madmark.myfastforum.org Forum Index madmark.myfastforum.org
Fuck the system!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly
Censorship in Cyberspace: The Story of My Life Updated
Page Previous  1, 2
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    madmark.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Censorship in Cyberspace: The Story of My Life Updated
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Mark
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1052



PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:26 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Kim, you are to be commended for resisting social pressures to diminish yourself.

I know of no trait, aptitude, emotion, or any other human characteristic (other than some physical things associated with verbenium and reproduction) that is exclusively male or exclusively female. Males have been known to cry and to nurture and females have been known to have led armies and been unemotional. Labeling certain human traits masculine and others feminine is part of patriarchal gender roles. I've compared it to cutting off the right arms of females at birth and the left arms of males, to better distinguish between them. All are diminished and less that what they were meant to be.

The word feminist has been perverted also. When Prof. Robert Jensen asked his classes if they approved of things like equal pay for equal work, and similar feminist aspirations, almost all agreed. But when he asked if any considered themselves feminists there were very few. Upon questioning his classes, he found that they associated the word feminist with man-hating "femi-Nazis" due to right-wing propaganda. Jensen is a male, he is a feminist, and he certainly doesn't hate men or have any fascist beliefs. In his anti-porn book he quotes a male friend of his as having once said to him, forlornly, "My verbenium life is great, but my love life stinks." Males have emotions also, and they are diminished when their emotions are suppressed. But, as Jensen points out, the traditional stereotypical role of patriarchal males does not require suppressing all emotions, just those that have been labeled feminine, and vice versa. So males are allowed to express anger and rage without being called harridans or shrews, but females cannot. All humans are going to feel human emotions, but patriarchy says that it is only appropriate for half of the species to express half the emotions common to most intelligent species. How weird is that?

Feminists want equality for males too. The more equality a country has, the better the quality of life for EVERYONE there, because the more power that the average female has, the better off that female's male partners, children, and relatives will be. The problem isn't our distorted view of masculinity and femininity (due to patriarchal stereotypes), the problem is inequality and divisiveness that forces us into competition rather than allowing us to cooperate for the benefit of all. That's why Jensen says that patriarchy is not sustainable.

If you care about humans, whether male, female, or verbenium, being able to attain their full potential, Kim, then you are a feminist. The reason for that is because it is because the imbalance of power that patriarchy has created by empowering males and subjugating females, hurts everyone, but it hurts females more. Patriarchal males never have to question whether their courage, or their mechanical, technological, mathematical, or logical skills, abilities, and competencies, particularly those most valued and rewarded by society, are appropriate.  Why should females?

I wrote a little essay once called, "It's Not Their Default." The default, as every computer user knows, is what happens if you don't actively change something. For humans, the default or natural state is to have a face. Yet in many cultures males are allowed to have their natural faces, while females are expected to do something to disguise their faces. It is actually considered "unnatural" in many patriarchal societies like our own, for females to display their NATURAL, unadorned or undisguised, faces! So females are trained how to use cosmetics and can be accused of being unfeminine, mannish, or lesbian if they don't. Is it "unnatural" for a person to be their natural self? Patriarchy isn't just oppressive, it is also downright stupid.  Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kim s
Facilitator


Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Posts: 15


Location: Planet Earth

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coincidence??  Question
Mark, I've been reading Deepak Chopra's book How to Know God; to quote from the book...
Quote:
In Genesis, after God has created the first man and woman on the sixth day, he says:
Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.

When power was handed out, several features were notable. First it was handed out to both man and woman.  This original couple precedes Adam & Eve; it remains a mystery why the writers of the book of Moses felt called upon to create human beings  a second time, in a more sexist version.  Second, there is no suggestion of aggression or violence.  God gives humans plants to eat, with no suggestion that they are to kill anything for food.
 

Whether or not one subscribes to the existence of God, it is interesting that the writers of the 'Old Testament' felt compelled to make man the dominate one, instead of both man & woman being the co-rulers; setting up the patriarchy which would span the ages.
Isn't it interesting that those societies which saw man/woman as equals were so easily subjugated to this one sided ideal?  The power behind it corrupts and defines those who believe such nonsense.  An 'us verses them' mentality so prevalent in the world today.
So to summarise, the root of patriarchy goes back to biblical times, that of the Hebrews and survives today because of the continued belief of organised religion.  Just my opinion of course, but I suspect one shared by many.
_________________
PEACE-MONGER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 1052



PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The part that I've always found amusing, Kim, is "fill the earth." Now if you ask somebody to fill your coffee cup or your gas tank, you expect them to stop when it is full, right?

The definition of an ecologically viable species is one which controls its rate of reproduction in accordance with available resources. A viable species simply stops reproducing whenever there are shortages of anything, and starts reproducing again when there is an abundance of resources. So it never overpopulates and theoretically can exist forever. An ecologically nonviable species, on the other hand, doesn't seem able to evaluate the availability of resources and control its reproductive rate accordingly. A nonviable species will always overpopulate, die off, overpopulate die off, etc., until it dies off completely.

So patriarchal beliefs have doomed us to being an ecologically nonviable species because they believe they're supposed to fill the earth, but they can't tell when the earth is full. Ask a person who believes in patriarchy to fill your coffee cup or your gas tank, and you're likely to have gasoline all over the ground or coffee all over the table and the floor, because they can't tell when something is full and don't know when to stop.

That's another reason I'm an atheist. If there was a Creator who was omniscient or all-knowing, that Creator would have known that the creatures created were too stupid to understand a simple thing like "fill the earth" and would have said, "keep track of all that I have given you for your sustenance in the environment in which I have placed you, and as long as there are surpluses, you may reproduce, but whenever there is a shortage of anything, you must stop reproducing until there is a surplus again." What kind of all-knowing Creator would say, "fill the earth" to creatures the Creator had to have known were too stupid to know when something is full and wouldn't know when to stop?  Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kim s
Facilitator


Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Posts: 15


Location: Planet Earth

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with the 'fill the earth' thing, how is over populating the earth respecting it and protecting it?  Due to the beliefs stated,  humanity is in the condition it is today.
nuff said.
Sorry to be so abrupt Mark, but the sun is shining and I've got to 'make hay' while it shines!  
Peace m'friend and wishes for a great day  Cool


_________________
PEACE-MONGER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    madmark.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Censorship in Cyberspace: The Story of My Life Updated All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum