Para, good luck…

Who exactly said Homolka was a victim (again, check your spelling!)?  You continue to restate things erroneously.  The fact that Double U mentions victim, or victims, doesn’t implicate Homolka.  It is obvious Double U refers to your much earlier invectives about alleged hybristophilic women.  The only straw here is the straw in your comments.

The fact that there are peeping toms is not an issue here, and of course the fact that there are peeping toms does not insinuate that “all” men are peeping toms.  Another deflection on the topic.  You do assume too much even when you say “tiny” when you mean “very low” and when you insinuate you have some “inside” information on how many women are sexually stimulated by violence.  Your reference to generalities is always ostensibly questionable.  Yes, do try on any college campus, or elsewhere for that matter, why restrict yourself to the halls of learning, to assert that a “minority of women are thrilled sexually by violence.” Even if it were remotely true, you have no knowledge as to the percentage.  It might be smaller than minor making it completely negligible, or the number could be astronomical!  No averaging could ever be calculated.  It is fallacious to make the kinds of statements that appeal to the ambiguous term minor, major, etc. to support inherently weak arguments.  This ‘minority’ of whom you keep referring, we all know, is just your own prurient statistic.  Indignation is justified in the face of such paltry accusations.  Sometimes beams in the eye are what shows the truth in contrast to those blinded with motes in their eyes.  Those motes in my estimation are egotistical particle matter.  The point is that there is a small number of women taking Women’s Studies in colleges than there are in the world and you insist on judging the world by those few, once again your only safe harbor is to hide the reality of your own inadequacies in uncertainties. 

How do the Rockefellers affect your life, specifically?  Your reference to the clinical pathology of hybristophilia again is your attempt to build a case for a pathetically small number of individuals who exhibit this syndrome and has nothing to do with the male conceit that requires a woman to have a hymen as proof of virginity, and even requires virginity in the first place, especially when (shall we use your kind of statistic) a “minority” of males are virgins at their first marriage.  What would the world come to if that was a requirement? This entire conversation with you Paracelsus is non sequitur and falls into the abysmal abyss of bantering without merit.  There is no charity given for unscientific opinions especially when it refers derogatorily to the virtue of truly innocent women.

@Double U.

Shouldn’t our attention be on the perpetrators and benefactors of violence, instead of playing the same old homo-erotic and misogynistic ‘blame-the-victim’ horse shit?”

I don’t think of Homulka as any victim, because she worked as an accomplice. Read her history. This is a straw man argument. I haven’t advocated blame the victim. Please provide any proof that I blamed the victim.

@Shenonymous
And the Rockefellers aren’t deities either, or was that your point? You feint and parry by throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, you still don’t see how you use “the one” to implicate “the many,” or the reverse.  It is a cunning diversion, but a diversion nonetheless.  but perhaps you are not so self-aware so as to notice your habit.  The progress of women has not been co-opted.  It is only an illusion that it has to those with myopic vision.

There are some points I would like to make.

1. A minority of men are peeping toms as well. How does that implicate all men? I would assume it is very tiny. Let’s see what you make of that. Let me also clarify that a minority of women are stimulted by violence. I would assume it is very “low"("low"=tiny, in contract law terms in quotes are defined by generally agreed upon terms, even if the term inherently may be the very oppoiste of its defintion without the quotes).

2. In general whoever pays the piper has some say in how the money is spent. It is natural to be skeptical of certain patrons. In this case the CIA and the Rockefellers had contributed funding to certain actors in the women’s movement. Is it some how off the table to question it?

Quote for context:

Since the males dominate this world, that is where the solutions must start. A little self-epiphany would not hurt.  Women have been whining since their amoebic state.  Damn that extra Y-chromosome, it did a lot for the body, but little for the brain.

3. I would be damned from here to eternity on any college campus if I damned those who lacked a Y-chromosome, and yet I make an assertion that a minority of women are thrilled sexually by violence, and I get so much indignation.

@U. Double

Para,
you’re obviously blind to any evidence and oblivious to any causal analysis.  Shouldn’t our attention be on the perpetrators and benefactors of violence, instead of playing the same old homo-erotic and misogynistic ‘blame-the-victim’ horse shit?  Your shallowness is not obscured by your ‘poor me’ put-on.  Your lack of substance is not hidden by your need to copy and paste everybody else’s comments.

I copy and paste your comments so that I have the ipsissima verba of your self incrimination. I am accused by you of blaming the victim yet you use the same accursed tactic against me. Can you show me saying something hateful about women?

@Shenonymous

And if the working class white guy is the archproblem, well...get rid of him.

And I am the one who overgeneralizes? I don’t think you wil find in this whole thread some sort of conditional speculation to get rid of a class, species, or large subset of gender as they are a problem. I do not think you should criticize a mote(a minority of female hybristophilics) in my eye when you have a beam in yours.

Finally, it is my unscientific opinion of many(again you can take the term “many” in the most charitable sense or the most disparaging sense; it’s an inkblot) Women’s Studies academics that they need to find unproductive, quibling little arguments against men, when for the most part men understand the need for seeing women as equal and vital in the world, and deserving of equality under the law. If the problem of gender inequlaity was ever solved these academics would be without a job. LOL!

P.S. My point about the Rockfellers is that they work conspiratorially over a long span of time. I will give references if asked.

Shenonymous and Double U..

You figured it out about Paracelsus. I knew it wouldn’t take you long.

Just keep following it, (over time, over time) and the picture will emerge even more, and it will be totally bizarre.

Just sayin’…

Paracelsus, where did you learn comprehension?  Asking for no random samplings does not mean one is asking for a non-random sampling.  One (the identity “I” can fittingly be substituted here) could be asking for no sampling at all (which I am), particularly random ones that is the strategy of the pretender of knowledge.  Just because Russo had anything to do with Led Zepplin (not a bad band by the way) or directed a movie doesn’t make him a reliable source for anything except possibly comedy about the commodities market.  You are quite right about what can pervert the wonderful. And the Rockefellers aren’t deities either, or was that your point? You feint and parry by throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, you still don’t see how you use “the one” to implicate “the many,” or the reverse.  It is a cunning diversion, but a diversion nonetheless.  but perhaps you are not so self-aware so as to notice your habit.  The progress of women has not been co-opted.  It is only an illusion that it has to those with myopic vision.

As if it was Rockerfeller’s idea just to get kids indoctrinated at a earlier age.  It is all spurious, even the Ms. Magazine crap and Steinheim and the CIA.  Steinheim wasn’t the only force in the women’s movement, nor the biggest.  You might go back as far as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her “The Woman’s Bible.” Tell everybody just who Nick Rockefeller was and why his comment actually has no significance.  Conspiracy theories are a bore.  Lot’s of accusations, very little if any convictions.

The Women’s Liberation Movement(in capitals to denote importance) has done much to help all of humanity. I am grateful for it. But please be aware movements can be co-opted. It is very obvious the Democratic Party to be generous has been co-opted or perhaps it was never any good in the first place! Hmmm, bad example.

As for the accusation, Aaron Russo was speaking of the conversation he had with Nick Rockefeller, who ought to know of what he speaks. This is the Aaron Russo who brought Led Zeppeiln over to America and directed Trading Places. Most anything wonderful can be perverted from the top, by those with influence and funding. You ought to know; you probably go to a decent college that gets DoD funding in some really dubious areas. Conspiracy is an all too common thread throughout history. Do you so reject conspiracy in history that you would agree with Arlen Spector that Lee Harvy Oswald did it?

Para,
you’re obviously blind to any evidence and oblivious to any causal analysis.  Shouldn’t our attention be on the perpetrators and benefactors of violence, instead of playing the same old homo-erotic and misogynistic ‘blame-the-victim’ horse shit?  Your shallowness is not obscured by your ‘poor me’ put-on.  Your lack of substance is not hidden by your need to copy and paste everybody else’s comments.

<i>I recommend, at least, self-education.  If you expect everybody to just agree with you, and mope around instead of challenging your blanket statements, you should probably just put out a zine.  Clown school might afford you a sense of humor, too.  Just sayin’.<i>

If there is a statement of mine you object to then by all means let’s hear it. I’ve made it clear I have read “Confessions of a Hitman”. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am ignorant and automatically need the disabuse of some tome. That’s pretty arrogant. I could poke fun at you and then tell you laugh it’s funny that I insulted you, but that has been your stratagem. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

Paracelsus, Just where do you get that a minority of women get excited by violence?  Who exactly are the members of this minority?  A minority out of what majority?  Or is this just another of your imagined and personally desired invented statistics?  It is bullshit and bullshit reasoning.  Unless of course you have personally taken a poll of all the women in the world.  Uh, no random samples please!  And you cannot help yourself, it seems, in continuing to give single references to try to plump up your mythic facts and I meant plump not pump.  Check your spelling, it’s Homolka.  You use one insane woman as the model for your own fantasies.  You apparently need educated in fallacies rather than phallusies.

Well a minority can be vanishingly small or just under 50%. I suppose you could assume the worst of me and think that I think estiamte that 49.999999% of women are aroused by violence or you could think quite reasonably the best of me (I am not a monster.)and think I am talking some figure under 1%. It is a sort of inkblot, I suppose. And here you ask that you want a non-random sample. Who taught you statistics? Of course only a tiny minority I would hope enjoy sexual arousal from violence. It would be scary if it were only a bare majority. But ultimately this isn’t about giving benefit of the doubt on your part. It is more abnout gotcha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

Paracelsus, Just where do you get that a minority of women get excited by violence?  Who exactly are the members of this minority?  A minority out of what majority?  Or is this just another of your imagined and personally desired invented statistics?  It is bullshit and bullshit reasoning.  Unless of course you have personally taken a poll of all the women in the world.  Uh, no random samples please!  And you cannot help yourself, it seems, in continuing to give single references to try to plump up your mythic facts and I meant plump not pump.  Check your spelling, it’s Homolka.  You use one insane woman as the model for your own fantasies.  You apparently need educated in fallacies rather than phallusies.

Well a minority can be vanishingly small or just under 50%. I suppose you could assume the worst of me and think that I think estiamte that 49.999999% of women are aroused by violence or you could think quite reasonably the best of me (I am not a monster.)and think I am talking some figure under 1%. It is a sort of inkblot, I suppose. And here you ask that you want a non-random sample. Who taught you statistics? Of course only a tiny minority I would hope enjoy sexual arousal from violence. It would be scary if it were only a bare majority. But ultimately this isn’t about giving benefit of the doubt on you part. It is more abnout gotcha.

I had already seen the Aaron Russo interview a long time ago.  His claim about Rockerfeller funding the women’s liberation movement is ludicrous.  As if it was Rockerfeller’s idea just to get kids indoctrinated at a earlier age.  It is all spurious, even the Ms. Magazine crap and Steinheim and the CIA.  Steinheim wasn’t the only force in the women’s movement, nor the biggest.  You might go back as far as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her “The Woman’s Bible.” Tell everybody just who Nick Rockefeller was and why his comment actually has no significance.  Conspiracy theories are a bore.  Lot’s of accusations, very little if any convictions.  It is so easy to speak in hypotheticals and not provide even a shred of real evidence.  If there was valid evidence, there would have been a trial, if that was suppressed then responsible people in the news media would have found out and had a picnic with it.  The human mind can invent anything.

Paracelsus, Just where do you get that a minority of women get excited by violence?  Who exactly are the members of this minority?  A minority out of what majority?  Or is this just another of your imagined and personally desired invented statistics?  It is bullshit and bullshit reasoning.  Unless of course you have personally taken a poll of all the women in the world.  Uh, no random samples please!  And you cannot help yourself, it seems, in continuing to give single references to try to plump up your mythic facts and I meant plump not pump.  Check your spelling, it’s Homolka.  You use one insane woman as the model for your own fantasies.  You apparently need educated in fallacies rather than phallusies.

I recommend, at least, self-education.  If you expect everybody to just agree with you, and mope around instead of challenging your blanket statements, you should probably just put out a zine.  Clown school might afford you a sense of humor, too.  Just sayin’.

“Para, if you feel insulted, perhaps it’s something in you.  I’m only saying that you remind me that there is a lot more phallocentric men than women.  If you don’t believe it, perhaps you spend too much time researching others and not enough time at self-scrutiny.”

It takes audacity to call me crudknuckles among other indecenies implied by your commentary and then to tell me to introspect when I call you on your stinky tactics. I have seen such tactics before, “I call you loathesome. ...Ah, you don’t like that. Introspect.” Then there is the false premise of the conditional phrase as if you know what I believe, which provides you with deniability and insult. Therefore I who had been without insult toward your person deservedly advise you to do self scrutiny!

Para, if you feel insulted, perhaps it’s something in you.  I’m only saying that you remind me that there is a lot more phallocentric men than women.  If you don’t believe it, perhaps you spend too much time researching others and not enough time at self-scrutiny.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=12636772582 15075609&q=aaron+russo&total=414&start=0&nu m=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

The above will reveal an interesting comment by Nicholas Rockefeller as told to Aaron Russo about the Women’s Movement

Your trusting family and clan is a more local iteration of decentralized government.  I would look more closely at the corrupt thieving government advisors and officials of this administration before social programs.

At one time this nation was more agricultural. Thomas Jesfferson felt that republican government would be workable and viable if every family has economic inidependence with their own dairying livestock, and their own produce. The American Indians truly began their decline when they came depend on the reservation system. FDR’s government was revolutionary in that people transitioned from reliance upon agriculture to migratign to the cities with its factories and social bureaucracy. Before the ruin of the dust bowl very few people had their lives documented in file folders with ID numbers and records on their mode of living. The 1930’s also saw implementation of forced family planning with its sterilizations of people with weak breeding. I am afraid if the government is paying your rent and grocery bills they will quite naturally inquire to the quality of its feedstock.

She rejected that interpretation of her argument, stating in a later interview that “I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.” She suggested that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: as she said, “Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it.”

I am glad that is cleared up. I see nothing sensual or pleasureable about rape. I think it would be insulting in some way to a man to think the pleasure of sex can only be obtained by force. I would think the thought of a rapist would be, “I am so repulsive I have to force myself on someone.” It is either that or the rapist is motivated by sadism. There is a minority of women who is excited by violence. Karla Holmulka comes to mind. She was quite psychopathic herself.

“This is no doubt so but, as you exhibit, there’s no limit to the self-delusions and lip-smacking fantasies for the others to slobber all over.”

To insult is not to argue. I pointed out that that the boys only clubs of such organizations as the Bohmemian Grove and the Skulls and Bones fraternity are very exclusive to a select group of men. The lucky sperm club is a term used frequently in the UK, for primogeniture and elite privilege of high born men. I see nothing knuckle dragging to say that few men benefit from such a phallocracy. If I had not made it clear, I should like to that working class men are just as victimized by these elites as any woman. We can quible over terminology with the vigor of a strict, medeival rabbi of the shetl, but I don’t see how it shines up your halo to say that I am such a horrible being. How pure does my political thought have to be in order to be in concordance with current doctrine? Do I even want that?

Gee Nancy, I am not a troll if you are talking to me!  I hardly make any posts anymore and haven’t for a long time, only on one or two forums this being one of them and I never go looking for whatever it is trolls look for, and I have never gone to a Washington Post forum so I don’t know what you are talking about.  Nevertheless, who exactly is cursing your beliefs?  Are you being a fair religious person by not saying exactly what was said and by whom?  What was your simple question as that was not clear either?  What actions are you talking about?  I am not part owner of this website, and if you can’t deal with questions either about what you say or about your religion (though I’m not sure what that is since you haven’t said), then I am sorry for you and maybe you ought not to get involved in discussions where there will be questioners. 

By the way, looks like you make a post on June 22 at 12:27pm.  It just came through the Truthdig site today, June 23, at 1:52pm, hmmmm, strange delay.  I would have responded sooner had I seen your post sooner if I am the one you are directing your comment to.  Anyway, sorry to see you go, I don’t mind discussing people’s different points of view.  I have to go off now to do some errands.

Paracelsus, if you are going to attribute something to somebody, you might read more carefully.  Without quoting the entire book, “Intercourse,”
Dworkin rejected the interpretation that “All heterosexual intercourse is rape” as a crucial misconception.  She was not saying that intercourse is rape and didn’t say it then nor ever meant it.  In her words, “[as] the whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting...” she “decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the all sex is rape slander is different and probably simple.” Her critics, interpreting (sometimes even falsely quoting) the book as claiming that “All heterosexual intercourse is rape,” or more generally that the anatomical machinations of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women’s equality.” She rejected that interpretation of her argument, stating in a later interview that “I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.” She suggested that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: as she said, “Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it.”

Crudknuckles says,
“Only a select few men benfit [sic] in phallocracy or the the [excited, are we? calm down] lucky sperm club...”
This is no doubt so but, as you exhibit, there’s no limit to the self-delusions and lip-smacking fantasies for the others to slobber all over.

Who said anything about intercourse being rape?

Andrea Dworkin.

Yeah, it is her (Goodman’s) article.  And for Europeans, there are lei and tu where lei is the formal and tu the informal.  He and she do nicely.  We don’t need a neuter pronoun, you just think we do.  If respect ruled the day, and male and female children were taught to honor both females and males the world would work a lot better.  But we have to work with the hand we are dealt.  It would seem, Paracelsus, below the surface of our respective positions, we are not that far apart in our thinking on several items and levels, except for the social programs you seem to have an allergy for.  The small number of petty cases for which you are criticizing are the stereotypical exceptions always made large by the wealthy conservative class who don’t want to part with any of their non-hard earned dollars.  Dollars saved and accumulated on the sweat and backs of the poorer classes of people in this country.  Yeah, I know, I just opened another can of worms, so be it.  Everybody on TD knows I am a bleeding heart liberal Democrat always in support of social programs and yeah, I’d spend every tax dollar you gave! and mine! on the poor.  Your trusting family and clan is a more local iteration of decentralized government.  I would look more closely at the corrupt thieving government advisors and officials of this administration before social programs.  You don’t sound like you are from the working class, at least the poor working class.  And why do those shiftless commonlaw men laze around in bed anyway?  They are spoiled sycophants, no, better make that psychophants, who have no gumption of their own and sponge off the women who cling to men only because they were conditioned to think they need a man around to have an identity.  It is embedded in their genes, unfortunately, and will take a century or more to root out.  But it is happening and the fall out is making men nervous as hell.  And rightly so. The banter over the woman refusing food stamps has been bullshit for such a long time it is tedious.  If those jerk men got their tails out the door on their own to help with the family income, those women wouldn’t have to worry about social workers or food stamps.  And I reiterate, this view does not belong to a feminist, least wise a hardened feminist.  If you want to call a woman who recognizes injustice to womankind over the millennia a feminist, you just go right ahead. 

I don’t know about TD’s clock but it’s 6:30pm here and dinner time, right?

And if the working class white guy is the archproblem, well...get rid of him.

I think there would be a good many lonely persons without him.

Social programs are not necessarily an embracement of Big Brother.  Give women equal rights, equal respect, equal political power, equal pay for equal work, equal parenthood and you would see how fast society would change.

Somehow any social program from the same US government that has done unconsented medical experiments upon the vulnerable would deserve some inspection. I would deem famliy and clan more trustworthy in this regard. I am speaking from a working class perspective for I have known mothers to avoid getting food stamps for fear of the social worker in finding them wanting as mothers. They would rather give their ne’er do well husband,(commonlaw, boyfriend or whatever) a bucket full of hell to get out of bed and get that roofing job.

That is not to say there are not enlightened and evolved men.  There are plenty.

I think that it is implicit in your prior statements. It will get as absurd as trying to engineer a new third person neuter pronoun. I think there was thou, and thee at one time.

It is just plain wearisome that the dialogue is always about nasty women’s (and girl’s) bodies and never about the pure little boys (men).

I think Ellen Goodman brought the subject up. As to teen pregnancy, I observed a perfect case of monkey, see monkey do in the form of a movie called Juno, and the Glucester, MA pregnancy pact, which ilustrates my oft made point that culture creation is a pastime of the elite. 

I think my half the dialogue had to do with parents communicating with their children. I have no objection to fathers instructing their sons on how not to become fathers in an out of season way. There are very few men who earn family wages. I would hate see young men, who out ignorance and social backlash deprived of driving licenses and other opportunities as a punish for not paying child support just as I would hate to see young women and teen girls deprived of opporunity because of an untimely pregnancy and birth. I suppose we think of many absurd propoals to scourge the boys and the girls. I know a man in his 30’s who will never drive again in the state of MA for not paying child support. Morality aside I fail to see how hobbling him will improve the output of the New England economy. (Please take care that if I do not mention the other sex it is not of chauvinism, but more that it is implied that both male and female suffer equally from injustice. The problem with identity politics is that it is never assumed that individual represents the universal for the speaker then has assert N takes 1 to the ith minority group in summation so as to be explicit and avoid moral approbation from N takes to to the Ith identity group in summation.) In these times moral uplift assumes that some institution needs to instruct, mete out punishments, and
organize society. It would be so much simpler to have parents given more time to be parents. Perhaps people could marry on the basis of trade or profession so that they could share a fulltime job, then the domestic life could be equally shared. As you can see I proposed a bottom up solution that did reuqire a scholarship grant or tenure at a think tank or foundation money to fund experiments with. Don’t you get tired of having your life directed by experts?

Let’s see, this article is about the hymen problem.  Seems we are not talking about all the evils currently in the world.  We are talking about gender problems, and if you can suggest a way to make sure the boys really get the message about not messing with girls’ vaginas with their you-know-what well I’d be all for it and so would most women, who aren’t feminists.  If it was general practice that men talk to their sons about abstinence why don’t we hear about it, especially in the tabloids.  It just isn’t that regular a thing.  Do you have a son?  Did anybody tell you not to mess with girls?  Maybe you didn’t get anybody pregnant, but a hell of a lot of other guys and young guys even teenage boys did.  It takes two to get pregnant.  Well this side of artificial insemination anyway.  It is just plain wearisome that the dialogue is always about nasty women’s (and girl’s) bodies and never about the pure little boys (men).  That is such a screaming mimi to shriek ‘feminist’ if anything is ever said about our po’boys.  Ridiculous.  Who said anything about intercourse being rape?  Don’t try to deflect the real problem here, the fact that since the world evolve to have humans, men have gotten away with murder using their you-know-whats.  Women have always been depicted as evil and dirty.  To put things in perspective, try reading the Bible or the Qur’an.  Try, for the religious people’s sake, the Garden scene, and Eve’s Fault.  Give us a living break.  Stop squirming, makes you men look like worms.  You are really a master at diversion, NAFTA? Patriot Act? Iraq War?  All, by the way, acts of men.  A sleight of hand (make that mouth) will not take the guys off the hot seat.  And if the working class white guy is the archproblem, well...get rid of him.

Just as an aside:  It is interesting how men, in general, never talk to their sons about the virtue of keeping their penises tucked away.  Or if they do, their discussions are quite ineffective.

Never, nunca, jamais. Are you sure? BTW, I did read Confessions of a Hitman. Assumptions, presumptions. I think the point I was trying to make was that parents are not communicating with their children, and somehow this is turning into some divisive argument over the gender wars. Yes, gender inequality does exist, but how much energy is devoted to division rather than unifying efforts toward fighting the current evils: globalization, debasement of the currency, unionbusting, and civil rights violations against the whole population. Some of this feminist scholarship is clearly on the fringe. Intercourse as innately an act of rape? How does this promote the unity of the cause for social justice? The Feminist Studies college departments are not alone in this. There is also the Chicano Studies department promoting the idea of Azatlan, and the Reconquista. How does this help in say union organizing?? The elites have no worries about us opposing NAFTA, the Patriot Act, or the Iraq War. We are too busying fighting against our arch enemy, the working class white guy.

I’m glad you are not a pickpocket Nancy.  It is hard to get a handle on what you are really saying.  Why assume one has no experience with religion, Nancy?  It might just be the case that a lot of research has been done in one’s lifetime.  Believing in a divinity is not like believing in math or English.  One does not have to believe in math to see how it works, nor believe in English as it is a language that has a logical structure, belief is not involved.  And I am not sure what you are calling miracles.  There are reasons for everything.  Because you cannot fathom those reasons does not mean they do not exist.  It is the same argument you might give me, because I do not know there is a god, does not mean the god does not exist.  Then that involves this thing called ‘knowing.’

Knowledge is a tricky thing and we would have to have many discussions to see the distinction between the kinds of knowing there are.  I don’t think this is the place to do that, but I will give you a few places to look:  Plato’s “Theaetetus,” is one, and you can amazon.com for any several hundred books on epistemology (the theories of knowledge, there are many, just as there are many theories about divinities). 

Well, give me a miracle, and I will find you some non-divine explanation for it, whether you would like that explanation or not is another matter.  I know a lot of people who have asked for things, such as a new limb to be grown to replace one they lost, and they did not receive it.  Hmmm.  Well maybe that is stressing god a bit too much. 

I agree that a belief in god is a personal thing, and hardly anybody can do anything about that.  I particularly don’t wish to convince you to abandon your faith, but when you say, that is ALL you are saying when you describe what “every human being...can experience,” you really are shrinking from being accused of proseltyzing your faith.  If one’s belief is personal as you say, then why not just keep it personal?  If each person needs to find answers to their ontological question, that is, questions about their being and whether it is attributable to a supernatural being or not, then it is their question and no one else’s.  And yes you are quite correct, they have to do their own research.  Believe me, hundreds upon thousands have done that research throughout history.  I, myself, have done such research.  I came to my conclusions from a very broad look at many religions and philosophies.  How many have you explored?  I think every person thinks what they do is good. Whether it is or not depends on the culture in which they exist.  If you did more research you would find that not all cultures have the same morals, or conventions as to what is good behavior or not.  Whose is right?  All or none.  I go for the none myself. 

Then to reply to Paracelsus:
All those parents too busy to talk their daughters about birth control had the benefit of Linda Schrenko’s program of moral uplift with such inanities as condoms are 20% effective, and that AIDS virii can penetrate the latex.

Just as an aside:  It is interesting how men, in general, never talk to their sons about the virtue of keeping their penises tucked away.  Or if they do, their discussions are quite ineffective.  Or how about birth control for young boys whose sperm is active.  What age does that happen? Why not make them take it until married?  Do you have any idea how many girls under 14 are raped and made pregnant.  I suggest you google for that information; you will fall off your chair!  Here is a website that is gives rather odious news!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027672/Aborti ons-14-girls-soared-21-cent.html

By the way, none of these girls were impregnated by the Holy Ghost or the Archangel Gabriel.

While I would not want to be a man under any circumstances, even in my penury, but if I were, I would be curious to find who is still perpetuating the myth that men have any special privileges simply because they are men.,

Only a select few men benfit in phallocracy or the the lucky sperm club. As to the stay at home mother, that was at one time a luxury of the Victorian upper classes. Men and women have been rather equal in their privations at the base of society.

Luckily the interventions of society’s female betters who had benefit of household help gave us such things as social workers and the temperance movement to provide for the moral uplift of working masses. What a better world it would be if Sally the washerwoman knew better how to raise her children through the help of some social worker or the inquiring lady of the house! What if Joe the trash bin man could be convinced to give up the flask and the cigarette? We have movements pushing trivial improvements. (I am reminded of Sir Walter Scott, “Why bother the poor? Leave them alone!") THen there are organizations at eachothers throats over minor doctrinal differences and yet they get funding from many of the same foundations. And there are the absurdities that it is all the fault of one group(usually along ethnic lines or gender) or another that “we are oppressed and downtrodden.” Yes, there are working class blokes who are borish, vulgar, and brutish toward their mates, but in the grand scheme of things increasing the divorce rate and asking for big bureaucracies to look after your children is not going to give us the unity to fight agaisnt the machine.

I remember how sex education was such a big deal in Georgia in the 90’s. We should have the school system teach pubescents about birth control and such. All very laudatory to my mind. Why not? But in came another regime of social conservatives, who pushed abstinence plus. All those parents too busy to talk their daughters about biorth control had the benefit of Linda Schrenko’s program of moral uplift with such inanities as condoms are 20% effective, and that AIDS virii can penetrate the latex. I don’t know about farming out such a critical pieces of learning to the school system. One change of government, and soon enough you have had one older daughter who was the soul rationality in these matters to be superceded by a younger daughter who thinks knowledge birth control is somehow demonic at the age of 13. THe idea behind limited government was not so much limiting the power to do good by one executive’s best day, but the power to do evil by one some mortal’s worst day. I would say I am motivated by the liberalism of fear in this regard.

The stay at home wife was a luxury at one time, and it seems to be one now. A luxury for whom!?  As if they were a specific genetic group!

While I would not want to be a man under any circumstances, even in my penury, but if I were, I would be curious to find who is still perpetuating the myth that men have any special privileges simply because they are men.

At one time we were more organized into family firms, but the concentration of enterprise has foreclosed that. Man’s greed foreclosed that, that is the only concentration of enterprise.  Family incomes are completely inadequate because of the inflation caused by greedy banks, greedy corporations, greedy men who run those banks and corporations. And the lust for power, a power that brings more capital!  The Briareus, never satiated. The current state of the economy cannot be laid at the feet of any woman, save those who work for the moguls of power.  If men are finding it hard to feed their families, guess how much harder it is for the single mom!

You keep mentioning minor instances of female duplicity, like Steinhem, but you refrain from speaking of the disparate different treatment between the congeries of men and women as whole but separate embodiments.  The asymmetry and impropriety is shameful.  It is a dereliction and retardation of male enlightenment. 

By the way you might read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” John Perkins.

Give women equal rights, equal respect, equal political power, equal pay for equal work, equal parenthood and you would see how fast society would change.  The dark nature of man is from the cave and has not been evolved out of them as yet.  That is not to say there are not enlightened and evolved men.  There are plenty.  But could you please list some for us as you have the ruthless women you noted.

If I were a woman I would be curious to find who is funding and leading the woman’s movement. As to the inequities involved in present day society, I would look at industrialism and monopoly agriculture. Many Scottish women would not have been reduced to penny ante prostitution if it weren’t for the highland enclosures. Industrial society did not respect age or sex. The stay at home wife was a luxury at one time, and it seems to be one now. Not everyone is meant for domesticity, but that option is closed for many families. At one time we were more organized into family firms, but the concentration of enterprise has foreclosed that. The family firm had its own division of labor that was mcuh more equitable than the innovations that came after. Extended family was also more easily relied upon. I now stand astonished at the spectacle of the elderly angered at having to pay taxes for other people’s children, when generations before that they were frequently called upon to help out the family/clan unit. As to government leveling the field for women with day care and so on, I wonder how freeing it is to have your children vaccinated, propagandized, and kept minimally educated. If you are not raising your children than someone else is.

I had read Steinhem’s autobiography, and she mentioned how the CIA gave her that boost into being a changer of the culture. Does this make you wonder?

I cannot disagree completely with you Paracelsus.  In mythology Pasipahe did nothing to stop the treachery against an innocent son, Asterios, nor aided him in the impending doom when Thesus came acallin’ And his jealous sister betrays him as well.  Please pardon my inaccuracies about the nature of the martydom in India.  And thank you for the history lesson.  Regardless of whether they were polytheistic or monotheistic, my point is that no god preserved them from their deadly vicissitudes. 

As to what you accuse me of with respect to women, typical response and not really clear what exactly you are saying.  Sounds erudite but you need to look at the assemblage of men a bit closer.  Especially when you shave.  Social programs are not necessarily an embracement of Big Brother.  Give women equal rights, equal respect, equal political power, equal pay for equal work, equal parenthood and you would see how fast society would change.  The dark nature of man is from the cave and has not been evolved out of them as yet.  That is not to say there are not enlightened and evolved men.  There are plenty.  But could you please list some for us as you have the ruthless women you noted.  I don’t disagree the women you cited were bloodthirsty and callous.  Anomalies in both sexes.  Good men, bad women.  But let’s talk about numbers and natures.  Since the males dominate this world, that is where the solutions must start. A little self-epiphany would not hurt.  Women have been whining since their amoebic state.  Damn that extra Y-chromosome, it did a lot for the body, but little for the brain.

One thing that struck me as I read the story at the website Paracelsus provided is that the story is about a royal battle.  Between members of the ruling class, and there are innocents there as well.  But if that kind of power of men can wipe out whole families of a ruling class, what of the lower castes (as in India each person belongs permanently to a caste).

You seem to have some notions here that are not altogether accurate. The ten Gurus led by example, and many died unnatural deaths as martyrs to the cause. Name me one Pope who would calmly meditate on a hot plate while hot sand is being poured on him. The cause was freedom, for the Moslem rulers wanted to impose the Moslem religion and extortionate taxes upon the people of India. Those young boys could have had every kind of perogative available to a prince if they had submitted themselves to Islamic conversion, and Mughal rule.

Another notion I would like to correct is that the Sikhs were polytheistic in some way. Actually they were monotheistic.

Also you want to engage in some sort of tribal politics, where you say, “We women are better than you men.” In the end Big Brother would rather see you engage in your hate seesions of one sort or another against this group or other. What better way is there than to isolate yourself ultimately to just one monad of submissive dejection that is just you and Big Brother! Big Brother will look after your children. You do not need a family. Big Brother will look after you when you are too old and sick to look after yourself. Trust Big Brother, because men are just awful.

When I point out that a sociopathic elite is in charge, it just gives you the impetus to say look at the bete noire of man. It takes women as mothers, wives, abettors and rulers to
implement tyranny as well. Queen Elizabeth I was as scheming and ruthless as any of her Tudor family. Bloody Mary knew how to blood let when it came to restoring Catholicism to a newly Anglican England. Queen Victoria could be just as oblivious to human suffering as any King coud when the liberal ALbert was no longer around to be a steadying angel to her nature.
Mothers of classical Greece let mercy not blanch and weaken them when they decided to expose a weak, sickly newborn. We have contemporaries in ghastliness in Barabara Bush and Madeleine Albright. What help is it to just say this is exclusively a problem of male domination?

A little off topic we have gotten, but maybe down the road it can be tied together since what we speak of here is virtue of the human soul (or mind, if anybody prefers) and actions. 

What is next?  I think, cyrena, you are on to something with your questions.  There are many notions of a deity in the world today, and for that matter, has always been since humankind intuited a power larger than themselves.  The limitations of the human mind when ignorance prevails yielded beliefs of many shapes and sympathies.

Which idea is the “right” one?  Is it necessary to make that distinction? 

Paracelsus gave us a wondrous story about a woman who held to principles and was martyred as was many members of her family including 6 and 7 year old grandsons.  He is to be thanked for that.  But the story not only tells the strength of that woman’s mind, and heart, for surely her heart must have been broken by all that was given by life and taken away by monsters, it tells of the horrid deeds of men.  And that is the point I wish to make here for this moment:  It is our very own hearts that have to be broken to have such a story exist about the evil that the powerful do.  Where was Rama then?  Where were Krishna, and Shiva, and Kali?  And possibly where was the Elephant God, Ganesh?  Or the rest of the Hindu pantheon?  Not one came to her rescue.  Are not humans worth that kind of salvation?  For we cannot think there was any virtue in the massacre, can we?  and by the way, there was no woman involved in the desecration of one hair on that grandmother’s head, nor in the murder of her grandsons. 

One thing that struck me as I read the story at the website Paracelsus provided is that the story is about a royal battle.  Between members of the ruling class, and there are innocents there as well.  But if that kind of power of men can wipe out whole families of a ruling class, what of the lower castes (as in India each person belongs permanently to a caste).  How is it we are such hypocrites?  We, in the west, say each and every human has a worth, yet most don’t blink an eyelash at the killing that goes on in many forms, wars that kill millions, murder in the streets that kills thousands, murder for envy, murder unending of women in the world to this day for some exaggerated sense of masculinity that puffs up men’s notion of themselves to think they have a right to violate the sacred bodies of women.  Other men are victims as well of the powerful, but this article deals with the danger and risk to women, for even among those male victims are ones who would inflict pain, suffering, and death to women. 

And so it goes...How many people throughout the history of humankind have gone to early deaths at the hands of others and are now forgotten into oblivion?  How many graves have hundreds, thousands, millions unnamed who never had a clue what life ought to be like?  When we think about it, it is staggering how many “valuable” and “sacred” human beings have been sacrificed as fodder for the preservation of a few men’s power and greed.  It continues today.

Is this a story of god?  This story of humankind?  Even the idea of god is confused.  Each who believes defines god for themselves, hence there is no one god.  There are groups who have collected for some secular reason or other and found that if they agree to some idea of god they would have a better chance at life, thereby creating religions.  All religions are ethnic bound.  Is there one ethnic group better than another?  Ethnic cleansing is not a modern idea.  There is no doubt more to be said about all of this. 

Have a nice day.

Shenonymous,

I only just happened upon this story, and then your post. I see you became intrigued by the comments, and so offered some of your own. I particularly like your definitions here, and the layout of the discussion.

~“Let’s see what the usual definition of the word wisdom is, and also, if you like, we could further look at the biblical Book of Wisdom to see what that says and means.  That might be too much knowledge, but we will risk it… a little bit later.

According to published definitions, and I paraphrase, wisdom is a power of the mind similar to intelligence, and often means prudence, which in turn is the virtue that is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place and is concerned only with knowledge; but all other virtues are regulated by prudence, or wisdom.  Wisdom, then, means having gained knowledge, understanding and prudent discretion with the ability to apply all of these to thoughts and behaviors in one’s life.  Is this something good or not good for humans to have? 
Do you or anybody else disagree with what has been said so far?

Let’s do be clear before we proceed."~

I agree with the definition that you’ve paraphrased. So, what’s next?

We’re talking about the God experience, right? I’ve never had it before either, at least not in any connections with a heaven or anything like that. I mean, I never have been able to get with the Heaven part. I figure if there IS a God, (and there’s nothing yet to really convince me of that) then He or She wouldn’t be restricted to a place called Heaven, which there’s no evidence exists either.

Still, if there is a God, wouldn’t God pretty much just be EVERYWHERE? Kind of like all over the Universe?

What if there IS a God, but God isn’t a He or a She?

Why does everyone who believes in God, just automatically make God a human male? How do they ‘know’ this?

Why couldn’t God have just as easily been my Dog? Except that she passed away 2 years ago. I still miss her. But, for all I know, she’s back, and living in the bird house at the front door...as a bird. She always knew I liked birds, as long as they didn’t crap on me.

Just musing about the God Experience part of this.

As humanity evolved, unfortunately the beastly nature of men has not kept up.  And they continue to piss all around to claim territory, and use their extra Y-Chromosome to overpower the weaker sex and weaker brothers of their own sex.

I think the major pishers are probably a small subset of 4% of the population. This elite set of sociopaths through inbreeding and natural selections have been able to command the heights of unnatural order of things. I do not like to perpetuate a war between the sexes through my own carelessness.

As to the an example of a woman who upheld principle over security, I can think no finer woman than Mata Gujri.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Mata_Gujri

When Mata ji was aged 76, in 1700, Mata Sundri ji died. It was from then that the younger Sahibzade were primarily brought up by Mata ji. She was like a mother to the two young boys. They relied on her for support and comfort and she was just like a mother to these young kids. Mata was very close to these kids and lived and died with them in 1705. It was because of her dedication that the young kids were so staunch in their faith and were at the young age of about 6 and 9 years able to stand up to the mighty Mughal empire and defy them. They gave up their precious lives but did not give up their Sikhi – a lot of the credit for bringing up such outstanding children must go to Mata ji.

Mata Gujri encouraged her grandsons to have encourage in the face of the Mughal Emperor Azangarub. The little boys were walled up by bricks. When this failed to kill them, they were later beheaded. The grandmother never begged for mercy on their behalf. Seh spent her last days in prayer.

It was due to her teachings that 6 year old and 9 year old did not bulge from their Dharma and attained martyrdom. Thus continuing and emphasizing the institute of martyrdom in Sikhism. Seth Todar Mall, a kindhearted wealthy man of Sirhind, cremated the three dead bodies the next day.

At Fatehgarh Sahib, near Sirhind, there is a shrine called Gurdwara Mata Gujari (Thanda Burj). This is where Mata Gujar Kaur ji spent the last four days of her life. About one kilometer to the southeast of it is Gurdwara Joti Sarup, marking the cremation site. Here, on the ground floor, a small domed pavilion in white marble is dedicated to Mata Gujar Kaur. The Sikhs from far and near come to pay homage to her memory, especially during a three-day fair held from 1113 Poh, Bikrami dates falling in the last week of December.

and let’s try to remember how to close italics.  I hope this does it.  Sorry folks.

Well, something interesting has been said here!  Let’s put sex aside for a moment. 

First, Nancy states a belief here that one can be in the presence of god.  That makes me want to know what that might be like since I have never had that experience and doesn’t that seem like something more than anything worthy to have?  And along with that, what is it, then, about the experience of being in the “presence” of god you say you have had with god that arouses the emotion of love and the desire to worship that god and to be in heaven with that god?  Also you reference fear as incidentally the beginning of wisdom.  Are you, Nancy, suggesting ignorance is the better and ‘blessed’ state for humans in which to exist?  I only ask because the implication is that to avoid fear means to avoid wisdom.  If that is true, are you then suggesting that god made a mistake by giving humans a cognitive and questioning brain?  Could we dwell here just a while so we may be clear exactly what you are saying? 

Let’s see what the usual definition of the word wisdom is, and also, if you like, we could further look at the biblical Book of Wisdom to see what that says and means.  That might be too much knowledge, but we will risk it… a little bit later.

According to published definitions, and I paraphrase, wisdom is a power of the mind similar to intelligence, and often means prudence, which in turn is the virtue that is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place and is concerned only with knowledge; but all other virtues are regulated by prudence, or wisdom.  Wisdom, then, means having gained knowledge, understanding and prudent discretion with the ability to apply all of these to thoughts and behaviors in one’s life.  Is this something good or not good for humans to have? 

Do you or anybody else disagree with what has been said so far?

Let’s do be clear before we proceed.

“Where, I wonder, is the Internet ad for repairing a whole culture?”

how about several cultures? or how about the culture of fear? or how about repairing people from their religions? don’t forget, it’s all faith-based fear…

Paracelsus:

If you ever publish your own annotated bible, you can count on me for at least one sale.

You are right Paracelsus, nothing is ever simple.  But I’m quite sure our schools are not the guardians, but you might check out the creators of iPod media and computer game masters.  Yes, there “may” always be the woman, hardly a species as you would like to devise, who will “lubricate” and “lighthead” at the presence of a powerful man, unfortunate, though, for the overwhelming population of puny, weak, and weak-willed men.  This is only because of gross genetic “natural selection” biology but that was before all humanity developed critical thinking brains.  As humanity evolved, unfortunately the beastly nature of men has not kept up.  And they continue to piss all around to claim territory, and use their extra Y-Chromosome to overpower the weaker sex and weaker brothers of their own sex. 

It is completely irrelevant what Al Gore did or what old Russian women do at the mention of Stalin.  Conditioning is a factor in the human mental capacity.  To breed out principles for security will take another millenium but women are on their way, make no mistake!  You cavalierly speak of machiavellianism when it is the male of the species who invented it and men in general that have taken it to its art.  The cliches are only in male brains out of wishful thinking.  It isn’t only women who need security, men resort to their masculinity and male member to provide themselves with the security they cannot survive without.

Oh, by the way, today is Summer Solstice and it begins at 7:59PM Eastern Daylight Time.  Do the math for wherever you are located.  Happy Solstice Everybody.

“And Plato would take all the children away from their mothers and give them to the guardians (PHYLAKES).  Who trained the guardians?  No, it is time for men to become civilized and shed their reptilian brain.”

If it were only that simple. There will always be a species of woman who gets lubricated and lightheaded in the presence of a powerfu man. If this idea is so repulsive then why did Al Gore need to get alpha male lessons. There are old women in Russia who flush in teenage excitement when someone mentions Stalin to them, Witness the faintings of the fairer form in the presence of Obama. What of Hitler evisioning the crowd as a feminine presence. We would do well if women did not trade principle in for security. What more apropo term is there than security mom. Such machevellians are well schooled in the feminine with such inspirations as Mormonism,freemasonry, platonism, and the laws of Manu. Woman you are dominated because your persecutors know far too well, and they are more than willing to use your fear for yourselves and your children against you. It is a cliche than many women woud put up with fantastic domestic horrors rather than risk homelessness and strarvation. Ancient slave training techniques dating back to the Romans set store on female needs for security to squelch many a slave revolt. We humans are a most well studied animal. As to the Phylakes, are you sure that our preschool and educational system do not amount to the same thing?

Seems like conversations about women’s virginity always leaves out the other half.  The penises that dip their wicks in the unused vaginas.  Why is it we never hear about male abstinence?  Why is it always the females’ open loins that are the cause of such outrage?  It is easier to whip out the dick that is true.  Sheep or no sheep.  Hymen schmymen.  It is a mentality gone wrong.  Virginity should never even be an issue.  All female hymens ought to be removed at puberty.  And as well criminalize all involved in the removal of their clitoris that is still savagely done in African cultures!

Problem with Plato’s Republic is that women were not given any fair or equal status.  Only the wealthy women had any better life.  And Plato would take all the children away from their mothers and give them to the guardians (PHYLAKES).  Who trained the guardians?  No, it is time for men to become civilized and shed their reptilian brain.  Regarding the Republic:  I suggest reading a humorous marketing analysis using the Republic, and Plato, that gives an interesting but seemingly clean lens on his/Greek culture’s opinion of women.  Please navigate to http://h2hobel.phl.univie.ac.at/~iaf/Labyrinth/2001/Ko zlovic.html

According to Brave New World, the end game is to have all reprouction done in some bio-factory. The old system was oppressive and tyraanical, but the new system will also be tyrannical and oppressive. I see sexual technology as a method to further atomize people from eachother. There are all kinds of wonderful possibilities for family and social structure, but we are presented only one way of doing things with TINA, there is no alternative. The old rules apply still. An unstable system that does not allow for longterm and nurturing relationships reduces men to johns and women to prostitutes. Ultimately commercial values have triumphed over human values. The old system of bride price and virginal women applied to a mercantile system that did not have technology of alienating reproduction from the man and woman. Just as labor was alienated from the famiy firm as a skilled craft, so will sex be alienated from love and/or reproduction from the actors. The sexual revolution has managed to bring up valid issues, but it has also utterly obliterated the old order of family and relations without a humane upgrade. Instead it is more of a mercantile upgrade. The Moslems at least have longevity, and family/tribal bonds, albeit the slave status of women is grievous. This is a top/down imposition of culture and custom that is not good for intimacy. European culture at least evolved toward love as a fundament of marriage or free love(love unbound by family and religion). Peter Abelard and Heloise provides a template for romantic love. I don’t how easily women and men can establish at the grass roots their own culture for loving longterm relationships. Too many are followers, who are being shaped by the religions, the non-governmental organizations and foundations as well as the marketplace. I refer to Plato’s Republic if you have any doubts that culture is shaped by those at the top.