I love the way everyone under 25 thinks women have somehow changed magically from earlier times, and the "old stereotypes" no longer apply.
Are you talking about me? You're right about one thing, I'm under 25. You're wrong that I think women have changed...that's exactly my point in this topic. They're the same old thing, and that this rugby-in-prom-dresses phenomenon is nothing interesting.
There's nothing new under the sun. Different disguises for the same face. Don't judge a book by its cover.
I wasn't judging the book by its cover. If I were doing that I'd be praising this topic. I was saying that the appearance, the prom dress, while playing rugby means nothing. I thought you were the one talking about how this changes everything. It IS a different disguise for the same face.
One interesting thing I've seen, though....women's curling. Now that is interesting.
Girls Playing Rugby in Prom Dresses
-
MKFaizi
Does not look like something a male coach would suggest to a team of females. Too much risk of being accused of sexism. Male coaches of females have to be very careful.It might of course be the case, as you suggested, that the idea of wearing dresses while playing rugby was the idea of the male coach, or perhaps another male who likes taking photographs.
Was the coach male or female?
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
But women do not always play rugby in prom dresses. A female rugby team generally plays rugby in whatever uniform. This was done either as a lark or to prove a point.
Shardrol wrote about men being bigger and stronger than
females. That is still largely true but it is slowly
changing. A few years back, a female pitcher
almost made it to major league baseball. That will
happen. Just a matter of time. First step would be to allow females to play little league baseball as well as softball. The girls who could not play or did not want to play baseball could play softball but a girl should not be forced to play softball merely because she is a girl. As long is
she is as capable of the boys, she should be allowed to play.
Faizi
Shardrol wrote about men being bigger and stronger than
females. That is still largely true but it is slowly
changing. A few years back, a female pitcher
almost made it to major league baseball. That will
happen. Just a matter of time. First step would be to allow females to play little league baseball as well as softball. The girls who could not play or did not want to play baseball could play softball but a girl should not be forced to play softball merely because she is a girl. As long is
she is as capable of the boys, she should be allowed to play.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
Bullshit.There's nothing new under the sun. Different disguises for the same face. Don't judge a book by its cover.
Females have come a very long way in athletics. Much has changed over the past thirty or so years, not to mention the last seventy years.
When I was in high school, not many girls played sports. I think a few girls ran track and a few played basketball but they were considered kind of weird and no one gave a rat's ass about it. There was no softball team. No girl ever got a scholarship to play in college like they do now.
My mother played basketball back in the thirties, when she was in high school. Very restrictive rules.
In 2006, high school females are as active in sports as males. Many girls get college sports scholarships.
In 1970, you would not have seen pictures of a female rugby team, even if any existed. Just not taken seriously or considered to be a game for dykes only.
Things are slowly changing and you are kidding yourself if you think differently.
Faizi
I'm not talking about changes in athletic participation and achievement, because I don't dispute that. Females participate at a far greater rate than in the 60s or 30s, and thus achieve more, even to the extent that they are better than men competing at the highest levels in some rare cases.
The society now encourages it, so they do it. I'd be more impressed if they largely chose not to do it, because it just shows they are shaped by society. Both males and females are usually shaped by the Zeitgeist to some extent, but with women, I think there may have been more sporting clubs and group physical exercise earlier if they had been so motivated to do it. I grant that women were often tied down to domestic chores before the mid-60s, but there have always been rich classes of women who seemed to have done little more than croquet in the sporting field.
The reason they didn't do it earlier is because society would have frowned upon it. So society has changed, and they passively take on the new role, even to the extent that it goes against their conditioning and nature for all of recorded history. Nothing could be more conforming!
The society now encourages it, so they do it. I'd be more impressed if they largely chose not to do it, because it just shows they are shaped by society. Both males and females are usually shaped by the Zeitgeist to some extent, but with women, I think there may have been more sporting clubs and group physical exercise earlier if they had been so motivated to do it. I grant that women were often tied down to domestic chores before the mid-60s, but there have always been rich classes of women who seemed to have done little more than croquet in the sporting field.
The reason they didn't do it earlier is because society would have frowned upon it. So society has changed, and they passively take on the new role, even to the extent that it goes against their conditioning and nature for all of recorded history. Nothing could be more conforming!
sschaula:
I think they had self-awareness in terms of the incongruity of burly athletic girls wearing prom dresses playing rugby. I think they must have found it funny to juxtapose the stereotype of dainty ladies in elaborate dresses with an aggressively physical game such as rugby. That is to say, they were mocking the dainty image by wearing its emblems while engaging in decidedly non-dainty activity.
ksolway:
I didn't really think a male coach came up with the idea of wearing prom dresses; I just suggested that as an excuse for those who didn't want to think that women could make fun of themselves or their image.
Do you imagine that girls who don't normally wear dresses have some kind of secret guilty desire to do so? This is a bizarre idea.
I think nuns playing rugby is more in the style of 'sacrilege humor', which is very popular among the French for some reason.
avidaloca:
I think they had self-awareness in terms of the incongruity of burly athletic girls wearing prom dresses playing rugby. I think they must have found it funny to juxtapose the stereotype of dainty ladies in elaborate dresses with an aggressively physical game such as rugby. That is to say, they were mocking the dainty image by wearing its emblems while engaging in decidedly non-dainty activity.
ksolway:
I didn't really think a male coach came up with the idea of wearing prom dresses; I just suggested that as an excuse for those who didn't want to think that women could make fun of themselves or their image.
Do you imagine that girls who don't normally wear dresses have some kind of secret guilty desire to do so? This is a bizarre idea.
I think nuns playing rugby is more in the style of 'sacrilege humor', which is very popular among the French for some reason.
avidaloca:
And I imagine you must think the same about men dyeing their hair, getting manicures & going in for cosmetic surgery, no?So society has changed, and they [women] passively take on the new role, even to the extent that it goes against their conditioning and nature for all of recorded history. Nothing could be more conforming!
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Anyone who has been to university wouldn't be surprised at those photos. It looks like typical undergraduate humour to me. If I were to hazard a guess, the rugby match is being played in Orientation Week (i.e. the week before the beginning of first semester), and it is probably part of number of events on the program, such as nude cycling races, or abseiling up the university buildings, and the like.
I also don't think it has any great significance as far as feminine psychology is concerned, other than it is clearly an expression of the herd mentality.
-
I also don't think it has any great significance as far as feminine psychology is concerned, other than it is clearly an expression of the herd mentality.
-
If I didn't I'd be placing greater importance on the fact of one's biological gender than the degree of M or F in them. Both are important, and it is difficult to say which is stronger. Men today seem to be adopting feminine roles to perhaps fill the gaps left by women who are now guided into adopting masculine traits. We can't have a world without femininity - most men couldn't cope.And I imagine you must think the same about men dyeing their hair, getting manicures & going in for cosmetic surgery, no?
.
I'd like to pick up a thread of thinking in one of Faizi's posts above and run with it -- whether running with rules, with balls, with teams, or away from them, this freedom of physical activity is paramount, in my estimation, to the facility of the mind. I think there is a difference in modern young women too, who have not had their wings clipped, their ankles crossed, their knees slammed together, and their whole spirit bent to demure, in softness and quietude - at least, a difference where these social rules are unimposed or overcome. Physical activity is most intimately connected to facility of mind - not as an exception, but as a rule.
I posed here once before this greater physical strength and freedom of movement as the precursor to the developing mind. The female student athletes I have had in class are almost across the board brighter thinkers, too. Less apt to believe crap. Less inclined to demure. No, it doesn't have to be "sports"; yes, that's worth questioning altogether. But it has to be everyone's physics' lesson - learning the feel of gravity, acceleration, force, leverage, speed - learning intimately the exchange of energy and mass. All this is to the fair-working of the mind; to the movement of universal things; to the attunement of existence.
The history of female movement has been so abysmally restricted to the hands that tend hair and the knees that scrub floors and the hips that service birth and bewitch men.
.
I'd like to pick up a thread of thinking in one of Faizi's posts above and run with it -- whether running with rules, with balls, with teams, or away from them, this freedom of physical activity is paramount, in my estimation, to the facility of the mind. I think there is a difference in modern young women too, who have not had their wings clipped, their ankles crossed, their knees slammed together, and their whole spirit bent to demure, in softness and quietude - at least, a difference where these social rules are unimposed or overcome. Physical activity is most intimately connected to facility of mind - not as an exception, but as a rule.
I posed here once before this greater physical strength and freedom of movement as the precursor to the developing mind. The female student athletes I have had in class are almost across the board brighter thinkers, too. Less apt to believe crap. Less inclined to demure. No, it doesn't have to be "sports"; yes, that's worth questioning altogether. But it has to be everyone's physics' lesson - learning the feel of gravity, acceleration, force, leverage, speed - learning intimately the exchange of energy and mass. All this is to the fair-working of the mind; to the movement of universal things; to the attunement of existence.
The history of female movement has been so abysmally restricted to the hands that tend hair and the knees that scrub floors and the hips that service birth and bewitch men.
.
-
MKFaizi
That is so West Virginian.If I were to hazard a guess, the rugby match is being played in Orientation Week (i.e. the week before the beginning of first semester), and it is probably part of number of events on the program, such as nude cycling races, or abseiling up the university buildings, and the like
Read that as backwards. Antiquated. Dated. Circa 1969 at best.
Faizi
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Can I ask everyone, when they are quoting others in their posts, to acknowledge who it is they are quoting. It makes it difficult and time-consuming for others to follow what is going on when you don't.
-
Shardrol wrote:
Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't really see what is interesting about a bunch of students having a lark in the usual time-honoured undergraduate manner. What's next - an entire thread devoted to why five-year-old kids laugh at rude words? It's a standard rite of passage experienced by people in a particular stage of growth. Nothing of any real interest, psychologically speaking, just another confirmation that young people are very herdish in their natures.
Earlier in the thread, you wrote:
They have merely flowed along into the grooves of a pre-organized event, haven't they? I would guess that, for most of them, their awareness would simply be focused on the lark of temporarily breaking the rules in a fun, socially-sanctioned fashion. There would be very little awareness of the deeper issue of their own feminine flowiness.
Perhaps if one of these women organized a similar exercise on her own, without the support of all her mates, it would begin to attract my interest. Like George Sand, for example, who was a female writer in the 19th century and friends with Lizt, Chopin, etc. She used to used to wear men's clothes and trousers all the time in public, which was unheard of back then. That, to me, takes a bit more awareness and courage.
I'm not sure this will ever change. Female tennis, for example, is getting quite powerful these days. They can hit the ball very hard, but it still lacks that imagination and flair.
-
[edited for grammer]
-
Shardrol wrote:
Phew! Thanks for clearing that up. For a minute there it looked like it might become an interesting discussion.
Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't really see what is interesting about a bunch of students having a lark in the usual time-honoured undergraduate manner. What's next - an entire thread devoted to why five-year-old kids laugh at rude words? It's a standard rite of passage experienced by people in a particular stage of growth. Nothing of any real interest, psychologically speaking, just another confirmation that young people are very herdish in their natures.
Earlier in the thread, you wrote:
What I thought was interesting was that these women had self-awareness & humor about 'flowie' stereotype that I would think might come as a surprise to some of the people on this list who say, for example, that women have no inner life.
They have merely flowed along into the grooves of a pre-organized event, haven't they? I would guess that, for most of them, their awareness would simply be focused on the lark of temporarily breaking the rules in a fun, socially-sanctioned fashion. There would be very little awareness of the deeper issue of their own feminine flowiness.
Perhaps if one of these women organized a similar exercise on her own, without the support of all her mates, it would begin to attract my interest. Like George Sand, for example, who was a female writer in the 19th century and friends with Lizt, Chopin, etc. She used to used to wear men's clothes and trousers all the time in public, which was unheard of back then. That, to me, takes a bit more awareness and courage.
Male sport is also played with a lot more imagination and flair, which is as much a result of mental superiority as physical strength. That is why women's sports generally attracts little interest in terms of spectator numbers, TV ratings, corporate sponsership, etc. It always looks like a dumbed down, B-grade version of the male equivalent.I imagine there will be a few women at some point who can compete with men in sports, but I don't think there will ever be many - unless it's legislated. It does seem to be one of the 'hard' differences between the genders that men are generally stronger. The body structure of a man has more (& larger) muscles than a woman.
I'm not sure this will ever change. Female tennis, for example, is getting quite powerful these days. They can hit the ball very hard, but it still lacks that imagination and flair.
-
[edited for grammer]
Last edited by David Quinn on Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
MKFaizi
Well, we stoop to conquer.I also don't think it has any great significance as far as feminine psychology is concerned, other than it is clearly an expression of the herd mentality.
Are male rugby players or other athletes also an expression of herd mentality?
Perhaps, so.
I do not see how female athletes are more herdly than males. I cannot see, for example, that male golfers are more herdly than females. Catch any of those Tiger Woods commercials?
In my experience, I do see an unfortunate trend in female sports. Shit often rises to the top -- regardless of ability. Not the best female athletes play at the high school level. Why I have urged my daughter to organize an Outlaw Redneck Woman league of whatever sport. Not likely to happen so I see her going into professional wrestling. This area of Virginia offers training in professional wrestling.
Personally, I am tired of the same ol' Genius crap on this forum. Surely, in seven years, there must be some different rhetoric. I mean, it gets old. In seven years, I reckon we have all talked about the herdliness of the feminine enough. I think it is high time to hike up your athletic supporters and step out of your masculine burquas and get a grip.
Slowly, females are evolving toward the masculine ideal.
Maybe that's the problem -- can't give up your boyish wet dream fantasies of Barbie in pink? My heart bleeds for you.
Weininger had a point. He made it. It bears truth. Move on, Neanderthals.
If the modern world survives until 3000, there will be no females. Nobody to suck your dick. Boo hoo. Get over it. Tuck your teeny weeny balls between your legs and CRY!! WAAAHH!
Bunch of pussies. You people make me sick. Fucking Taliban.
What man fears most is woman who refuses to be woman.
That time will come and, obviously, you will not like it.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
Not against all recorded history. That is kind of extreme.and they passively take on the new role, even to the extent that it goes against their conditioning and nature for all of recorded history. Nothing could be more conforming!
However, I agree with you that on the high school level, most of the girls are very conforming and "good." Kind of like cheerleaders back in my high school days. I watched girls of my daughter's age grow up playing soft ball. They are ready to graduate now. The girls on the highschool softball team are conformists. The truly talented girls dropped out around middle school because they were too busy rebelling against authority.
I think it is unfortunate that these "rebels" were not channelled into athletics. Meanest bitches you can imagine. Very tough. Defiant.
They simply lost interest when they were expected to conform.
I do not know much about female athletes at the college level. Some of them are good athletes, I reckon. They were able to suck up their need to rebel with their need to conform. They can stomach conformity to the extent that they have the need to peform athletically. Kind of a disciplined rebellion.
Unfortunately, past the college level, there is no future for them in athletics.
I think of the girl from here who is pitching softball spectacularly for Virginia Tech. She is a sophomore. In two years, her career will be done.
Why bother?
All those years of practice and dedication for nothing.
Maybe, she can become a professional wrestler.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
DAVID QUINN WROTE:
Very unfortunate that you never had a daughter. Would have been a rude awakening for you. My Muslim husband could not believe the strength of his female child -- and he only knew her until she was two years old. It is no wonder that females have been suppressed by their wombs. Otherwise, females would have ruled.
Had our daughter been born in Pakistan, she would have been stoned to death. Only way she -- any female with the spririt to conquer -- could have been dealt with.
The lacking in imagination and flair is attributable to the lackluster coverage of female athletes.
Socially acceptable stoning.
What you construe as flair and intelligence is media hype.
Faizi
Bullshit.Male sport is also played with a lot more imagination and flair, which is as much a result of mental superiority as physical strength. That is why women's sports generally attracts little interest in terms of spectator numbers, TV ratings, corporate sponsership, etc. It always looks like a dumbed down, B-grade version of the male equivalent.
I'm not sure this will ever change. Female tennis, for example, is getting quite powerful these days. They can hit the ball very hard, but it still lacks that imagination and flair.
Very unfortunate that you never had a daughter. Would have been a rude awakening for you. My Muslim husband could not believe the strength of his female child -- and he only knew her until she was two years old. It is no wonder that females have been suppressed by their wombs. Otherwise, females would have ruled.
Had our daughter been born in Pakistan, she would have been stoned to death. Only way she -- any female with the spririt to conquer -- could have been dealt with.
The lacking in imagination and flair is attributable to the lackluster coverage of female athletes.
Socially acceptable stoning.
What you construe as flair and intelligence is media hype.
Faizi
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
It's definitely not media hype. If you go to the actual grounds, you will see that female sport is significantly slower, less flamboyant, less sophisticated, less brutal, and less interesting than male sports. That's why female sports stars have to wear miniskirts and do nude calenders to try and attract bums on seats. If they were ugly and unsexy, no one would come and watch their B-grade activities.
For years, the most popular female tennis star in the world was the model-like Anna Kournakova, even though she never won a tournament and was a far worse player than the top-line players.
-
You wrote:
No question of it.
Both the male and female athletes are being equally herdly. The main difference between them, however, is that the males have to "stoop to conquer", as you put it, while the females have to do the opposite and rise above their womanly nature in order to be successful. The male athletes squander their masculine energies on petty goals; the female athletes have to incorporate higher qualities in order to pursue the same goals.
These issues are timeless and play a critical role in spiritual matters, so there is no way in the world I am going to stop talking about them.
Again, you seem unable to separate your personal feelings from your judgments. You think, "I am bored of the man-woman issue, therefore everyone must be bored with it.". Or, "I do not want to talk about the man-woman issue anymore, therefore nobody should talk about it". It is a very feminine trait that.
-
For years, the most popular female tennis star in the world was the model-like Anna Kournakova, even though she never won a tournament and was a far worse player than the top-line players.
-
You wrote:
DQ: I also don't think it has any great significance as far as feminine psychology is concerned, other than it is clearly an expression of the herd mentality.
MF: Well, we stoop to conquer.
Are male rugby players or other athletes also an expression of herd mentality?
No question of it.
I do not see how female athletes are more herdly than males. I cannot see, for example, that male golfers are more herdly than females.
Both the male and female athletes are being equally herdly. The main difference between them, however, is that the males have to "stoop to conquer", as you put it, while the females have to do the opposite and rise above their womanly nature in order to be successful. The male athletes squander their masculine energies on petty goals; the female athletes have to incorporate higher qualities in order to pursue the same goals.
Personally, I am tired of the same ol' Genius crap on this forum. Surely, in seven years, there must be some different rhetoric. I mean, it gets old. In seven years, I reckon we have all talked about the herdliness of the feminine enough. I think it is high time to hike up your athletic supporters and step out of your masculine burquas and get a grip.
Weininger had a point. He made it. It bears truth. Move on, Neanderthals.
These issues are timeless and play a critical role in spiritual matters, so there is no way in the world I am going to stop talking about them.
Again, you seem unable to separate your personal feelings from your judgments. You think, "I am bored of the man-woman issue, therefore everyone must be bored with it.". Or, "I do not want to talk about the man-woman issue anymore, therefore nobody should talk about it". It is a very feminine trait that.
-
Well who organized the event? I was assuming that the female rugby players thought up the idea themselves, & that they were amused by the incongruity of rugby with traditional femininity.DavidQuinn000 wrote:What I thought was interesting was that these women had self-awareness & humor about 'flowie' stereotype that I would think might come as a surprise to some of the people on this list who say, for example, that women have no inner life.
They have merely flowed along into the grooves of a pre-organized event, haven't they?
Is every group of women automatically a herd? Is it somehow different when it's men? Are you & Dan & Kevin running this forum in the manner of a herd?
I doubt it. But if everyone must act alone to be worthy, why are the three of you running the forum rather than one lone heroic soul?Perhaps if one of these women organized a similar exercise on her own, without the support of all her mates, it would begin to attract my interest.
You like to play it both ways. If I or someone else had brought up George Sand as an example of a woman who showed courage & individuality, I'm certain you would have sneered at her as a mediocre writer & unoriginal thinker.Like George Sand, for example, who was a female writer in the 19th century and friends with Lizt, Chopin, etc. She used to used to wear men's clothes and trousers all the time in public, which was unheard of back then. That, to me, takes a bit more awareness and courage.
I can't really speak to this with any kind of authority since I find all sports completely tedious to watch but I would suspect that one of the reasons for there being more interest in male sports than female sports is because men like to watch men play sports & women like to watch men play sports.Male sport is also played with a lot more imagination and flair, which is as much a result of mental superiority as physical strength. That is why women's sports generally attracts little interest in terms of spectator numbers, TV ratings, corporate sponsership, etc. It always looks like a dumbed down, B-grade version of the male equivalent.
Watching women play sports is problematical for both genders from the point of view of social mores since men mostly want women to be feminine & pretty (not muscular & sweaty) & women are mostly also made uncomfortable by women who don't conform to the prevailing feminine aesthetic.
Shardrol wrote:
I remember a tennis match between Arnauld Clement and Sebastian Grosjean, two Frenchmen in the semi-final of the 2001 Australian Open. It's five years ago but the game knocked me right off my feet. At the end of it even the commentators who were veterans were saying this was one of the classic games of all time.
Clement was down two sets and on three match points in the third when he summoned some kind of courage from nowhere and crawled back (inching back initially) to take out the third set and eventually the whole match. It was a five hour epic that seemed to mirror something like a Tolstoy novel or something equally grand. Within the field of competitive sport it was brilliant, so much so that a lot of the crowd just didn't get it - they had tuned out (being used to smaller scale entertainment). It changed the way I looked at sport, but games like that do not come about that often and much of it was dictated by the fact they were two long-time friends from the same country vying for a spot in the final. The final itself was ho-hum compared to it - Agassi winning by a mile.
I find that disturbing but I understand it. I used to be the same about a sport until I had watched enough of it to understand the depths of it. I now think cricket, soccer and tennis can have great matches, though many have only flashes of interest or are more or less walkovers. I can't wait for the World Cup in Germany and have even bought a TV to watch it which I will sell after.I can't really speak to this with any kind of authority since I find all sports completely tedious to watch
I remember a tennis match between Arnauld Clement and Sebastian Grosjean, two Frenchmen in the semi-final of the 2001 Australian Open. It's five years ago but the game knocked me right off my feet. At the end of it even the commentators who were veterans were saying this was one of the classic games of all time.
Clement was down two sets and on three match points in the third when he summoned some kind of courage from nowhere and crawled back (inching back initially) to take out the third set and eventually the whole match. It was a five hour epic that seemed to mirror something like a Tolstoy novel or something equally grand. Within the field of competitive sport it was brilliant, so much so that a lot of the crowd just didn't get it - they had tuned out (being used to smaller scale entertainment). It changed the way I looked at sport, but games like that do not come about that often and much of it was dictated by the fact they were two long-time friends from the same country vying for a spot in the final. The final itself was ho-hum compared to it - Agassi winning by a mile.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
David is more than right here, with just following his intuition. Just browse around for 'prom rugby' and 'prom mud volleyball' and stuff like that and you'll find out many universities do such things as fund raisers for charity, sometimes on a yearly basis. It's a lark. Everyone having a good laugh and no 'views on femininity' are involved at all. Many of these girls wear the same dresses to their prom before using them for the fund raiser anyway. It's a matter of rising to the occasion I suppose, as always has been the case.Shardrol wrote:Well who organized the event? I was assuming that the female rugby players thought up the idea themselves, & that they were amused by the incongruity of rugby with traditional femininity.DavidQuinn000 wrote: They have merely flowed along into the grooves of a pre-organized event, haven't they?
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Shardrol,
In all these instances, if the members of the group are intelligent, highly aware, independent thinkers not swayed by the dynamics of group-think, it wouldn't constitute a herd. It would instead be a loose gathering of independent thinkers.
I'm appreciative of anyone, male or female, who stands up to the madness of the world with purpose and courage.
That's a good question. I've been thinking recently that I should start my own forum somewhere else, if for no other reason than it would increase the exposure to wisdom. It does seem a bit silly to have the three of us in the one place, although each of us does venture off on occasion to wreak some havoc in other parts of the net.
-
Is every group of women automatically a herd? Is it somehow different when it's men? Are you & Dan & Kevin running this forum in the manner of a herd?
In all these instances, if the members of the group are intelligent, highly aware, independent thinkers not swayed by the dynamics of group-think, it wouldn't constitute a herd. It would instead be a loose gathering of independent thinkers.
DQ: Perhaps if one of these women organized a similar exercise on her own, without the support of all her mates, it would begin to attract my interest.
S: I doubt it.
I'm appreciative of anyone, male or female, who stands up to the madness of the world with purpose and courage.
But if everyone must act alone to be worthy, why are the three of you running the forum rather than one lone heroic soul?
That's a good question. I've been thinking recently that I should start my own forum somewhere else, if for no other reason than it would increase the exposure to wisdom. It does seem a bit silly to have the three of us in the one place, although each of us does venture off on occasion to wreak some havoc in other parts of the net.
Well, she was a mediocre writer and unoriginal thinker. But through her eccentricities, she did seem a bit more gutsy and conscious than the average female university student, or the average female full stop.DQ: Like George Sand, for example, who was a female writer in the 19th century and friends with Lizt, Chopin, etc. She used to used to wear men's clothes and trousers all the time in public, which was unheard of back then. That, to me, takes a bit more awareness and courage.
S: You like to play it both ways. If I or someone else had brought up George Sand as an example of a woman who showed courage & individuality, I'm certain you would have sneered at her as a mediocre writer & unoriginal thinker.
-
-
MKFaizi
Sometime soon -- in the next couple of days -- I will make a serious attempt to answer posts in some detail.
However, for the moment, I am just going to say that I have no tolerance for domination from any quarter. I am not subservient. No human being -- male or female -- should be subservient to any idea or history of ideas.
Voicing of opinion in a well constructed way is not hysteria or drama. It's opinion. It is thought -- in the purest sense. I am sick and tired of reading what passes for enlightenment but that bores like stereo directions. I absolutely refuse to believe that enlightenment is like becoming an electrician. I think enlightenment is by one's own definition that can be tested. It is not adherence to a dictum.
In my opinion. the treatise of this forum on enlightenment is following a prescribed way that may provide useful information well worth working through but agreement is not enlightenment. Agreement is just agreement.
Don't tell me about flair and flamboyance in sports. I have watched too many female softball teams and too many female basketball teams to buy that bullshit. There is no comparison between watching eleven year old boys play basketball with watching female basketball. A young female team is much more exciting to watch than a male team. Females fight harder.
Far beyond sports, I think this forum needs a serious challange. In its doddering maturity, Genius has become very staid.
I think it needs a wake up.
Later.
Faizi
However, for the moment, I am just going to say that I have no tolerance for domination from any quarter. I am not subservient. No human being -- male or female -- should be subservient to any idea or history of ideas.
Voicing of opinion in a well constructed way is not hysteria or drama. It's opinion. It is thought -- in the purest sense. I am sick and tired of reading what passes for enlightenment but that bores like stereo directions. I absolutely refuse to believe that enlightenment is like becoming an electrician. I think enlightenment is by one's own definition that can be tested. It is not adherence to a dictum.
In my opinion. the treatise of this forum on enlightenment is following a prescribed way that may provide useful information well worth working through but agreement is not enlightenment. Agreement is just agreement.
Don't tell me about flair and flamboyance in sports. I have watched too many female softball teams and too many female basketball teams to buy that bullshit. There is no comparison between watching eleven year old boys play basketball with watching female basketball. A young female team is much more exciting to watch than a male team. Females fight harder.
Far beyond sports, I think this forum needs a serious challange. In its doddering maturity, Genius has become very staid.
I think it needs a wake up.
Later.
Faizi
-
MKFaizi
-
MKFaizi