on the internal feminine battle in becoming a full person

[Faust]

Recently i've been thinking about Weininger and what others have noticed, namely that women are too submissive to society, men,etc... and live through other people, and as such they aren't 'full persons' as men are, since they aren't as aggressive in trying to be independant, and always expect things to be 'given to them'. Now what I want to know is, is this internal battle for aggression, for the striving to become independant, is it really hard for women? I think that's what i've been seeing with regards to Marsha, and Camille Paglia who even mentioned it in SP. Cause i would presume that it is very hard for them, biologically, or is it due to upbringing, or both? Has anyone gotten a first hand account of how they really feel if and when they try this? Have some of them quit trying because it was 'impossible' and because we don't have any 'freewill'?

[Nordicvs]

Cause i would presume that it is very hard for them, biologically, or is it due to upbringing, or both?

I'd say both. Mostly upbringing---slightly biology, which would make it a bit more difficult. So, overwhelmingly upbringing, I expect.

We raise them as girls---that's the problem---and they do not develop past a certain age. In fact, many seem to regress through life back to infancy.

They get better at acting and imitating, but they do not develop, unless one goes through some (uncharacteristic) suffering, is forced to think, and keeps thinking (the motivation for using her brain more fully is crucial here since this is where most 'drop out' and go back to "having fun lol" et cetera, and seeking "happy" as soon as they start naming their emotions obsessively, once more, and decide they need to feed their egos---the "I deserve to feel____" and "I'm entitled to ____" and such).

[Faust]

Cause i would presume that it is very hard for them, biologically, or is it due to upbringing, or both?

I'd say both. Mostly upbringing---slightly biology, which would make it a bit more difficult. So, overwhelmingly upbringing, I expect.

We raise them as girls---that's the problem---and they do not develop past a certain age. In fact, many seem to regress through life back to infancy.

They get better at acting and imitating, but they do not develop, unless one goes through some (uncharacteristic) suffering, is forced to think, and keeps thinking (the motivation for using her brain more fully is crucial here since this is where most 'drop out' and go back to "having fun lol" et cetera, and seeking "happy" as soon as they start naming their emotions obsessively, once more, and decide they need to feed their egos---the "I deserve to feel____" and "I'm entitled to ____" and such).

So if boys were raised the same way, would they act the same? Also, what's the biological basis, does testosterone actually make you more aggressive? do you have links for that?

[Nordicvs]

So if boys were raised the same way, would they act the same?

Half of all boys in North America are being raised by only the mother (manginas waiting to happen), and most of the rest have a pussy-whipped father, or some twisted, excessive father (like a dog who got kicked too many times; many 'military dads' or other brutalized males are warped into this type, which is still better than no father at all---even the 'worst father' might be better for a young male than the 'best mother'), or else they have neither. Take a look at some stats of what fatherless teenage males in America, for instance, are going through and destined to go through under their mother's loving care; that'll answer your question.

Also, what's the biological basis, does testosterone actually make you more aggressive? do you have links for that?

Well...

There's controversy over that---some studies find testosterone does increase aggression, while others claim it doesn't---it may act as a modifier to psychological factors; others claim it actually promotes calmness and 'grace under fire,' if you will. But there's more debate and bickering going on than actual work on this.

[Faust]

do you know any woman Nordicvs that is having a hard time becoming a full person? Do you know anyone that doesn't find it hard? I just want to get a more personal account of what women go through when they feel this internal battle.

[Nordicvs]

do you know any woman Nordicvs that is having a hard time becoming a full person?

Yes, I knew my sister, older sister, who had tremendous potential in her younger days, or so I believed; after the divorce, we both grew up with my father and our lives stabilized without my mother around, but my sister got into a relationship with a Christian fundamentalist (a "get back into the kitchen, bitch" type of guy), which sent her careening into feminism (every man became that guy she was with---as though the ability to make distinctions dissipated through her femdoctrination---and "they're all the same" after him and most importantly: they all had to pay, which she took out on any male around, which was most often me naturally) via pop-psychology a few years later.

She was always a follower, imitator of things; in youth she adored boy bands (Duran Duran), and was religious up until that fundie she lived with, then became anti-Xian; after she got into some books I was reading, she became an atheist, like I was at the time.

When I got seriously into representational art, she took an art course (and later quit); when I researched marijuana and engaged into some earlier consciousness modification, she 'experimented' with it (and soon quit---never liked the self-honesty or overall right-brained experience; booze was more her speed). When I starting writing (terrible, just awful horror fiction), she suddenly developed an interest in writing (and later quit). When I began studying history, culture, and then biology-archaeology, and specifically zoology and evolution, for a year, she took a course in biology the next year (and didn't finish yet remained orthodox---'faith in science' replacing her earlier belief in God). When I spent years roaming about Western Canada, she abruptly had an urge to travel.

And finally, when I found a girlfriend from Russia about 4 years back, she all at once had an interest in foreign countries, and began chasing after a rock star in Japan, where she now plans to move---and is, full circle, back to being precisely the groupie she was as a teen. She's 15 again, in every non-physical way. (It's curious that she gave the illusion---for me---that she was honestly interested in learning all about Japan, its culture, and began studying its language; before, she avoided history like a wise person avoids TV, so this was designed to impress me, or so I reckoned...only later did I learn from my step-father that it was all, only, to get close to this Jap rock star, "Roli.")

Her general intelligence seemed dependent on proximity to me, or so it seemed as I noticed how childishly, ridiculously stupid she'd gotten---she severely regressed in the three years we were separated (we'd lived together as roommates here and there and then I moved to Vancouver).

So, in summary, it was very difficult for her because she had no idea what she was doing and what she wanted, and she followed me around and I (engrained with modern notions of equality) expected her to be every bit as smart and capable as I was in everything I did or tried (moreso: I had little classic education and she had a lot more, and mostly straight-As), so I pressured her when she did show interest or potential in something---which I can see now frustrated her and caused resentment of me.

Thus, from sporadic semi-masculine periods and occasional brilliance, she retreated into her warm, fuzzy girlhood as she aged---the closer to 40 she got, the more addicted to "happiness" she became (and more emotional); the more trivial, flighty, feminine she became, and her memory (which was never very good except for things involving money or comments on her appearance---she was overweight for most of her life) rotted away, her entire mind did, from lack of use.

Also of note: she began to lose her extra pounds as she apparently, a couple years ago, wanted to recapture her girlish 'beauty' and get a man. She's so totally obsessed with her appearance, constantly attention-seeking (utterly ego-driven now) and completely inane (and still feminist) now that I refuse to even talk to her anymore.

I see now that she was never serious in the things she claimed interest in----it all appears like misplaced "Are you proud of me, Daddy?" stuff she transferred onto me when she decided that he was disapproving of what she was doing (not getting married and starting a family). This is the only case I'm very aware of in terms of a female "becoming a full person" or trying to.

Do you know anyone that doesn't find it hard? I just want to get a more personal account of what women go through when they feel this internal battle.

Nope. I know absolutely no females who are "complete people," so I couldn't tell you about how hard it is to maintain (I've come across a few in books and online that *seem* to be there or near there, or at least trying, but I don't *know* them, not personally).

Hope that helps.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay Faust, the board has said they have heard enough of my personal life, but since you seem intent on this interest... and my life was unusual, so I don't know how relevant this is, but here it goes.

I recall being the independent sort growing up (and getting chided for that by my mother - as if that was a bad trait), but my parents tried to raise me to be more feminine. I was also chided by teachers at school for being too independent. My parents tried to deeply ingrain in my mind that there was no way I could ever "make it" without a man. Being raised hearing that over and over, I lost self-confidence.

In retrospect, I recognize that my father's repetitions of how I would never survive without him was his psychological manipulation to make sure that I didn't leave him. He was not an easy person to tolerate - his other children wouldn't have anything to do with him. Nevertheless, hearing how I would never survive repeated for years took more of a toll on my confidence.

As a child and teen, I did think in terms of what my needs were (and yes, Dan - my mother did specifically use the phrase "You shouldn't keep thinking of yourself so much. You should think of my needs and what I want."), but I was also very hungry for praise, and would do just about anything for approval. Sometime in my 20's, it became much easier for me to do things for others than for myself. It is easier to keep the house clean if someone else is going to be here than if it is just me. When I had a husband and when I was taking care of my father, I would carefully prepare balanced meals, bake bread from scratch, etc. - and it was easy because the reward was in being appreciated. Things that were not appreciated ended up not getting done. With just me, cleaning is a chore and only gets done as is really needed, I don't bake for myself, I might cook a pot of beans and rice and eat off that for a week, or just eat stuff that does not require any preparation - cottage cheese, broccoli, yogurt, or grab some grapefruit off the tree.

I don't think that makes me "not a whole person" though. Guys don't do certain things whether or not there is another person there to appreciate it. I would say that another person makes it easier for me to be more than who I am just for myself. I don't consider myself important enough to go to the extra effort for, but I value others more than I value myself, so I will be my whole self for someone else, whereas I don't put forth my best effort if it is just for me. It isn't living through others, it is living for others.

I do feel as if when I am not of any good to anyone else, I am not of any good at all - but I do not think that makes me "not a full person." Anyone who is not of use to anyone else is anything from a drain on society to merely a moot point.

edit to add:
I do think that part of the reason I got married was the echoes of my parents telling me I would never "make it" without a man, and my ex also often repeated that I could not survive without him. However, during the marriage, I did significantly more to take care of him both physically and financially. He, of course, thought he was doing more and insisted he was, but when I showed him the bills I was paying and drew it out on paper (well, at least after that he was willing to pay for the insurance on one of his own cars). Women are told over and over that we can't - and if you tell anyone the same thing from many sources often enough, a person's emotions will feel that even if they see that reality is something different.

Guys really believe that they're superior and always the providers, though. I'd stopped keeping track of how much came from who's paycheck when we got married because I thought it was all "ours" - but it was when he kept going on about it that I even bothered to think in those terms - and saw that not only was I carrying my own weight, I was carrying most of his, and being treated - well, as I said, he's now the ex.
.

[Shardrol]

It's an interesting question. My mother thought she was teaching me to be a nonconforming independent thinker, but what I actually learned was that she was right about everything & to a great extent I took on her views. She always made a point of not letting me do things 'because the other kids were'. I was supposed to learn not to value that. Instead I got stuck in a knee-jerk contrariness. If others were doing something, I didn't want to.

So I can't say she did a very good job of teaching me to be independent. I don't know how you can teach someone to be independent anyway. You can refrain from crushing their spirit if you are in a position of power over them. You can take their ideas seriously. But I think independence has to be taken, not granted, & it doesn't just arise naturally either. You have to want it & pursue it.

At this point I think think of myself as independent but sometimes I do still notice a pull toward conformity. Like a few weeks ago I was walking in the city & it started to drizzle. I had an umbrella with me but the rain wasn't annoying me enough for me to open it. I saw several people on the street open umbrellas & I actually felt a pull to open mine, which I resisted. Then I wondered if my not finding the rain annoying was just a rationalization because I would have felt uncomfortable being the first one to open my umbrella. I don't know the answer to this.

I do, however, know women who do seem independent in their being. They are usually quite eccentric, by ordinary standards, which I guess is not surprising. And I don't know anything about how they got there.

Shardrol (female)

[Nordicvs]

Guys really believe that they're superior and always the providers, though. I'd stopped keeping track of how much came from who's paycheck when we got married because I thought it was all "ours" - but it was when he kept going on about it that I even bothered to think in those terms - and saw that not only was I carrying my own weight, I was carrying most of his, and being treated - well, as I said, he's now the ex.

I agree that some guys with confidence issues or extreme bitterness do look at things in terms of "superior/inferior" instead of difference. (One dude I know who lost his job, after 18 years, because the company had female quotas to fill, definitely started doing this; another guy, who spent two years in prison after, while leaving a bush party in his truck and unbeknownst to him, a female jumped on the back on his truck and was later thrown off and killed---he did, too, after getting out and being called "a murderer of women." Another guy, falsely charged with rape, and after getting raped in prison, and after losing everything to clear his name even after she came clean about her lie, started doing this too).

Some do, certainly not all (I'd never given it much serious thought until I met that psychotic woman I lived with who insisted, in the festering muck of her own ego or in the distorted perception she'd had of herself overall, that she was better somehow because she estimated her IQ as higher than mine---higher than every male she knew). I never told her it actually was higher (if she told the truth about her 150+ IQ), because I didn't want to feed the subject in her insecure mind and because a previous girlfriend (with a 140+ IQ) had tried the same "I'm smarter and this is why" deal with me already---one "na na na-na na" equality game was enough and seemed completely pointless to me in terms of a relationship; every one of my early girlfriends managed to get things (everything) exactly their way, anyway, so this wasn't about "doing it my way because I'm more intelligent." Or maybe it was their subconscious attempt to justify their control-freakishness? Maybe to allieviate some guilt over being so bossy and demanding?---this I doubt. Perhaps a "You're opinions are inconsequential and we're doing everything that benefits only me because my IQ is higher" type of thing? I'm not sure that they were aware of what they were doing, in any case.

I do know that the semi-humourous "I'm always right" attitude that nearly all the women I've known had (many spoke those exact words to me, 'semi-humourously' but completely solemn, deep down), this "female smugness," as I call it, is a quizzical species of pseudo-authority that arises from not taking responsibility for their actions and thus not being held accountable, evidenced blatantly in the legal system today, for one small instance. It is this air of moral superiority and the pretense, the constuct, of innocence that seems to me to be most devastating to women in regards to men and themselves; any intelligent, 'independent' female should be insulted to be viewed or treated in this inaccurate manner...why aren't they? Any reasonable, honourable woman would be offended to get things merely because she possesses a vagina. Why aren't they? I'd also think a real woman would be insulted to receive flowers and candy and other juvenile bribes, as well as flattery regarding their outward appearance, but, again, they're not---they love it. Why? I've never really understood why women insist on being treated like little kids...it really holds them back.

With "psycho bitch," as a Lutheran who's deepest thoughts ranged only from psychiatry to 'God is Great' to celebrity magazines, I knew my mind was much more expansive and creative than hers, but this never translated into "superior." (I could see immediately that her deviousness, scheming, lying, plotting, her extremely manipulative nature, and overall cunning was vastly sharper than mine, all these things evidently employed much more often with her over the course of her life.) And I never mentioned it because it seemed irrelevant and petty at the time---I did give her a book to read once (on fallacies in the myth of Creation) to see if I could open her mind a bit, and it was in the trash can the next day, naturally. She'd discovered the OJ Simpson trial, which occupied her mind constantly, while I had just discovered Nietzsche and was thinking about things in ways I never had before.

"Equality" does insist that one be petty, infantile, and keep score regarding everything---like two kids back inside from the sandbox, complaining that so-n-so's hot chocolate has more marshmellows. It's rationalized greed, I expect. In my experiences, it's overwhelmingly been women who seemed preoccupied with being better than men in one (or all) way(s), for some reason. (Since then I've detected an extreme lack, generally, in the scope with which most women deem worth or value---intangibles almost never enter into their thinking. Such as? Such as the invisible job that all men have---protectors of women; every man is an unpaid bodyguard, from volunteer firefighters to boyfriends who step in front of their girlfriends when some drunk guy starts getting too fresh or walk along the outer edge of a sidewalk in case a car goes off the road---to be hit by that car and push her out of the way---too an anonymous male stranger who dives into a flooded river to save a female or child; there are literally endless examples I have for this position, which women almost never 'work' at or really think about (especially in terms of "equality")---when's the last, or first, time you've seen or even heard of a female risking her life for a man? It's about as rare as a nine-planet-alignment.)

So, as more and more people brought up this quaint concept of "equality," I began to keep score of things, and I still despise doing this but it seems completely necessary now to be so childish. Most men hate it, because it means examining what they have, what other men have, what the women they know have, yadda yadda, keeping score of everything and then whining about it. Yes, there is no other term for a man bringing up something concerning this---well, you use "moaning," which fits as well. With women, it's called "standing up for rights." Or "entitlements."

If the fastest men on the planet are remarkably faster than the fastest women on the planet---does this mean superior or different? Strength, size, endurance and durability, et cetera---when you really get into, as most feminists insist we do, it's easy to see that overall men are better at a great many things than are women (and I've only touched on a few physical things here), and yet in spite of this, most men do not hold that they are overall better or superior and throw their health and life away at every opportunity to spare a female from risking herself in anyway or to prove their worth, love, commitment, et cetera, to the female, which she insists he should do for her, for some reason; courtly love is alive and well, reincarnated as e-romance now, and it still involves female worship from a distance and the inevitable life-threatening act the male must carry out to impress or woo the female, who doesn't have to do anything but "be," in all her glorious divinity, or whatever.

Bottom line, most men realize they're better at some things and worse at others in comparison to women, but it's not a weekly thought or even a monthly one; as I say, it's rarely on an average man's mind unless a female brings it up.

So I can't say she did a very good job of teaching me to be independent. I don't know how you can teach someone to be independent anyway. You can refrain from crushing their spirit if you are in a position of power over them. You can take their ideas seriously. But I think independence has to be taken, not granted, & it doesn't just arise naturally either. You have to want it & pursue it.

At this point I think think of myself as independent but sometimes I do still notice a pull toward conformity. Like a few weeks ago I was walking in the city & it started to drizzle. I had an umbrella with me but the rain wasn't annoying me enough for me to open it. I saw several people on the street open umbrellas & I actually felt a pull to open mine, which I resisted. Then I wondered if my not finding the rain annoying was just a rationalization because I would have felt uncomfortable being the first one to open my umbrella. I don't know the answer to this.

What's your definition of independence? I'm just curious.

[Shardrol]

What I mean by independence is being able to think for oneself & not being dominated by trained habitual patterns, cultural mores, social acceptability, kneejerk contrariness or anything else other than one's own awareness. To sail by one's own lights. This is still subjective but at least it's the subjectivity of a person who has some awareness of their own mind, rather than blindly following a beaten path.

[Faust]

What I mean by independence is being able to think for oneself & not being dominated by trained habitual patterns, cultural mores, social acceptability, kneejerk contrariness or anything else other than one's own awareness. To sail by one's own lights. This is still subjective but at least it's the subjectivity of a person who has some awareness of their own mind, rather than blindly following a beaten path.

Yes that's also what I'm talking about. Women are not as rebellious as men are towards society. They're not whole beings as men because they submit to everything in order to control it, because they cannot control themselves in an aggressive, assertive, direct and straightforward manner. And when they do try to, they'll break down if they see a stronger man. It's what Weininger meant when he talked about men being 'monads' and women being 'henids.'

[Shardrol]

Oh okay but I'm not sure why you're telling me this. I thought you were interested in the experience of individual women in attempting to become independent.

[Faust]

Oh okay but I'm not sure why you're telling me this. I thought you were interested in the experience of individual women in attempting to become independent.

I am, but I'm also talking about the animal type of independance. Do you or women you know find it hard to be indpendant in an aggressive, direct, straightforward kind of way? Also can you tolerate the assertiveness of others and still not submit to them? Many men I know still aren't at that level where they won't feel victimized if they encounter a man who is very assertive. They'll either submit to him out of fear, or out of knowing he's more assertive, or try to sabotage him, etc... But for me I just say "where have you people been? welcome to the club".

[Nordicvs]

What I mean by independence is being able to think for oneself & not being dominated by trained habitual patterns, cultural mores, social acceptability, kneejerk contrariness or anything else other than one's own awareness. To sail by one's own lights. This is still subjective but at least it's the subjectivity of a person who has some awareness of their own mind, rather than blindly following a beaten path.

Okay, so, it's a wholly mental conception of independence. Alrighty, thanks.

[Shardrol]

Oh well, I thought the idea of independence where you don't require a human breast for nourishment or a kangaroo pouch for shelter was self-evident. But you are right that I don't think it's necessary to hunt or grow all your own food & stay off the power grid in order to be independent, though I do think those things have value.

[Faust]

Oh well, I thought the idea of independence where you don't require a human breast for nourishment or a kangaroo pouch for shelter was self-evident. But you are right that I don't think it's necessary to hunt or grow all your own food & stay off the power grid in order to be independent, though I do think those things have value.

yes, but i'm also interested in you answering me this. Do you or women you know find it hard to be indpendant in an aggressive, direct, straightforward kind of way? Also can you tolerate the assertiveness of others and still not submit to them? Many men I know still aren't at that level where they won't feel victimized if they encounter a man who is very assertive. They'll either submit to him out of fear, or out of knowing he's more assertive, or try to sabotage him, etc... But for me I just say "where have you people been? welcome to the club".

[Shardrol]

Faust13

Sorry my last comment was addressed to Nordicvs.

I will try to answer your questions, but I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean. Do you mean aggressive in terms of confronting people or do you mean something more like getting physical with them? I don't initiate physical violence but I don't have a problem being verbally direct & straightforward. I would call this assertive rather than aggressive. Unless it's defending myself or someone else from an attack, I think aggression is uncivilized.

As to the other question, I'm not sure what you mean by assertive here. Are you talking about someone who is trying to make me do something or someone who is just assertive in their manner? I don't mind following a leader if he is leading me out of a burning building, for example. I don't feel a personal challenge to resist everything all the time. It depends entirely on the circumstances.
.

[Dan Rowden]

Assertiveness is not a virtue in and of itself. Even thorough-going idiots can be assertive. Actually, a great many are. If one is intimidated by the manner in which a person communicates ideas rather than the content of those ideas, then I think you're more likely looking at an overbearing person. I find such people tedious rather than intimidating.

[Faust]

Assertiveness is not a virtue in and of itself. Even thorough-going idiots can be assertive. Actually, a great many are. If one is intimidated by the manner in which a person communicates ideas rather than the content of those ideas, then I think you're more likely looking at an overbearing person. I find such people tedious rather than intimidating.

I know that many stupid people are assertive, it's quite unfortunate. The assertive i'm talking about is not only an intelligent assertion, that is ruled by reason, and good content, but also one that knows that submission, humility, meakness, and cowardice are generally bad virtues compared to fearlessness, pride, hardness, what Nietzsche was talking about.

[Faust]

Faust13

Sorry my last comment was addressed to Nordicvs.

I will try to answer your questions, but I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean. Do you mean aggressive in terms of confronting people or do you mean something more like getting physical with them? I don't initiate physical violence but I don't have a problem being verbally direct & straightforward. I would call this assertive rather than aggressive. Unless it's defending myself or someone else from an attack, I think aggression is uncivilized.

As to the other question, I'm not sure what you mean by assertive here. Are you talking about someone who is trying to make me do something or someone who is just assertive in their manner? I don't mind following a leader if he is leading me out of a burning building, for example. I don't feel a personal challenge to resist everything all the time. It depends entirely on the circumstances.
.

Not only verbally direct and straightforward, but body language as well. See most women due to their physical weakness, turn it into a strength by submitting in order to control men. I instead want women to do the same as men, that is be masculine, territorial, lack of social conventions towards pathetic authority figures, they perhaps do have contempt for them, but alot of times are too cowardly to show it. And the women that I encounter simply cannot do this.

[Dan Rowden]

Assertiveness is not a virtue in and of itself. Even thorough-going idiots can be assertive. Actually, a great many are. If one is intimidated by the manner in which a person communicates ideas rather than the content of those ideas, then I think you're more likely looking at an overbearing person. I find such people tedious rather than intimidating.

I know that many stupid people are assertive, it's quite unfortunate. The assertive i'm talking about is not only an intelligent assertion, that is ruled by reason, and good content, but also one that knows that submission, humility, meakness, and cowardice are generally bad virtues compared to fearlessness, pride, hardness, what Nietzsche was talking about.

Ok, fair enough. In that case I would still not use the term "assertive". It has egotistical, New Agey Pop Psychology connotations for me. But I know what you mean. You're talking about a person who is forthright and candid, honest but not arrogant, will stand his ground without being pushy, will not agree merely for agreement's sake, has integrity, is an individual in the true sense of that term.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I instead want women to do the same as men, that is be masculine, territorial, lack of social conventions towards pathetic authority figures, they perhaps do have contempt for them, but alot of times are too cowardly to show it. And the women that I encounter simply cannot do this.

Oh, that's what you were asking about. Almost none of the females I worked with in various hospitals had a problem with standing up to anyone, and working in the hospital was the only place where I didn't end up taking over except when it was job-appropriate for me to do so. Although I was raised in a militaristic fashion and was very rank-conscious despite a civilian setting, sometimes I end up with more of a leadership role than my position dictates. Most people find that I have an odd combination of being very approachable yet with a commanding presence. As a result, people would come to me with things, which was fine if I actually was in charge or if the supervisor felt secure, but would really tick off an insecure supervisor. Beyond that, if there is an emergency and no one looks like they know what they are doing, I'm taking over. If someone looks like they've got it, I'll help if needed - but if everyone's panicked and/or clueless I automatically take a leadership position. It isn't even a choice, really - it's what I'm compelled to do.

I guess in a way I was raised like that, too. Despite how authoritarian my parents were under smooth conditions, whenever anything went wrong they blamed me. I eventually figured out that if something was going wrong, I'd better fix it. Now that's just a reflex.
.

[Gretchen]

The answers to these questions relate to interrelationships at work with colleagues and affiliations with those who interact with me while at work.

Faust 13: Do you or women you know find it hard to be independant in an aggressive, direct, straightforward kind of way?

P: It depends on the person with whom I am engaged in this state of being.

If we are both fully knowledgeable about the subject matter on the table there is no need to be concerned with independence issues because we both assume an equal field.

If the person is not knowledgable and attempts to assert themselves so as to make calculated errors, it is very easy to be independent in a direct, straightfoward kind of way because the facts can be laid out...aggression is unnecessary and reflects a fundamental weakness in self-control.

If the person is more knowledgable and attempts to assert themselves, I defer to them but not out of dependence but acknowledgement of their knowing more of the facts. However, if the decision to be made involves a calculated risk, I may advise evidence to support their stance. If they are firm in their position and they are the decision-maker, then it is their neck on the line, and I've done my job.

If it is a woman with whom I am dealing, I still stand by what I've said above, but it is very difficult. I am a female but I do not like working with or for other females.

Faust 13: Also can you tolerate the assertiveness of others and still not submit to them?

P: The answer depends on how you define submit.

Faust 13: or try to sabotage him, etc...

P: Sabotaging someone because they are assertive, whether they are right or wrong, is immature and childish and serves no useful purpose.

Faust 13: But for me I just say "where have you people been? welcome to the club."

P: What do you mean by this?

[Shardrol]

Not only verbally direct and straightforward, but body language as well. See most women due to their physical weakness, turn it into a strength by submitting in order to control men. I instead want women to do the same as men, that is be masculine, territorial, lack of social conventions towards pathetic authority figures, they perhaps do have contempt for them, but alot of times are too cowardly to show it. And the women that I encounter simply cannot do this.

I don't feel strong & am not trained to fight, but I am tall (6 feet) & not delicately built, so I have not often felt the physical intimidation that seems to be the ordinary experience of many women. Here in New York City I consciously cultivate a 'don't fuck with me' projection as I walk around & for the most part it works.

I defend my territory (on the subway, for example) by intentionally taking up more space than I actually need so there is a kind of buffer between me & the next person. But if someone breaches this barrier I'm more likely to get up & move rather than confront them.

I have no automatic respect for authority figures but I don't feel the need to demonstrate this unless they impinge on me in some way. I was much more hostile in my youth & couldn't tolerate anyone thinking they had intimidated me. I engaged every catcalling construction worker in a 'go fuck yourself' shouting match. I couldn't let anything go.

These days it doesn't make any difference. If someone thinks I'm submitting to them I don't feel I have to make sure they understand it's not true. I guess I care less what people think of me but that makes me more peaceful & less confrontative than I used to be.

The city is a good behavior lab. Every day brings an opportunity to see how you deal with homeless people, drunks, marauding teenagers, crazy old ladies, mindless authoritarianism, people's sense of entitlement & all the rest of it.

I have a friend who's a martial arts expert & he walks around with a physical confidence that I have never felt myself. He knows he could kill someone if they attacked him & this makes him quite calm & unlikely to get into confrontations. My confidence, such as it is, is not physically based & I can see that that's a handicap. I don't think many women walk around with that sort of body confidence. Even my (female) friend who has a black belt in karate doesn't.
.

[Faust]

Assertiveness is not a virtue in and of itself. Even thorough-going idiots can be assertive. Actually, a great many are. If one is intimidated by the manner in which a person communicates ideas rather than the content of those ideas, then I think you're more likely looking at an overbearing person. I find such people tedious rather than intimidating.

I know that many stupid people are assertive, it's quite unfortunate. The assertive i'm talking about is not only an intelligent assertion, that is ruled by reason, and good content, but also one that knows that submission, humility, meakness, and cowardice are generally bad virtues compared to fearlessness, pride, hardness, what Nietzsche was talking about.

Ok, fair enough. In that case I would still not use the term "assertive". It has egotistical, New Agey Pop Psychology connotations for me. But I know what you mean. You're talking about a person who is forthright and candid, honest but not arrogant, will stand his ground without being pushy, will not agree merely for agreement's sake, has integrity, is an individual in the true sense of that term.

yes, now the 'pushy' part what do you mean by that? Like if there's a vacuum wherever i'll go, i'll fill it up, but i'll encourage others to be self-disciplined as well.