by ubercynicmeister » Mon 24 Jul 2006, 23:00:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', ' ')They look - and WANT to look - like mannekins, store window dummies.
You'd have to BE a dummy to want to look like that.
It's sad really. The majority of young girls nowadays hate their bodies.
But that's what the feminists wanted them to do. Sure the capitalists made money offa it, but it was the Feminist who started the trend.
Think of the case before Feminism. Women, like men, just accepted what was their role in life. Men accepted it was their role to go down the coal mine - or off to war - and die early so his wife & kids could live on the proceeds of his ruined health and his early death.
Then along comes Feminism and tells women that "Hey, you can have what HE's having!" Yup, a fast-track to coronary heart disease, arteriosclerosis, the various digestive complaints that slowly wreck men's health, YEP, and the stress, woohoo, yesiree, you can have all that!
Many women who went out and got a job found (surprise surprise) it wasn't (gasp) the ego-trip they'd been told it was. One can almost feel the hurt astonishment from many women attesting to this fact. They found that employers were
NOT handing out the fulfillment, the security, the ego-gratifying power-trips that the Feminists had told women was men's lot in life. In fact, since women joined the work-place, the phrase "dead end job" has been added to the language. This is no coincidence. By doubling (effectively) the work-force, the whole show became an Employer's Market - many applicants seeking the one job meant the employers could pick and choose. And thus drive down the worker's conditions and pay and job security.
Women's fault for buying this? No,
NOT AT ALL.The Feminist's fault for selling it.
If I sell you a faulty car, because of a neato paint-job and a sleek finish and really good sales pitch, and you're inexperienced enough not to know about said car's faults, are you to blame? Not one bit of it. The Lemon Laws that are now in place in various parts of the world show that this is simply not the case, either, to most legislative assemblies.
The Job Market is similar: we've been sold a lemon. And now one meets the girls who are more jaded than the guys about their place-of-employ. Oddly, the "militantism" that featured before in the lives of these girls, or at least their forebears, is noticeably absent. They just grumble a little, whine a little and get on with the business of being exploited - this time, not by their roles in life, but by their employers.
Indeed, they actively defend the Top Executives that earn 400 times what they earn, or 500 or 600 times...woohhoo, Feminism is Big Business' Greatest Friend! They actively want women to get into the top jobs so that ...they can be exploited by a girl instead of a guy! Oh, So Much Better!
Yippeee!
Hoo-Bloody-ray.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')elf-harm is rampant.
This self-harm comes out of the modern schizophrenia (hope I've spelt that corectly) which underlies our Society's workings. On the one hand, we are told that if we join in the economic free-for-all (which turns out to be ever more expensive), then we'll get everything we want...all our dreams fullfilled!
On the other, we observe the reailty: we're handed pre-packaged dreams for sale (there's that word again! Isn't it amazing how expensive the "free" market is?) and told to abandon all of the "old" stuff so we can get the latest stuff. It's only after the old stuff has degraded to the point of unusability we note that the new stuff is actually no better, and indeed, never-seems-to-quite-live-up-to-the-saleshype.
Take computers. Microstuffed dominates the planet's software markets. look at all of the promises of the computer age: more leisure time; less work (just press a button!); faster, easier communications; and heck, what do we end up with?
LESS leisure time - and now they expect you to do your work at HOME. Recent studies suggest that people in computerised offices now have to work (for free) at least 1/2 a day's worth at home (on weekends...now where was the leisure again?) in order to read, understand and reply to emails.
EMAILS?!?! This technology was supposed to keep our lives informed. Instead we're flooded with every form of useless trivia we never needed to know, didn't want to know and have no desire to know. "Free" Speech Gone Mad.
"Productivity" with computers initially went up, but has now dropped to the point where some offices are seriously considering lowering their use of the computer. I expect to see some announcement shortly of a business which has abandoned the use of 'em and how it's productivity will have gone up.
Computers are a confuser's delight. They make the unimportant invincible. They provide "facts" to support suspect ideas, if not outright bogus schemes that obviously will not work, but because the computer said...well, it must be right. They are the best example of the overpowering effect of Social Articulateness.
How often do we hear of someone's IDENTITY being stolen (and that happened before computerisation? Not to the same vast and easy extent). Some innocent person gets charged with fraud, or arrested for the crimes of someone else. Why? Oh, the computer popped out that person's name and the computer cannot be wrong. Whatever happened to the old idea that "the innocent shall not suffer along with the guilty"...? I suppose that got ditched at about the same time as honesty and good manners.
"Self-harm" is the natural reaction of any person who hasn't (quite) figured out WHY it's happening but has a keen observation of WHAT is happening. Is not "stress" a form - induced maybe - of "self-harm"?
I have a poster that says it best:
STRESS: The confusion created when one's mind overrides the body's basic desire to choke the living s**t out of some A*******e who desperately needs it.One de-stresses by having a good laugh at the situation. And aren't the Feminists noted for their anti-humour?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ostly it's the capitalists trying to sell their wares trying to make everyone feel insecure and it's hurting the young.
by ubercynicmeister » Mon 24 Jul 2006, 23:54:47
Hi Wildrose, and may thanks for your cool-headedness about this issue.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')
Post Peak Oil, being on one's own looks good, but it's a sure-fire recipie for a really bad ending. Y'see, we all get to points in our lives when we need help - in illness, for example. Post Peak Oil, we won't have the myriad Oil-based medicines that presently spill off the shelves at the local pharmacist. And a sick person cannot gather food very well, if at all. So, if you're on your own, expect to become a sick, STARVING person, rather fast.
Yes, we certainly need others at many times in our lives, and in times of hardship even more than ever.
I look after my mother, who has dementia. Looking after her means I see that we ALL need help at all times of our life. Sure, I'm young, moderately fit, moderately strong male and thus seemingly able to help a frail old woman in her day-to-day living.
I can assure you, though, while I can do 90% of the stuff on my own, there are things I really do need help for. I'm not saying this in order to Big Note myself, rather it's to point out that odd thing about humans: it is only in helping others do we realise that we need help ourselves. This is in a Society that has almost every mechanical and organisational convenience, too - available at a price.
Thus if I wanted to abandon my responsibility to my Mum, I could - buy using money to purchase something to do it. The love of money is really the love of the absence of personal responsibility.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ost peak oil, when things start to unravel, I think it would be the rare person who would find more advantages to being alone. Treating illness, finding food, battling loneliness and despair and just plain laughing would be easier with a partner, friends, family. IMO, we'll need to surround ourselves with people we trust.
Yes, exactly. It won't matter if you're a heterosexual or homosexual, either: surrounding yourself by people who will sell you out - even if they are of the same sexual preference as yourself - is a fast way to be knifed in the back. I can only add that we need to surround ourselves with people who deserve trust.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o how do we reconcile the estrangement between men and women that you describe?
by TheTurtle » Tue 25 Jul 2006, 08:01:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')That's called "marriage", Threadbear. I have quite a few friends who're male homosexuals, but they never have sex with other "gay" guys. They have sex with heterosexual married guys whose wives (in their late 20's!) have turned around and said "We've had our second child, now...so if you love me, don't ever ask for sex ever again."
Hmmm ... as someone who has been contentedly married for several decades without once seeking sex outside of his marriage, I'd have to say that this situation says a lot more about the latent sexuality of the "heterosexual" married guys than it necessarily does about the nature of marriage.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
-
TheTurtle
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
-
by threadbear » Tue 25 Jul 2006, 22:26:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')That's called "marriage", Threadbear. I have quite a few friends who're male homosexuals, but they never have sex with other "gay" guys. They have sex with heterosexual married guys whose wives (in their late 20's!) have turned around and said "We've had our second child, now...so if you love me, don't ever ask for sex ever again."
Hmmm ... as someone who has been contentedly married for several decades without once seeking sex outside of his marriage, I'd have to say that this situation says a lot more about the latent sexuality of the "heterosexual" married guys than it necessarily does about the nature of marriage.
When someone uses the word content to describe their marriage I sense latent suppressed screaming desire. I'm not surprised men end up with other men, if their track record with women has been horrible and their wives despise them. Sexuality is much more amorphous than we were led to believe, growing up, so it's not the same guilt inducing trip for younger men who are closer to the middle of the spectrum.
by WildRose » Wed 26 Jul 2006, 12:36:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')When someone uses the word content to describe their marriage I sense latent suppressed screaming desire.
Why when it comes to sex it's all supposed to be fireworks, or it's just not good enough? I'm content with my sex life, and I wouldn't want it to be otherwise. I wouldn't ever get anything done if I spent an hour a day having great sex. (Been there, done that, and it's great for a couple of months, but I wouldn't like it to be a permanent feature of my life.)
I'm with Doly and Turtle on this one.
This is another area where Hollywood and magazines have intruded into our lives in a negative way, I think. If we took their message to heart, we'd be searching for something new and better all the time.
I've been with the same man 31 years (27 married), and I wouldn't trade the rewards of a great marriage for novelty any day. Novelty wears off, and then what are you left with?
"Content" means "satisfied". What's wrong with that?
by TheTurtle » Wed 26 Jul 2006, 18:33:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')s the person who describes his love life as one of "contentment" not more susceptible to get hit by the mid life crazies and either leave his or her, wife/ husband?
Well, in my particular case I've already been through the mid life crazies.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
-
TheTurtle
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
-
by TheTurtle » Wed 26 Jul 2006, 19:19:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', 'Y')es, I was really just throwing in my ideas about what "content" could mean to different people - to each his own! Also, another thought - just because there is a lot of contentment, doesn't mean there isn't a lot of spark!
In fact, I'd go on to add that contentment implies that its as sparky as you want it to be. If you weren't satisfied with the sparkiness level, then you wouldn't be content.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
-
TheTurtle
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
-
by ubercynicmeister » Thu 27 Jul 2006, 23:40:33
Hi Wildrosee... I cannot but acknowledge your posting and have to apologise - I've got the damn flu and my head is full of cotton wool, and I ain't feelin' a ALL well.
So my reposne is gonna be short but I dunno about sweet...saccharin I can avoid, but sweet I dunno about!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'H')i Wildrose, and may thanks for your cool-headedness about this issue.
You're welcome! And thank you for responding to the questions I asked. I find that asking questions usually helps me understand another's viewpoint better, and you put a lot into your response.
I agree with your analogy of Peak Oil and the conflicts in gender relations as they relate to demand destruction. It appears that with both, it has been our insatiable demands that have landed us in the trouble we're in. It's very difficult to consider solutions when all we do is demand what we want!
OH, too true! Oh, too true!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')oodwill/"karma"/what goes around comes around...Isn't that so true? I have also observed this many times, as well as the flip side, "bad karma", which resulted from my NOT helping someone or doing the right thing when I could have. Fortunately, I have learned some lessons along the way. When I was younger I thought I was so capable and strong that I didn't need anyone's help, and things happened that forced me to look at my own need for assistance at times. With this came the realization that: it's okay to need help, it's wonderful to receive it sometimes, and it's a blessing to give assistance where I can. For me, it was part of the maturation process, part of the "awareness of community" that I keep harping about.
LOL, you can keep talkign about it as long as you like, in my opinion. I would ask in all gentleness and politness for you to please avoid the cliches and the jargon. As once was said about that: "Vague beneath a claim to precision" (I should expound on this, but my head isn't up to it...kinda flat today!)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou wrote about the fact that we all do things that drive others crazy and how it's important that we accept this about each other as part of our own humanity.
by rogerhb » Fri 28 Jul 2006, 00:39:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'T')he same with human ...psychology...? Um, whatever word one uses, it looks like we need a small amount of trouble in our lives - and it pains me to write these words, I'd rather escape from it, at any cost! - in order for our "immune system" of our minds not to go nuts and start attacking us, instead of the bad stuff.
We all need some roughage in our diet.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
-
rogerhb
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Smalltown New Zealand
-
