case that women lived a lot longer than men but now that gap is closing. It used to be the case that more men died of heart problems then women but that gap is now changing. So women are now dealing with a lot more pressure and a lot more stress as well. So both sexes are stressed out and on shorter fuses...except now there isn't one partner to act as a calming influence on the other as they are both working and both stressed

I think women are now putting themselves into stress filled job roles and are falling back on the usual crutches: alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, caffeine, drugs

I think as more women do this they are also behaving more aggressively. i remember in the 90's we saw the rise of something in britain we called the 'ladette' culture where women were becoming as drunk, as obnoxious, as leery and as violent as some men

I used to hand out flyers on a streetcorner in a rough part of town on friday and saturday nights as a student and women were involved in just as many violent drunken altercations as men...lots of hairpulling and slapping

Women are aping men more or rather apeing the culturally created perception of what a man should be (since the 1980's in the corporate world that would be gordon gheko from 'wallstreet'!)

Its like the 'apprentice' programme on TV where you get these aggressive men and women who are like barracudas in suits

However i think that both men and women are wired from their evolution to have a powerful 'fight or flight' response. In our modern culture where people are very aggressive (built on the cult of the INDIVIDUAL) people are getting involved in more confrontational situations (see modern phenomena such as 'road rage') and i think that when people get into those highly charged situations they get a shot of adrenaline. They then feel a strong pull to either get away from the situation or to stand and fight.

When people get angry enough they 'see red' where they are getting a spike of hormones that then close down their rational thinking and they then act more from instinct

I used to work in a psychiatric hospital and would often be involved in calming situations down or responding to situations that had broken down into violence. I noticed that there were some people who there was never trouble around and others who i would think ''oh no its XXX on shift tonight, they are antagonistic and there might be trouble''

If i worked nightshift because there weren't many male staff around i would always be called on to help out with situations. What i noticed is that the male staff were often calmer than the female staff. This is because they had the confidence that came from having that physical presence behind them. Some female staff clearly bristled a bit when their authority was challenged because they did not feel powerful and they were more prone to then saying barbed comments that would antagonise patients then male staff were because they would try to lay down the law through attitude not presence

There were some female staff who were BRILLIANT at calming situations down....but they were great because they weren't using hard 'male' energies they were using soft 'female' energies and people often respond better to that (they don't feel challenged)

I think a lot of women show a lot of attitude and act up a bit whereas guys are more cautious because guys know that when they get up in someones face it usually escalates into violence

There's a saying: ''the smallest dogs always bark the loudest''

Notice the female fashion of wearing shoulder pads to try and look bigger or of wearing high heels to try and look taller...its about trying to cover up for a feeling of powerlessness; its about trying to work with male energies instead of female energies and our society is desperately in need of some female energies

Thats not to say that men can't work with female energies and that women cant use male energies but what i see is everyone trying to use male energies....it does not make a very harmonious world!

 

[Stu]

pre historic Matriarchy really does not apply to modern day feminism or economic theory because for one thing, there is no reliable evidence to determine what it was and for another, humans have been changing psychologically over the centuries.

In a Jungian sense, all ego activity is "masculine" regardless of the gender of the individual and the unconscious is "feminine". The subjugation of women by men over the eons is the vestiges of our prehistoric and primordial past, fueled by the rise of ego consciousness over instinctual unconsciousness. Feminism (in my opinion) is simply the claiming of deprived rights and privileges by the female gender. There are of course differences between men and women, this can clearly be seen politically in societies where women hold significant political and economic power. It would appear that the empowerment of women will bring about a better world.

 

[La Sagna]

I don't think that abuse is just about hitting people. I think abuse can be verbal as well. There have been experiments done where guys have had heart monitors attached to them and then they have gone shopping. Whereas women often get a lot of pleasure from shopping, its been found that many guys actually find it stressful! It makes their adrenaline spike to unhealthy levels

I know very well that abuse can be verbal as well as I have been verbally and emotionally abused. Are you suggesting that shopping is abuse? I personally don't like shopping very much and it can cause me stress, especially if I'm with a grumpy man (haven't done that in years, it's just not worth the aggravation). My oldes son on the other hand loves to go shopping with his wife so I think it's all very individual.

...more guys are thinking types than feeling types...and as a generalisations they like to feel competent. A guy might feel shamed by feeling incompetent in his relationship if he is being abused....it implies he can't solve his own problems

I'm a feeler and this above is exactly how I have felt like I was incompentant and couldn't solve my own problems...so I'm not sure that it is specific to men or to thinkers.

Its not 'self stigma' in the sense that it is also tied to the perceptions of others

Self-stigma can come from internalized notions that we perceive around us. That is often how self-stigma develops, like the idea that a boy shouldn't cry...

Let me tell you something about self-stigma, it can come from your own view of yourself and denial of reality. I have been verbally abused on and off during my marriage and it escalated and became emotional abuse a few years ago. I didn't want to admit to myself that I was a victim of a form of abuse (I still have a really difficult time writing those words down) because I am too smart and too strong to let myself be treated like that. I was not willing to see myself that way and admit that I had let myself get into a bad situation and let myself be treated in such a way. I always knew that I would never put up with physical abuse I just didn't realize how dehuminizing and dissempowering verbal and emotional abuse can be even without the physical part. It took a moment when I was asking to be forgiven for wanting to use paper plates instead of ceramic plates at a BBQ we were hosting as my husband was leaving because he couldn't believe how I could try to make him look stupid and disrespect him by disagreeing with him on this matter. I know it all sounds ridiculous but that's really how it was and I had a moment of clarity after he left and I realized how pathetic I sounded when I was asking for forgiveness for something that shouldn't require it.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of men who put up with a lot of verbal abuse from their partners and that it would affect them as much as it affected me, and that it can extend to physical abuse for men because they 'should' be able to defend themselves from a woman. I can completely understand why men self-stigmatize in these cases. As I stated previously with the story of a male friend who was abused, the stigma really didn't come from outside. The men and women around him were very supportive and encouraging to not go back with her because we know how she is.

If i worked nightshift because there weren't many male staff around i would always be called on to help out with situations. What i noticed is that the male staff were often calmer than the female staff. This is because they had the confidence that came from having that physical presence behind them. Some female staff clearly bristled a bit when their authority was challenged because they did not feel powerful and they were more prone to then saying barbed comments that would antagonise patients then male staff were because they would try to lay down the law through attitude not presence

There were some female staff who were BRILLIANT at calming situations down....but they were great because they weren't using hard 'male' energies they were using soft 'female' energies and people often respond better to that (they don't feel challenged)

My daughter-in-law used to work in a homeless shelter, both with the women and with the men. She always preferred to work with the men because they knew to not hit her or assault her , but the women didn't have that self-restraint and would hit her. Of course, these were mostly people with mental-health issues but it is very interesting that the men were better behaved with her.

 

[muir]

pre historic Matriarchy really does not apply to modern day feminism or economic theory because for one thing, there is no reliable evidence to determine what it was and for another, humans have been changing psychologically over the centuries.

In a Jungian sense, all ego activity is "masculine" regardless of the gender of the individual and the unconscious is "feminine". The subjugation of women by men over the eons is the vestiges of our prehistoric and primordial past, fueled by the rise of ego consciousness over instinctual unconsciousness. Feminism (in my opinion) is simply the claiming of deprived rights and privileges by the female gender. There are of course differences between men and women, this can clearly be seen politically in societies where women hold significant political and economic power. It would appear that the empowerment of women will bring about a better world.

I'm not saying i ascribe to these ideas...i am just pointing out how some others do

Powerful people have always understood the power of myths

So for example Hitler went along with the myths of Liebenfels that the german people were descended from the hyperboeans and that they should rise up and take their place at the top as the superior race; they then clashed with another group of people (the jews) who had their own myth that they were the chosen people of god and that they had to rise up and take their place at the top as the superior race

Interestingly there is a higher proportion of people with the RHnegative blood type amongst the 'celtic' peoples (the word 'celt' is under revision at the moment amongst the historians)

These 'myths' are a little psychological trick that humans like to play to justify their bad behaviour towards other humans

Another common example can be found in the language of soldiers who always seek to dehumanise their enemies for example calling them: 'gooks', 'hun', 'hadjis', 'rag heads' and so on

This is to avoid the inconvenience of empathising with the other person because to empathise with someone is to see them as being like yourself and once you do that well it smuch harder to shoot them or enslave them or oppress them

I remember reading orwells book 'homage to catalonia' in which he describes his experiences fighting in the international brigades against fascism in the spanish civil war. There's a point where he's in the trenches and he sees one of the enemy running along near the opposite trenches. he raises his rifle and takes aim and he has the man in his sites and is about to fire when the man's trousers suddenly fall down around his ankles and he stumbled along trying to pull his trousers up; in that moment orwell saw hi as another human being like himself and he was unable to pull the trigger

So do we see that kind of behaviour amongst the sexes? Well yes...we commonly hear men referring to women in popular culture as 'bitches' and women referring to men as 'pigs'...oh dear!

If we look into other areas though we find that there have been people trying to change society for a long time. For example the bavarian illuminati wanted to overthrow the monarchys of europe and create a one world government. When the group was suppressed by the authorities they infiltrated freemasonry and there are letters written by president washington discussing with a friend the possible risks from illuminism

So who else helped kill the monarchies? As churchill says in his quote....certain people were behind the french revolution whioch saw the monarchy killed and then the russian revolution which saw the Tzar and his family killed; the freemasons have been implicated in both revolutions

Many trace a link between the jewish banking family the rothschilds and adam weishaupt of the bavarian illuminati

A current occult order that claims lineage form the illuminati is the OTO which was taken over by Aleister Crowley. Crowley worshipped an androegenous figure called baphomet that was made up of both male and female characteristics. Crowley was trying to bring about an alchemical change in society that would be birthed out of a cataclysmic event (he was probably referring to WW1). He called this the 'aeon of horus' but known by todays 'new age' movement as the 'age of aquarius'

He was trying to create a centrally controlled society along platonic lines (the many ruled by a handful of 'philosopher kings'). He introduced anal sex into the OTO degrees and the consumption of semen (they're sperma-gnostics). Here's what he had to say about it:

“In the Aeon of Horus the dualistic approach to religion will be transcended through the abolition of the present notion of a God external to oneself. The two will be united. “Man will no longer worship God as an external factor, as in Paganism, or as an internal state of consciousness, as in Christianity, but will realize his identity with God.” The new Aeon of Horus, based on the union of the male and female polarities, will involve the magical use of semen and ecstasy, culminating in an apotheosis of matter – “in the realization of the old Gnostic notion that matter is not dual but one with the Spirit” — symbolized by the androgynous Baphomet of the Templars and the Illuminati.”

So there have been certain occult undercurrents trying to change society for a long time and they have infact been changing society

Even if people aren't aware of all these it should be obvious from some of the stuff above that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye

So although i support equal rights for women i would caution everyone to be aware of how certain bandwagons are created and used by certain people to achieve their ends; and their vision for the world is not one where women are emancipated...its more as Aldous Huxley described it that people could be made to love their servitude (think consumerism and tranquilising meds)




​

 

[Stu]

So although i support equal rights for women i would caution everyone to be aware of how certain bandwagons are created and used by certain people to achieve their ends

so it is ok to practice equal rights for woman but if you organize in order to legislate those rights into law you are playing into the hands of those who would subjugate the very people you are trying to empower.

 

[muir]

I know very well that abuse can be verbal as well as I have been verbally and emotionally abused. Are you suggesting that shopping is abuse? I personally don't like shopping very much and it can cause me stress, especially if I'm with a grumpy man (haven't done that in years, it's just not worth the aggravation).

My oldes son on the other hand loves to go shopping with his wife so I think it's all very individual.

No i'm not suggesting shopping is a form of abuse....unless someone is forced to do it against their will of course

What i'm saying is that there are biological responses that underpin certain behaviours

if people want to understand domestic violence better i suggest they try to look at it objectively otherwise their view will always be coloured by the filter they are viewing it through. What 'culture' is is a filter or set of filters people have in front of their eyes to make them see the world a certain way

If men want to empathise with women and visa versa then they are going to need to drop the filters that have been given to them by the antagonistic players in the shadows and start taking a more objective approach

I'm a feeler and this above is exactly how I have felt like I was incompentant and couldn't solve my own problems...so I'm not sure that it is specific to men or to thinkers.

Sure i wasn't saying it was a trait unique to men what i was saying though is that i think there is an issue for guys of not being able to speak out for example to the police for fear of not being taken seriously or from shame; but concenring the reasons i put forward they are not from my own experiences so they are speculation (eg the whole 'competency' thing)

Self-stigma can come from internalized notions that we perceive around us. That is often how self-stigma develops, like the idea that a boy shouldn't cry...

A boy that cries will be stigmatuised by those around him....'dry your eyes you big girl!'.....'oh are you gonna greet? why don't you run home to mammy?'

Let me tell you something about self-stigma, it can come from your own view of yourself and denial of reality. I have been verbally abused on and off during my marriage and it escalated and became emotional abuse a few years ago. I didn't want to admit to myself that I was a victim of a form of abuse (I still have a really difficult time writing those words down) because I am too smart and too strong to let myself be treated like that. I was not willing to see myself that way and admit that I had let myself get into a bad situation and let myself be treated in such a way. I always knew that I would never put up with physical abuse I just didn't realize how dehuminizing and dissempowering verbal and emotional abuse can be even without the physical part. It took a moment when I was asking to be forgiven for wanting to use paper plates instead of ceramic plates at a BBQ we were hosting as my husband was leaving because he couldn't believe how I could try to make him look stupid and disrespect him by disagreeing with him on this matter. I know it all sounds ridiculous but that's really how it was and I had a moment of clarity after he left and I realized how pathetic I sounded when I was asking for forgiveness for something that shouldn't require it.

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences

I have absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of men who put up with a lot of verbal abuse from their partners and that it would affect them as much as it affected me, and that it can extend to physical abuse for men because they 'should' be able to defend themselves from a woman. I can completely understand why men self-stigmatize in these cases. As I stated previously with the story of a male friend who was abused, the stigma really didn't come from outside. The men and women around him were very supportive and encouraging to not go back with her because we know how she is.

I think the guardian article was more saying that the police and authorities in general don't tend to take men very seriously and the women will usually gain custody of the kids

My daughter-in-law used to work in a homeless shelter, both with the women and with the men. She always preferred to work with the men because they knew to not hit her or assault her , but the women didn't have that self-restraint and would hit her. Of course, these were mostly people with mental-health issues but it is very interesting that the men were better behaved with her.

When guys do use violence it's often more damaging but there has to be protections in place for men and women

Lets have a look at how violence against men is portrayed in popular culture:

[video=youtube;5rkl_oLSKQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc[/video]

 

[muir]

so it is ok to practice equal rights for woman but if you organize in order to legislate those rights into law you are playing into the hands of those who would subjugate the very people you are trying to empower.

What i'm saying is that to what extent is the 'feminist' brand the grassroots creation of women?

Are people aware of the fact that there are certain men and women behind the scenes manipulating these things?

Its like lenin found out:

 

[Stu]

well that's just stupid

 

[invisible]

:yuck:

 

[muir]

well that's just stupid

Oh really?

So who is steering the feminism movement?

Is it anyone here who calls themself a 'feminist'?

No?

Ok so who is steering it and where are they taking it?

 

[acd]

Can it not be a collective or social movement?

 

[muir]

Can it not be a collective or social movement?

What i'm trying to point out is that when people say 'this is what feminism is about' what they are really saying is what feminism means to them; but that is not what feminism actually is

What feminism actually is is a military wing of a wider agenda

So i think people can say ''i support equal rights for women'' but i think when they start to identify with a movement that is guided by others then i think there is a danger they can be lead astray

So sure the feminist movement might organise a rally or they might interupt male support groups or whatever, but there is actually far more wide reaching things going on for example in popular culture which are designed to subconsciously create perceptions in peoples minds for example that violence against women is bad but violence against men is ok and can even be funny

The real agenda behind the feminism movement....and by that i mean what the people who really control it want to see is a war between men and women

So i think people need to not make men the enemy here. Men in general should not be demonised. Don't let them manipulate you into becoming a self policer of your fellow workers. Don't let them drive a wedge between men and women...for crying out loud!

Men, in general, are in the same situation as you facing many of the same challenges as you in this modern world. Men and women need to recognise their shared condition and they need to look at WHO IS REALLY BEHIND ALL THIS and they need to work together at improving society....we need to be more streetwise

 

[muir]

[video=youtube;hEyogkRMWZ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEyogkRMWZ0[/video]