It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Conspiracy against Manhood.
page: 9share:
reply to post by eye open doors
Eyes,
The point is that you are very indirect in your femminity. It shows in your posts...in your tack. I could not put my finger on it for several of your posts but finally it clicked in. You are an idealist..not a detailer.
Well first off I should probably attempt to define what I mean by femminine. By this word I mean of this world and the trappings oft this world. Not necessarily female. ..but of the flesh and beliefs of this world.
In this regard both you and Shazam are not that far apart. You just initially appear to be at opposite ends of the same spectrum line.
For example..I post a concept to you ..you reply at sort of a tangent..not the central concept. Very indirect. Now how you want to do this ..that is your buisness...I merely make note of it as I had been thinking there was something about your posting I could not quite lock into.
No..I understand that it was not your intention to do well by Shazam. No problem here with me. I merely point out why it does not do well or he does not get it. However, I agree with your point about obvious insecurities and am glad I was not the only one to see it for what it is.
LOL LOL LOL..NO Eyes, I am not calling you a liar. Sorry ..but your reaction in this is a bit humorous to me.
As to my risk philosophy..it is very real. I know this in speaking to many people that risk does not fit into thier way of thinking. What they deserve does. Im ok ...Your ok...I am good people....therefore I deserve good and Ideal things. Risk is for other people..my dreams and expectations are what is happening. Even if I have to play through on the risks of others. I have had numerous opportunitys to have this working philosophy confirmed to me by others. It ,too, is real.
When I earn my moneys in putting a uranium fuels cell into a reactors ..it is real..not an oversimplification. When I look at the people on whom I choose to spend my moneys and time..it is also not an oversimplification...for I know explicitly what RISK I have taken in earning it. To not show proper respect, care, or consideration for the RISK I take ...means the woman or women or women and children on whom I spend my moneys also dont respect me. When one sees and spots this all around us ..this is not an academic, theoretical , philosophical excercise. I am not wont to let them default through on "Givens" also known as social default settings.
People who usually play default settings often do so in implicit social techniques...not explicit social settings. Implicit ..gives them more wiggle room. It is the same with a politician.
People with such sentiments ..often play or attempt to play through on "feelings" as if what is correct and right is based on feelings...emotions, sentiments, or even dreams.
Those of us who work in occupations involving RISK...must stow our emotions and feelings in order to accomplish our tasks. We do not always live for our emotions and dreams/ideals ..we must dicipline ourselves. We are quite explicit about this and not implicit. Emotions, dreams and Ideals at the wrong time can get us hurt or killed. They are a luxury...not an entitlement.
I have learned to spot this by observation and training.
Does this make me better than others....no, not possible. It does make me different.
Thanks for your post Eyes,
Orangetom
Eyes,
The point is that you are very indirect in your femminity. It shows in your posts...in your tack. I could not put my finger on it for several of your posts but finally it clicked in. You are an idealist..not a detailer.
Well first off I should probably attempt to define what I mean by femminine. By this word I mean of this world and the trappings oft this world. Not necessarily female. ..but of the flesh and beliefs of this world.
In this regard both you and Shazam are not that far apart. You just initially appear to be at opposite ends of the same spectrum line.
For example..I post a concept to you ..you reply at sort of a tangent..not the central concept. Very indirect. Now how you want to do this ..that is your buisness...I merely make note of it as I had been thinking there was something about your posting I could not quite lock into.
It wasn't my intention to do well by Shazam. I chose to use his reactions through his obvious insecurities to give me a place to post some of my beliefs.
No..I understand that it was not your intention to do well by Shazam. No problem here with me. I merely point out why it does not do well or he does not get it. However, I agree with your point about obvious insecurities and am glad I was not the only one to see it for what it is.
LOL LOL LOL..NO Eyes, I am not calling you a liar. Sorry ..but your reaction in this is a bit humorous to me.
As to my risk philosophy..it is very real. I know this in speaking to many people that risk does not fit into thier way of thinking. What they deserve does. Im ok ...Your ok...I am good people....therefore I deserve good and Ideal things. Risk is for other people..my dreams and expectations are what is happening. Even if I have to play through on the risks of others. I have had numerous opportunitys to have this working philosophy confirmed to me by others. It ,too, is real.
When I earn my moneys in putting a uranium fuels cell into a reactors ..it is real..not an oversimplification. When I look at the people on whom I choose to spend my moneys and time..it is also not an oversimplification...for I know explicitly what RISK I have taken in earning it. To not show proper respect, care, or consideration for the RISK I take ...means the woman or women or women and children on whom I spend my moneys also dont respect me. When one sees and spots this all around us ..this is not an academic, theoretical , philosophical excercise. I am not wont to let them default through on "Givens" also known as social default settings.
People who usually play default settings often do so in implicit social techniques...not explicit social settings. Implicit ..gives them more wiggle room. It is the same with a politician.
People with such sentiments ..often play or attempt to play through on "feelings" as if what is correct and right is based on feelings...emotions, sentiments, or even dreams.
Those of us who work in occupations involving RISK...must stow our emotions and feelings in order to accomplish our tasks. We do not always live for our emotions and dreams/ideals ..we must dicipline ourselves. We are quite explicit about this and not implicit. Emotions, dreams and Ideals at the wrong time can get us hurt or killed. They are a luxury...not an entitlement.
I have learned to spot this by observation and training.
Does this make me better than others....no, not possible. It does make me different.
Thanks for your post Eyes,
Orangetom
After reading and thinking about this discussion thread I have ultimately reached the conclusion that too many of us compare ourselves to what we see
in the media and in the movies - Expectations are not realistic and at best really superficial. A real man does not have to prove himself to anyone -
He knows who he is.
Caballero,
Oh..by the way..I dont have a problem with women getting drafted and going off to war. This is equal liability as well as equal responsibility. It is equal..not just semantics.
However..it will cause huge problems in discontent with people who have survived to that point..on default settings to play through unchallanged.
I dont understand why so many feel that woman need to be in the military? why am i the only one who speaks out against this?
First of all it is more dangerous for woman to be in the military already let alon if we let them into combat. due to rape, and abuse of power from higher ups for sexual favors. Sex between the two genders would most likely increase if we integrated the military wouldnt that make things messy in a combat situation? the whole army is supposed to function as a cohesive whole if we were to have sex introduced to the comabt situation we would have couples or whatever more than likely defending their sexual partner from harm. THATS NOT A GOOD THING IN A COMBAT SITUATION!!!!!no one should be focusing their defense on one person, it should be focused on the group or the mission objective or something not couples defending each other from harm.
not to mention if a unit with a woman in it were to ever be captured then the women of that unit would be raped and tortured endlessly. what part of any of that sounds like it would be good for the army?
We always talk about how stupid war is "send our boys home" but now we want to send woman into this already bad situation to make it worse.
if there is some logic behind why anyone feels that its good for woman to be in combat, then please enlighten me because the way i see it now is that the bad aspects greatly outway the good ones and would only cause in more death.
[edit on 14-5-2008 by caballero]
[edit on 14-5-2008 by caballero]
[edit on 14-5-2008 by caballero]
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
Well, I for one can speak up and say something first hand since I experienced that mighty law on my back. I am Serb living in UK since '89. Never really dated an English women but had a few short encounters.
Then after 10 years or so I met this girl (Woman) and we fell in love it was great for a year or so. Decide to have a baby and got a perfect little girl. Little before that and ever since I was harassed and thrown out of our home on numerous occasions.
She is not post natal depressed or anything like that just violent tempered.
Her Mother warned me of that but I was kind of blind at the time.
Each time after her very violent outbursts I literally fled to my Sisters place sometimes during the night.
Happened at least dozen times before I've had enough and told her it is over for good. Difference between her and me is that she can say that twice a day and go back and say she didn't meant it where I say what I mean and opposite.
Since then she tried to get me back for several years but I said no and I was being harassed on the phone where I had to change the number eventually.
She always said unless we are together playing happy families I will never see my Daughter. She was true to her words for once.
I have not seen my little Angel for over 4 years now because I can't stand the sight of that woman and hear her voice. Her voice can send me jumping in the air.
I am so traumatized by her that is unreal. I was close to beating her up so many times but I just left because in this country if you do something right (in this case it would be beneficial for all of us for her to get some good beating) we would get arrested and get a court order to stay away etc..
Back home Women don't use children as a weapon and if they do there is a way for a Man to do something himself to change her mind without the court intervention. People understand they don't have to be together but kids have to know both parents. As simple as that.
We are hanged by the balls in UK and the law is getting so f... up it's unreal!!!
She mentally abused me yet I've heard from her friends stories that I am apparently the one who was causing all the trouble.
I know it takes two to get the story right but this is what it was yet I suffer without seeing my Baby girl.
Dogs on the street are taken care of in UK but Fathers and Men can go and die and law has no interest to defend OUR basic liberties and peace.
When they say defend family values it means defend a Woman regardless if she is deranged, disturbed, mentally abusive etc..
You would think those law makers have no families and no need to defend their own butt. How did they come up with all that crap I would really like to know?!?
Makes me sick
Well, I for one can speak up and say something first hand since I experienced that mighty law on my back. I am Serb living in UK since '89. Never really dated an English women but had a few short encounters.
Then after 10 years or so I met this girl (Woman) and we fell in love it was great for a year or so. Decide to have a baby and got a perfect little girl. Little before that and ever since I was harassed and thrown out of our home on numerous occasions.
She is not post natal depressed or anything like that just violent tempered.
Her Mother warned me of that but I was kind of blind at the time.
Each time after her very violent outbursts I literally fled to my Sisters place sometimes during the night.
Happened at least dozen times before I've had enough and told her it is over for good. Difference between her and me is that she can say that twice a day and go back and say she didn't meant it where I say what I mean and opposite.
Since then she tried to get me back for several years but I said no and I was being harassed on the phone where I had to change the number eventually.
She always said unless we are together playing happy families I will never see my Daughter. She was true to her words for once.
I have not seen my little Angel for over 4 years now because I can't stand the sight of that woman and hear her voice. Her voice can send me jumping in the air.
I am so traumatized by her that is unreal. I was close to beating her up so many times but I just left because in this country if you do something right (in this case it would be beneficial for all of us for her to get some good beating) we would get arrested and get a court order to stay away etc..
Back home Women don't use children as a weapon and if they do there is a way for a Man to do something himself to change her mind without the court intervention. People understand they don't have to be together but kids have to know both parents. As simple as that.
We are hanged by the balls in UK and the law is getting so f... up it's unreal!!!
She mentally abused me yet I've heard from her friends stories that I am apparently the one who was causing all the trouble.
I know it takes two to get the story right but this is what it was yet I suffer without seeing my Baby girl.
Dogs on the street are taken care of in UK but Fathers and Men can go and die and law has no interest to defend OUR basic liberties and peace.
When they say defend family values it means defend a Woman regardless if she is deranged, disturbed, mentally abusive etc..
You would think those law makers have no families and no need to defend their own butt. How did they come up with all that crap I would really like to know?!?
Makes me sick
reply to post by caballero
Caballero,
Life requires risk...not defaulting through on the risks of others. Women want equality..they need to take the risks for the system under which they live and work. This also means equal liability and equal responsibility. It does not mean options while someone else takes the risks.
I can not argue the point that it is dangerous for women to be in the military let alone in combat..because it is true.
Are you argueing the point that because men are men and more capable ...that they are more expendable and disposable than women?
If men, by this nature are more expendable and disposable than women ...they are in fact second class citizens and no equality is taking place....correct??? They can be regarded in this social structure as less worthy of consideration when their lives are at risk than are women?? Men therefore need to take more risk. Is this not like indentured servitude for a social structure where some group gets a benefit without risk..without danger. Meaning this group can afford to remain perpetual children...and take life for granted...since they can default the risks to others.??
Let me see if I understand you correctly Caballero..men can be mauled.burned.dismembered...shot..et al...etc etc etc. in war..but the absolute worst that can happen to a woman in war..is rape??? Rape is much worse than anything that ever happens or has happened to a male??
Therefore the most expendable and disposable commodity in this world is a male?? I am not arguing here for rape..I am just trying to fully comprehend your value system here...your sense of nobility.
Do our laws and social status in this country reflect this tendency...by this I mean male disposability and expendability?? War or not??
Is this equality ..or is this a default playing through where some get benefits without risks..based on assumptions??
OH..by they way...The military does in fact have huge problems with the women integrated into the services. They are just not problems that they are wont to let the general public know. The military like many colleges and public schools is a cloistered enviornment. They can pretty easily conceal what they dont want the public to know.
The military of the USA has in fact become a huge social program where some take extreme advantage of the system within. They cannot actually afford to get out or go into the civilian market for employment. They would not make it or survive without the government nipple taking care of them. By this I mean male and female both.
This is costing the government ie..the military billions and billions.
At one time there were quite a number of women in the Navy getting pregnant when it was their time to go to sea...and then getting abortions but remaining at a shore station. Then repeating the cycle when necessary. This was not a pattern the Navy was wont to make public. I understand the Navy has made adjustments to overcome this trend..I am not sure what they are.
The problem came when it was time for the men to roate back to shore positions ..these positions and slots were often taken up with these pregnant women. In short it became massive discrimination. The men became second class sailors in a system they were taking extreme risks to support. Many men got fed up and left the Navy or retired.
Many of the other services experienced similar problems of which they were not wont to make public.
I am not sure how the Navy overcame these problems..or if they fully have. Perhapsed some on here can enlighten us.
I am not saying that all the females in the Navy or other services were doing this but it was a noticable number. These women tended gave those other women with integrity a bad label or fingerprint. That is unfortunate.
Nonetheless..I stand by what I said. Equality also means equal responsibility and equal liability ..ie...RISK. Not entitlement or taking for granted what others do in a social structure.
Apolon,
You chose your woman badly. YOu did not know enought to expect more from a woman. Obviously neither did she. She wants her cake and eat it too...at yours and the childs expense.
What you describe..this kind of instability is quite common among women..to use or misuse the children as capital....ie....leverage. You will waste your time and moneys earned at RISK playing to a system of defaults in this manner. The sad truth is that both you and the child will suffer under this system.
The most valuable commodity a woman can bring to a man is Peace..inner Peace. Not Piece as in Piece of Tail. Any woman out here can give a man Piece of Tail. It takes a woman of very high caliber to bring a man inner Peace..with or without children.
Why would a todays woman want to do or maintain the commitments to bring a man inner Peace when she can bring him chaos instead?? And by chaos get a man do default his very soul to her at her option.
Why would todays woman want to do the work or risk it takes to bring a man real commitment/Peace..when she can give him the "appearance of commitment " instead??
You know Apolon, My friend from across the river was married here in Virginia to a English woman. She decided she didnt want to be married and left him...she took her two boys by a previous marriage with her back to England. She went on the public dole..no risks to be taken by her. After about three years she wanted to come back to him. He wasnt having any of it. He had no use for a woman who had broken his trust ..by going from one nipple to another and then wanting back again.
It became like she wanted to hit "reset" on the video game because she didnt like the way the game was going. He decided that the reset button would not be allowed to default through. He was not taking the risks over again ..twice. A womans wishy washy emotions were not going to suffice for him.
However...Apolon I will tell you that my friend did not learn this lesson fully until after he had chosen two other women like this first one. He is very hard headed. He never developed the tools to weed out the wildlife till later in life. Dont you make the same mistake yourself with the next woman down the line. IF you do you will only make yourself expendable and disposable again. Develope the tools to weed out the wildlife. Build yourself a wildlife filter.
There is lots of wildlife out here both male and female.
What thinking men learn is that they are expendable and disposable. Their emotions and sentiments dont count. The more economically affluent a social/economic structure is the more the men dont count. That is....until RISKS are to be taken.
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 14-5-2008 by orangetom1999]
Caballero,
Life requires risk...not defaulting through on the risks of others. Women want equality..they need to take the risks for the system under which they live and work. This also means equal liability and equal responsibility. It does not mean options while someone else takes the risks.
I can not argue the point that it is dangerous for women to be in the military let alone in combat..because it is true.
Are you argueing the point that because men are men and more capable ...that they are more expendable and disposable than women?
If men, by this nature are more expendable and disposable than women ...they are in fact second class citizens and no equality is taking place....correct??? They can be regarded in this social structure as less worthy of consideration when their lives are at risk than are women?? Men therefore need to take more risk. Is this not like indentured servitude for a social structure where some group gets a benefit without risk..without danger. Meaning this group can afford to remain perpetual children...and take life for granted...since they can default the risks to others.??
Let me see if I understand you correctly Caballero..men can be mauled.burned.dismembered...shot..et al...etc etc etc. in war..but the absolute worst that can happen to a woman in war..is rape??? Rape is much worse than anything that ever happens or has happened to a male??
Therefore the most expendable and disposable commodity in this world is a male?? I am not arguing here for rape..I am just trying to fully comprehend your value system here...your sense of nobility.
Do our laws and social status in this country reflect this tendency...by this I mean male disposability and expendability?? War or not??
Is this equality ..or is this a default playing through where some get benefits without risks..based on assumptions??
OH..by they way...The military does in fact have huge problems with the women integrated into the services. They are just not problems that they are wont to let the general public know. The military like many colleges and public schools is a cloistered enviornment. They can pretty easily conceal what they dont want the public to know.
The military of the USA has in fact become a huge social program where some take extreme advantage of the system within. They cannot actually afford to get out or go into the civilian market for employment. They would not make it or survive without the government nipple taking care of them. By this I mean male and female both.
This is costing the government ie..the military billions and billions.
At one time there were quite a number of women in the Navy getting pregnant when it was their time to go to sea...and then getting abortions but remaining at a shore station. Then repeating the cycle when necessary. This was not a pattern the Navy was wont to make public. I understand the Navy has made adjustments to overcome this trend..I am not sure what they are.
The problem came when it was time for the men to roate back to shore positions ..these positions and slots were often taken up with these pregnant women. In short it became massive discrimination. The men became second class sailors in a system they were taking extreme risks to support. Many men got fed up and left the Navy or retired.
Many of the other services experienced similar problems of which they were not wont to make public.
I am not sure how the Navy overcame these problems..or if they fully have. Perhapsed some on here can enlighten us.
I am not saying that all the females in the Navy or other services were doing this but it was a noticable number. These women tended gave those other women with integrity a bad label or fingerprint. That is unfortunate.
Nonetheless..I stand by what I said. Equality also means equal responsibility and equal liability ..ie...RISK. Not entitlement or taking for granted what others do in a social structure.
Apolon,
You chose your woman badly. YOu did not know enought to expect more from a woman. Obviously neither did she. She wants her cake and eat it too...at yours and the childs expense.
What you describe..this kind of instability is quite common among women..to use or misuse the children as capital....ie....leverage. You will waste your time and moneys earned at RISK playing to a system of defaults in this manner. The sad truth is that both you and the child will suffer under this system.
The most valuable commodity a woman can bring to a man is Peace..inner Peace. Not Piece as in Piece of Tail. Any woman out here can give a man Piece of Tail. It takes a woman of very high caliber to bring a man inner Peace..with or without children.
Why would a todays woman want to do or maintain the commitments to bring a man inner Peace when she can bring him chaos instead?? And by chaos get a man do default his very soul to her at her option.
Why would todays woman want to do the work or risk it takes to bring a man real commitment/Peace..when she can give him the "appearance of commitment " instead??
You know Apolon, My friend from across the river was married here in Virginia to a English woman. She decided she didnt want to be married and left him...she took her two boys by a previous marriage with her back to England. She went on the public dole..no risks to be taken by her. After about three years she wanted to come back to him. He wasnt having any of it. He had no use for a woman who had broken his trust ..by going from one nipple to another and then wanting back again.
It became like she wanted to hit "reset" on the video game because she didnt like the way the game was going. He decided that the reset button would not be allowed to default through. He was not taking the risks over again ..twice. A womans wishy washy emotions were not going to suffice for him.
However...Apolon I will tell you that my friend did not learn this lesson fully until after he had chosen two other women like this first one. He is very hard headed. He never developed the tools to weed out the wildlife till later in life. Dont you make the same mistake yourself with the next woman down the line. IF you do you will only make yourself expendable and disposable again. Develope the tools to weed out the wildlife. Build yourself a wildlife filter.
There is lots of wildlife out here both male and female.
What thinking men learn is that they are expendable and disposable. Their emotions and sentiments dont count. The more economically affluent a social/economic structure is the more the men dont count. That is....until RISKS are to be taken.
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 14-5-2008 by orangetom1999]
Eyes,
The point is that you are very indirect in your femminity.
I will have to ponder this statement more.
You are an idealist..not a detailer.
I am prone to viewing things in their higher light. Can you please expand on detailer?
Well first off I should probably attempt to define what I mean by femminine. By this word I mean of this world and the trappings oft this world. Not necessarily female. ..but of the flesh and beliefs of this world.
I would like you to also expand on this as well. Will you give the distinctions between the two. Feminine and masculine.
As to my risk philosophy..it is very real. I know this in speaking to many people that risk does not fit into thier way of thinking. What they deserve does. Im ok ...Your ok...I am good people....therefore I deserve good and Ideal things. Risk is for other people..my dreams and expectations are what is happening. Even if I have to play through on the risks of others. I have had numerous opportunitys to have this working philosophy confirmed to me by others. It ,too, is real.
Anyone who does not recognise that there is risk in every action and choice (to certain degrees) is deluding themselves in my opinion.
When I look at the people on whom I choose to spend my moneys and time..it is also not an oversimplification...for I know explicitly what RISK I have taken in earning it. To not show proper respect, care, or consideration for the RISK I take ...means the woman or women or women and children on whom I spend my moneys also dont respect me.
Intention is what comes to my mind when I read this.
I am not wont to let them default through on "Givens" also known as social default settings.
Such as stereotypes, or absolutes?
People who usually play default settings often do so in implicit social techniques...not explicit social settings. Implicit ..gives them more wiggle room.
They get a pay off of sorts?
People with such sentiments ..often play or attempt to play through on "feelings" as if what is correct and right is based on feelings...emotions, sentiments, or even dreams.
What about intuition?
Thanks for your post Eyes,
Orangetom
Thank you for yours. The risk was worth it. I have much to ponder here.
reply to post by eye open doors
Eyes,
Having a bit of lunch here before shoving off this afternoon so this will be somewhat in haste.
No question about it..you are prone to viewing things in a higher light. Nothing wrong with this. Truth be known ..it takes both types to make a complex system work. Both idealists and detailers.
The detailer works by taking the ideal and seeing each and every individual step necessary to get to the ideal..the goal. Including the risks involved. The idealist is not initrested in either the details or the risks..only the goals.
The detailer knows that any mistep can possibly bring down the whole project or set it back heavily in time moneys and RISKS. The idealist has no regard for any of this ..they just want it done...they dont particularly care how it is done as long as they are not burdened by the process...ie..RISKS!!
Femminine is not necessarily female as such. For there are indeed females who are fine and accomplished detailers. They can see and understand what it takes to get to a goal. They are not deluded by defaults. They indeed know about RISK. They can sometimes be few and far between but they are out here. But truth be known you are finding more and more males with the fingerprint of idealists...or dreamers.
Femminine gels down to someone who has the fingerprint of this world and the things of this world as being the greatest expression of their hummanity. THey want to "feel" their way through life..emote., so to speak. As I stated ..Im good people..im ok your ok.
It sometimes takes alot of acumen or training to spot it as they often hide or conceal this fingerprint with alot of fluff.
Masculinie ..knows what is RISK and what it bodes. Shows due respect to RISK and those who take it to earn their livings in this world. Males and females...both. Masculine ..like femminity is not limited to males ..women can also do this. Masculine knows instinctively that their are details to be taken into consideration and that life does not just happen between sound bites or commercial interruptions. This is the exact opposite of what passes for many of our most vocal politicians.
Yes..precisely...and often without RISK.
Intuition is fine with me...nothing wrong with intuition properly used. Intuition in this case of which we are speaking is not justification for a default setting to play through and RISK someone else.
Gotta make haste now...time window is closing on me.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Orangetom
Eyes,
Having a bit of lunch here before shoving off this afternoon so this will be somewhat in haste.
I am prone to viewing things in their higher light. Can you please expand on detailer?
No question about it..you are prone to viewing things in a higher light. Nothing wrong with this. Truth be known ..it takes both types to make a complex system work. Both idealists and detailers.
The detailer works by taking the ideal and seeing each and every individual step necessary to get to the ideal..the goal. Including the risks involved. The idealist is not initrested in either the details or the risks..only the goals.
The detailer knows that any mistep can possibly bring down the whole project or set it back heavily in time moneys and RISKS. The idealist has no regard for any of this ..they just want it done...they dont particularly care how it is done as long as they are not burdened by the process...ie..RISKS!!
Femminine is not necessarily female as such. For there are indeed females who are fine and accomplished detailers. They can see and understand what it takes to get to a goal. They are not deluded by defaults. They indeed know about RISK. They can sometimes be few and far between but they are out here. But truth be known you are finding more and more males with the fingerprint of idealists...or dreamers.
Femminine gels down to someone who has the fingerprint of this world and the things of this world as being the greatest expression of their hummanity. THey want to "feel" their way through life..emote., so to speak. As I stated ..Im good people..im ok your ok.
It sometimes takes alot of acumen or training to spot it as they often hide or conceal this fingerprint with alot of fluff.
Masculinie ..knows what is RISK and what it bodes. Shows due respect to RISK and those who take it to earn their livings in this world. Males and females...both. Masculine ..like femminity is not limited to males ..women can also do this. Masculine knows instinctively that their are details to be taken into consideration and that life does not just happen between sound bites or commercial interruptions. This is the exact opposite of what passes for many of our most vocal politicians.
People who usually play default settings often do so in implicit social techniques...not explicit social settings. Implicit ..gives them more wiggle room.
They get a pay off of sorts?
Yes..precisely...and often without RISK.
People with such sentiments ..often play or attempt to play through on "feelings" as if what is correct and right is based on feelings...emotions, sentiments, or even dreams.
What about intuition?
Intuition is fine with me...nothing wrong with intuition properly used. Intuition in this case of which we are speaking is not justification for a default setting to play through and RISK someone else.
Gotta make haste now...time window is closing on me.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Orangetom
reply to post by orangetom1999
Well spoken my Friend! You've got a star from me. I admit my senses have warned me about her temper but I thought I can control it by loving her and by sheer affection. It is shame that People in general bite the hand that feeds them. In this case I mean hurting the only Person you should really trust.
Before her and since I've been with a wonderful girls and completely enjoyed my relationships to the full.
I just happened to make a baby with the worst possible person for me unfortunately.
I believe that People should enjoy the relationship and one another otherwise what is the point being together if they make each other miserable.
When she apologized she loved to say to split the guilt:
You know it takes two People to ruin the relationship!
I've told her last time that it takes only one to ruin it but two People to make it work.
If one is causing trouble all the time it will wear down another and kids suffer too. It doesn't need two maniacs to do it.
But it takes two of them to care, respect and love one another to make it for ever. Luckily I am in a steady and lovely relationship for the past 7 months again so it is getting somewhere.
back to the subject.. My view about this is from my perspective and very subjective thing but the way I see the major problem in all this cultural phenomenon regarding womens rights in the past 30 years, namely the feminist movement.
They single handedly destroyed family in the west and are embarking to do the same in eastern Europe and far east with notable success here and there.
I was always very giving and honest to the extreme and problem with that is that I needed a Woman who will not take the advantage of my good nature but embrace it and enjoy it.
Instead many women and people in general take that for granted and instead giving it back they just abuse the Person and their trust. Eventualy I start being weary of the People and now I really don't trust anybody by default. It will take them ages to earn my trust if ever.
I've had my fair share with the girls and I've noticed they are much more money and carrier orientated then guys.
We don't care where she comes from or what she does and how much money she makes, but to them money and power is everything and eventually that wins and they don't mind sleeping with 80 year old guy to get somewhere where I would be sick just trying to imagine scenario like that.
Women have become very unscrupulous and cold. Main objective money and power, preferably both.
That fact by itself was major influence in breaking down nice (lets called them old fashioned values) morals and making animals out of docile Woman.
Watching these crap TV shows glamorizing stupidity and Paris Hiltons and her alike is another major downfall.
Major shift in a domestic and world politics is needed to counteract these self destructive 21st century spice girls and bring them back to negotiating table and listen.
Chat shows as well. I don't know where that list ends but I can name another 20 things that are just as bad for the girls in their tender age. Upbringing in front of telletubbies who can't even speak one coherent sentence and later through teen magazines and paris Hilton as icing on the cake makes for a nightmare Mother and future Wifes. Feminists are evil in modern times. Praising Women on all fronts with and without merit yet putting down everything man stands for.
This world is sinking faster and faster day by day. Who would have thought that Woman might be the downfall of Mans honor and destroyer of his self respect.
Well spoken my Friend! You've got a star from me. I admit my senses have warned me about her temper but I thought I can control it by loving her and by sheer affection. It is shame that People in general bite the hand that feeds them. In this case I mean hurting the only Person you should really trust.
Before her and since I've been with a wonderful girls and completely enjoyed my relationships to the full.
I just happened to make a baby with the worst possible person for me unfortunately.
I believe that People should enjoy the relationship and one another otherwise what is the point being together if they make each other miserable.
When she apologized she loved to say to split the guilt:
You know it takes two People to ruin the relationship!
I've told her last time that it takes only one to ruin it but two People to make it work.
If one is causing trouble all the time it will wear down another and kids suffer too. It doesn't need two maniacs to do it.
But it takes two of them to care, respect and love one another to make it for ever. Luckily I am in a steady and lovely relationship for the past 7 months again so it is getting somewhere.
back to the subject.. My view about this is from my perspective and very subjective thing but the way I see the major problem in all this cultural phenomenon regarding womens rights in the past 30 years, namely the feminist movement.
They single handedly destroyed family in the west and are embarking to do the same in eastern Europe and far east with notable success here and there.
I was always very giving and honest to the extreme and problem with that is that I needed a Woman who will not take the advantage of my good nature but embrace it and enjoy it.
Instead many women and people in general take that for granted and instead giving it back they just abuse the Person and their trust. Eventualy I start being weary of the People and now I really don't trust anybody by default. It will take them ages to earn my trust if ever.
I've had my fair share with the girls and I've noticed they are much more money and carrier orientated then guys.
We don't care where she comes from or what she does and how much money she makes, but to them money and power is everything and eventually that wins and they don't mind sleeping with 80 year old guy to get somewhere where I would be sick just trying to imagine scenario like that.
Women have become very unscrupulous and cold. Main objective money and power, preferably both.
That fact by itself was major influence in breaking down nice (lets called them old fashioned values) morals and making animals out of docile Woman.
Watching these crap TV shows glamorizing stupidity and Paris Hiltons and her alike is another major downfall.
Major shift in a domestic and world politics is needed to counteract these self destructive 21st century spice girls and bring them back to negotiating table and listen.
Chat shows as well. I don't know where that list ends but I can name another 20 things that are just as bad for the girls in their tender age. Upbringing in front of telletubbies who can't even speak one coherent sentence and later through teen magazines and paris Hilton as icing on the cake makes for a nightmare Mother and future Wifes. Feminists are evil in modern times. Praising Women on all fronts with and without merit yet putting down everything man stands for.
This world is sinking faster and faster day by day. Who would have thought that Woman might be the downfall of Mans honor and destroyer of his self respect.
Must really make haste now..after a few arrangements to facillitate shoving off for the day.
By the way..while I am at it..I recall above on this thread...you are Serb by background. I must compliment you in that your English abilitys are far superior to mine and many Yanks with whom I am familiar. My congratulations.
I will remind you however of what I consider one error in your finely worded post. Men are to be leaders..you know like dancing...you lead she follows. This is a dance represenative of life as well. When a man no longer leads you will get the results to which you were witness. It does not matter whether there is a system in play which misleads her.
When a woman no longer respects a man..any man..he is finished. He can no longer lead her properly. This presupposes that a man even know about leading and how to lead.
Most of this tale you are speaking is a man's fault for misreading the tea leaves so to speak about the character of a woman..he at least was half responsible for deceiving himself ..if not all the way resonsible...as to the character or quality of the caliber of woman he was getting. Men need better tools to filter out all the wildlife ...and there is alot of wildlife out there trying to pass itself off as womanhood.
Men need to raise the bar on what they will accept in a woman..and not succumb to sex, beauty, and cheap merchandizing which is what so many of the women out here are offering. Once again..this is a mans fault for settling for such placebos.
Sad truth about so many men of whom I am familiar is that their requirements of a woman are so low they are horribly grateful if they even get these low expectations met. How could a woman possibly respect a man like this?? He cannot by this low expectation ..define his manhood.
I know so many women for whom if you expected more than beauty and sex/sexuality ..they would rather give you beauty and sex...it requires less commitment and work...ie..RISK. Yet so many men settle for this placebo template ..for marriage. Astonishing!!! They will suffer misery or what I call ..... "Male disposability and expendability."
There is a whole governmental system in place..to insure that many of these women can go from a man as a security blanket to the government as a security blanket or a replacement male without risks. They can now play both the government and the male. It is far worse in heavy socialist natoin like England, Australia, and other nations than here in the USA but we are rapidly catching up here.
As I have stated ..politicians/government reinforce this system through thier financing of public education...no help there guys.
The reason government peoples do this type of conduct ....whore out male female relationships is because they know that the important vote to remain in office or power..is the female vote ..not the male vote. IN highly affluent economys..it is the female who has the discretion over how the moneys are spent ..not the male. The male only earns and takes risk for the moneys ..but the females determine how most of it is spent.
Hence the females are the important vote..not the males. Emotional victimization status is the key in getting the women/females on this treadmill..ie..security issues. This leaves the men outside this parameter since men are expected to take care of securuity issues for themselves..plus have surpluses for whatever else comes along.
Most women ..ie..the effeminate ..do not care as long as they dont have to know the details and the RISKS.
You are by circumstance..well aware of both the details and the risks.
To change this system ..the details have to be changed...ie ..the safety net. It is the only lasting change which will help both sexes.
Oh...you do know that a variation of the system you are describing in England was tried in Soviet Russia in the early days of Communism. It turned out to be a disaster and the men began leaving their women and children in droves. They had to reverese the system. Little wonder history is such a poorly taught subject.
Gotta go now. Glad to hear you have better relationships nowdays. However...be well aware that dating is very different from marriage. This can change quickly once the "I do's" take place if you have a stealth woman with which you are dealing. Once again you must be wise in discernment here. Teach yourself discernment...build a B...Shyte filter and learn intimately how to use it. Your soul and well being depend on it. Otherwise you will forefit your soul and well being for B...Shyte. Your RISKS are worth more than B...Shyte. Understand??...learn to raise the bar....and lead her to it....carefully ..lovingly but LEAD!!! Do not settle for second , third, fourth, and further down the line place when you are taking RISKS for first place. The other translation for this state of affairs..."is that nice men finish last" I am not telling you to dog or be mean to a woman but to LEAD...if she is indeed worthy.
I suspect that this state of affairs has always been since the dawn of time.
I believe even back in the cavewomen days ..especially cavewomen with children, that they were not shrinking violets. Why would a man today decieve himself about this??
Hence it is up to a man to know how to lead...not follow. Hence it is primarily a mans fault for the predicament he is in because he is not discerning or leading.
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 14-5-2008 by orangetom1999]
By the way..while I am at it..I recall above on this thread...you are Serb by background. I must compliment you in that your English abilitys are far superior to mine and many Yanks with whom I am familiar. My congratulations.
I will remind you however of what I consider one error in your finely worded post. Men are to be leaders..you know like dancing...you lead she follows. This is a dance represenative of life as well. When a man no longer leads you will get the results to which you were witness. It does not matter whether there is a system in play which misleads her.
When a woman no longer respects a man..any man..he is finished. He can no longer lead her properly. This presupposes that a man even know about leading and how to lead.
Most of this tale you are speaking is a man's fault for misreading the tea leaves so to speak about the character of a woman..he at least was half responsible for deceiving himself ..if not all the way resonsible...as to the character or quality of the caliber of woman he was getting. Men need better tools to filter out all the wildlife ...and there is alot of wildlife out there trying to pass itself off as womanhood.
Men need to raise the bar on what they will accept in a woman..and not succumb to sex, beauty, and cheap merchandizing which is what so many of the women out here are offering. Once again..this is a mans fault for settling for such placebos.
Sad truth about so many men of whom I am familiar is that their requirements of a woman are so low they are horribly grateful if they even get these low expectations met. How could a woman possibly respect a man like this?? He cannot by this low expectation ..define his manhood.
I know so many women for whom if you expected more than beauty and sex/sexuality ..they would rather give you beauty and sex...it requires less commitment and work...ie..RISK. Yet so many men settle for this placebo template ..for marriage. Astonishing!!! They will suffer misery or what I call ..... "Male disposability and expendability."
There is a whole governmental system in place..to insure that many of these women can go from a man as a security blanket to the government as a security blanket or a replacement male without risks. They can now play both the government and the male. It is far worse in heavy socialist natoin like England, Australia, and other nations than here in the USA but we are rapidly catching up here.
As I have stated ..politicians/government reinforce this system through thier financing of public education...no help there guys.
The reason government peoples do this type of conduct ....whore out male female relationships is because they know that the important vote to remain in office or power..is the female vote ..not the male vote. IN highly affluent economys..it is the female who has the discretion over how the moneys are spent ..not the male. The male only earns and takes risk for the moneys ..but the females determine how most of it is spent.
Hence the females are the important vote..not the males. Emotional victimization status is the key in getting the women/females on this treadmill..ie..security issues. This leaves the men outside this parameter since men are expected to take care of securuity issues for themselves..plus have surpluses for whatever else comes along.
Most women ..ie..the effeminate ..do not care as long as they dont have to know the details and the RISKS.
You are by circumstance..well aware of both the details and the risks.
To change this system ..the details have to be changed...ie ..the safety net. It is the only lasting change which will help both sexes.
Oh...you do know that a variation of the system you are describing in England was tried in Soviet Russia in the early days of Communism. It turned out to be a disaster and the men began leaving their women and children in droves. They had to reverese the system. Little wonder history is such a poorly taught subject.
Gotta go now. Glad to hear you have better relationships nowdays. However...be well aware that dating is very different from marriage. This can change quickly once the "I do's" take place if you have a stealth woman with which you are dealing. Once again you must be wise in discernment here. Teach yourself discernment...build a B...Shyte filter and learn intimately how to use it. Your soul and well being depend on it. Otherwise you will forefit your soul and well being for B...Shyte. Your RISKS are worth more than B...Shyte. Understand??...learn to raise the bar....and lead her to it....carefully ..lovingly but LEAD!!! Do not settle for second , third, fourth, and further down the line place when you are taking RISKS for first place. The other translation for this state of affairs..."is that nice men finish last" I am not telling you to dog or be mean to a woman but to LEAD...if she is indeed worthy.
I suspect that this state of affairs has always been since the dawn of time.
I believe even back in the cavewomen days ..especially cavewomen with children, that they were not shrinking violets. Why would a man today decieve himself about this??
Hence it is up to a man to know how to lead...not follow. Hence it is primarily a mans fault for the predicament he is in because he is not discerning or leading.
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 14-5-2008 by orangetom1999]
reply to post by Apolon
Im very sorry to hear this my friend. Look into "fathers for justice" as they are UK based and may be able to help. I dont know many others across the pond who are fighting the good fight, but If I hear of any others Ill let you know.
Im very sorry to hear this my friend. Look into "fathers for justice" as they are UK based and may be able to help. I dont know many others across the pond who are fighting the good fight, but If I hear of any others Ill let you know.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
You are sure about this? Most peoples,male and female, their struggles/fights for survival are daily in their labors and taking care of their familys. This is survival. Dont shortchange people for your provincal view of what constitutes manhood. I will easily demonstrate this for you and the readers with your next quote.
Yes I am sure about this. Like I said, a "fight" isnt some slapfest you may dimly remember form the fourth grade. Men and women are beaten to death every day. When two people with, or without weapons, are trying to violently kill/incapacitate one another, that is a fight. A struggle is a struggle, a fight is a fight. As to "my provincial view" I base my view of manhood on a parphrasing of my sig quote.
"Manhood is the application of vital energy into a pursuit of the masculine virtues as a way of life"
No Shazam. This is why you are not much different from Eyes Open Doors in your femminity. Swapping your value system for someone elses and thinking no one will notice it or that they will be intimidated by this tack....ie.. defaulted into silence such that it will play through unquestioned. This type of one upmanship is very similar to female competition. You see...a smart intelligent man chooses better locations to frequent than places where they will be stabbed, shot , or jumped by multiple attackers. This applies to a smart woman too.
Nice atttempt at missing the point there. Cops, community patrols, neighborhood watches, and many other citizen groups who are very smart, put themselves into precisely those situations everyday. Not to mention the millions worldwide and here in the states who are too poor to avoid such areas. And I was neither, "swapping out my vlaue system" nor expecting anyoen else to.
Bottom line, if you havent experienced something, you dont know # about it. If you havent actually been in a fight, then talking about them is bull#. Like a virgin, you may have read, watched, and studied an thing, but you aint never got your dick wet, and untill you do, you know nothing.
Now Im not saying Im a badass or that I am master professor of violence. But what I do know, is that in many of your statements, you making what I call "the xena fallacy".
The Xena fallacy is the assumption, that women are somehow actually far, far better at violence than men, and are merely holding back (and yes this is insulting to women who have been abused). But "when # gets real" they turn into super-secret, femi-ninja warriors with thier super-powered "mean and viciousness" skills.
Sorry, but a man and a woman, both faced with a situation in which thier lives are in danger are going to o the exact same thing.
Everything they can.
The difference is not in their likely response, but in the tools they have both as individuals and as either male or female.
I am simply pointing out, that in many of these situation men are better equipped.
He does not feel the need to demonstrate his manhood in such an unprofitable manner. In otherwords they are secure in thier manhood. He has no intrest in going places like an alley cat to be scarred and torn up for life in feral competition or meet such dubious company and then boast of it as some kind of standard. Be careful who you approach in this manner...many of us here can see in multiple dimensions/directions...not just one.
What in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
Who said what about demonstrating huh?
Or do you not understand the difference between reading about something and experiencing something?
Again, Virgins should not give out sex advice. We can all agree on that can't we?
yes...like the link you posted. It is a good post and thanks for the link. More stories like this should be posted but the PC media is not wont to do such.
except that the post I was replying to , was one whereupon you implied that only women are willing to go to great lengths to "protect thier cubs" Its a standard "mommy" fallacy. IE you are attributing a universal trait of loving parents to one sex only.
I also recall reading of a woman doing similar at a train station when a famous politician arrived. The crowd surged twords the train carrying the people in the front of the platform onto the tracks. This woman's last despirate act was to toss her child clear before she was crushed to death by the train wheels. Her child survived. This is not strictly a male trait. This too was a sad story. But it demonstrates clearly..both storys... how far a parent will go in thier love and devotion to thier offspring. This is what I mean by more stories like this should be in the news as examples to us all and about a real and honest nobility...their last full measure of honest nobility.
Then why did you, here, try to make it seem as if only women have this trait?
I do know this about most women ...you threaten their children..and you are going to have a tiger by the tail and cannot let go. Woe to any man or other woman against a woman like this if they have a real weapon and know how to use it.
I agree with much of what you say orangetom, but I see much lingering feminist ideology within your own "fingerprint" Perhaps you should subject your own axioms to that same logical scrituiny you are applying to others.
reply to post by caballero
I actually agree here somehwat. The truth is that while all POW's do suffer, (since, by defintiion anyone our soldiers are trying to kill is not a good guy) women, and usually only women, are subjected to sexual abuse. Furthermore, most women simply cant carry the weight of a full combat load out, and even among those who can, women are far more likely to suffer psychological breakdowns due to combat stresses.
Now does that mean women shouldnt be in combat?
Not exactly, there is much research which shows women are better than men in certain ocuations. As an example fighter pilot. In many ways women are better suited to the rigors of high G manuevers. So I think we have to accept, that as men and women are different, there will be some occupations that women simply arent suited for. Rather than trying to find GI Jane, maybe we should worry more about letting women become Maveriki's?
I actually agree here somehwat. The truth is that while all POW's do suffer, (since, by defintiion anyone our soldiers are trying to kill is not a good guy) women, and usually only women, are subjected to sexual abuse. Furthermore, most women simply cant carry the weight of a full combat load out, and even among those who can, women are far more likely to suffer psychological breakdowns due to combat stresses.
Now does that mean women shouldnt be in combat?
Not exactly, there is much research which shows women are better than men in certain ocuations. As an example fighter pilot. In many ways women are better suited to the rigors of high G manuevers. So I think we have to accept, that as men and women are different, there will be some occupations that women simply arent suited for. Rather than trying to find GI Jane, maybe we should worry more about letting women become Maveriki's?
reply to post by orangetom1999
Orangetom, you keep speaking of taking risks and I’m not sure I understand the criteria you are using to define risk. We take risks everyday. For example, when I went back to work last July, I took a heath risk. I had to determine if the risk to my health was greater than the financial risk of not working at that time. When I quit my job in April, it was due to the heath risk being greater than the financial risk.
Women have to weigh the risk of having someone else raise their child to the financial risk when deciding to work or stay home. They take a risk by staying home to raise their own children. They take a risk when working to put their husbands through school. They take a risk by putting off childbirth to pursue a career. They even take a risk by getting married. How are these risks less than any risk taken by a man? Every decision we make is based on risk vs. trust. I know my husband wanted me to work to help us out financially. We made two cross country moves in less than six months which put us in a lot of debt. I had a goal to make x amount of money to pay off credit card bills and get our savings back up to a comfortable level. We both knew it was a risk to my health. When the risk to my health outweighed the financial, we both agreed it was time for me to quit. However, I had already achieved my goal plus some. We take our risk together.
Orangetom, you keep speaking of taking risks and I’m not sure I understand the criteria you are using to define risk. We take risks everyday. For example, when I went back to work last July, I took a heath risk. I had to determine if the risk to my health was greater than the financial risk of not working at that time. When I quit my job in April, it was due to the heath risk being greater than the financial risk.
Women have to weigh the risk of having someone else raise their child to the financial risk when deciding to work or stay home. They take a risk by staying home to raise their own children. They take a risk when working to put their husbands through school. They take a risk by putting off childbirth to pursue a career. They even take a risk by getting married. How are these risks less than any risk taken by a man? Every decision we make is based on risk vs. trust. I know my husband wanted me to work to help us out financially. We made two cross country moves in less than six months which put us in a lot of debt. I had a goal to make x amount of money to pay off credit card bills and get our savings back up to a comfortable level. We both knew it was a risk to my health. When the risk to my health outweighed the financial, we both agreed it was time for me to quit. However, I had already achieved my goal plus some. We take our risk together.
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
i didnt even know about that jet business my whole beef is with them being with the ground troops. they should not be integrated into the ground troops at all in my opinion. but if they are better suited to fly the planes they by god respect them and let them fly planes. they are not suited for ground combat though.
[edit on 14-5-2008 by caballero]
i didnt even know about that jet business my whole beef is with them being with the ground troops. they should not be integrated into the ground troops at all in my opinion. but if they are better suited to fly the planes they by god respect them and let them fly planes. they are not suited for ground combat though.
[edit on 14-5-2008 by caballero]
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
reply to post by caballero
So are you saying that females should only be in the Navy and Air Force? Or that they can be in the Army and Marines if they are pilots? To be honest, I saw a lot of men when I was in the Navy that didn't belong there. I never had to work on an aircraft with a firearm in one hand, but had the situation been necessary, I would have done so.
reply to post by caballero
So are you saying that females should only be in the Navy and Air Force? Or that they can be in the Army and Marines if they are pilots? To be honest, I saw a lot of men when I was in the Navy that didn't belong there. I never had to work on an aircraft with a firearm in one hand, but had the situation been necessary, I would have done so.
Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
reply to post by caballero
So are you saying that females should only be in the Navy and Air Force? Or that they can be in the Army and Marines if they are pilots? To be honest, I saw a lot of men when I was in the Navy that didn't belong there. I never had to work on an aircraft with a firearm in one hand, but had the situation been necessary, I would have done so.
No, not at all.
As an example, it sounds like you did aircraft repair, thats a job which is largely asexual. Meaning its requirements arn't skewed torwards one sex or the other. Roughneck, on the other hand (working on an oil rig), is. Now should female mechanics etc be sent to Iraq, Afghanistan etc? Only in combat roles they can fulfill, (helicopter pilot, etc) or in truly non-combat roles.
But to put women carrying 100lb loadouts or more into direct combat wont, and never could work.
[edit on 5/14/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
Shazam,
I read your post last night and considered it lest I speak in haste.
concering women fighting. I think you missed my point. As stated to Whitewave ...her point and my agreement was about the Meaness of it. Not the ability. The very feral meaness of the overall fight. This is for what I was so astonished. Up to that point I had not considered women to have such a level of pure wild meaness. But I still stand by what I stated...why would a woman have any such consideration to fight a man openly when she can do so by other means ...just as effective and just as dehumamiizing...or even fatal. What you see alot more of today is a woman getting another man to take care of the problem for them. It is just as effective. Just as lasting. Why...because many men are in fact this dumb.
By the way..this is happening more and more..or it is being come out into the media more and more than previously was the case. My point is that in their own manner women can be just as effective, effecient, and deadly. Do not sell them short here.
I am reminded of a teenaged girl across the river in Glouster who was having a quarrel with her parents. Her parents did not approve of the guy she was seeing. He was as I recall 17 and she was 15. She talked him into killing her parents. When it came to trial it was she who initiated it and he followed her lead. He was tried as an adult and in about 5 years ..executed for the killing. In my mind she needed lethal injection too. It was no different to me her directing him, as if she killed her parents herself.
You see this more and more frequently too..women hiring out someone to kill a man for them. It is happening with more frequency.
I also know a woman who is getting child support from a man in here in Virginia. Upon moving to Florida..she went to social services and got them to take out child support for the same child. This type of chaos is very easy to do in a pre set up and cloistered system without checks and balances. I call this RAPE! He is so naive that he thinks it can be resolved with a couple of forms and letters. I think it will go on for about a year.
This is an example of very effecient and diabolical RAPE. Very perceptive of her...in getting away with this. Social Services needs a cross check computer system to prevent this type of fraud and double jeopardy. I wonder how many men in this country and others are stuck on this type of treadmill. No relief in sight.
Are all women doing this..no ..but I am sure it is happening more than is ever brought to light. Cloistered system again.
Why would a woman ever consider going head to head with a man when there are so many more and effecient ways to take advantage of a Nice guy who is ignorant about many things including his manhood...or the sytem of defaults designed to parasite off his ignorance and manhood...both.
You are in jest here ..right??? I am sure you meant to say...the effecient application of energy in the pursuit of survival.
Sorry Shazam..I find it very offensive the concept of gobbling like a turkey or chest thumping ..et al..as vital energy in a male...in persuit of a masculiine way of life. I also dont find it virtuous.
Do not make the mistake of thinking women without a man do not do these things too ..and find themselves in the roles of men. Hence many of them are hunting and gathering men..to relieve themselves of this burden such that they can persue more womens values. Which is obvious..by the emphasis here in this thread on womens marketablility as RISK. I dont find this tack very intelligent on the part of women either...though I understand its motivations. I just dont find it very honest or with integrity...in lieu of real female skills in life. However it does work effeciently on most males who cannot think it through. In that, it does have my grudging admiration for effeciency.
I think you are talking about some television program which was popular some years back. I never liked it and did not watch so I dont know whay you are applying such a tack to me. It doesnt work. I refer to Xena here.
Your point about sex and virgins...this is very similar and parallel to a womans tack. Sexuality to make a point. However it is the best many can fall back upon. It is the default setting. It is also femmine. Insufficiency by sexualilty. Very feminine.
Somehow I dont think this is true. More like ...men are more expendable and disposable. Hence my point in an earlier post ..that most violence is male on male. Not male on female. The sad truth for me is that even men tend to buy into this concept that men are more disposable and expendable ...by the non virtue of capability in this arena.....even that this is core to thier manhood. What a pitiful condition for a man to admire. This is the very best to which a man can aspire. No wonder men are falling way behind to social default settings. Sorry Shazam..but flexing tostesterone and tosterone thinking can blind a man to what is really happening around them in defaults/subtiltys. It also can blind a man to his real value in this world...subjecting him to second and third place while takinig RISKS for first place....for others..and often for frivilous things...often with no safety net under him....ever!!!
Remember also about men in war..They are sent to war..often by feminine politicians...who do not take RISKS themselves. I personally like the practice of the early Roman Empire...where the politicians who voted for war..had to lead the attack. Cuts down on alot of wars when you spread around the RISKS. Same thing with defaults...subject them to RISKS. Cuts down on alot of nonsense.
Shazam, I will tell you pretty much the same thing that I told MrdDstbr..in that just because I am a male does not mean I will automatically default over to male values and thinking. I find much of what passes for male values and thinking pretty useless. I find it as useless as much of what passes for female values and thinking.
What I find will seperate males from females is more in the ability and willingness to take RISKS..not necessarily strength. I find women to be very strong in arenas in which many males cannot grasp for some reason..their male radar does not work in this arena. I admire this ..it is nonetheless strength.
Women will take risks ..even for the male at times ..both male and female will take risks for their offspring. This is clear historical record and to be admired. The overall history and track record is that females do not look to take risks for males as a career. This is the significant difference. It is the telling difference. Males are generally for the purpose of taking risks for the female...hence expendability and disposability. I dont necessarily go along with this in a time of claiming equality. The social expectations are what is going to trumph..not the political rhetoric. I try not to mix the two...or failing that ..hold to one standard...RISK.
I am the kind of male who when I detect that I am taking an inordinate amout of risk for a woman..or a woman and children and for frivilous reasons..I will ask myself what I am getting in return or balance. I expect a woman to be perceptive enough to understand this concept ..not just view the world throught her prizms, needs, beliefs, consumption levels.
Which is most of what you find happening out here. This will become clear if we go to some $ 6 or $8 per gallon. Who is going to take the RISK and who is going to default through. Buckle up. We are going to need it....all of us.
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 15-5-2008 by orangetom1999]
Shazam,
I read your post last night and considered it lest I speak in haste.
concering women fighting. I think you missed my point. As stated to Whitewave ...her point and my agreement was about the Meaness of it. Not the ability. The very feral meaness of the overall fight. This is for what I was so astonished. Up to that point I had not considered women to have such a level of pure wild meaness. But I still stand by what I stated...why would a woman have any such consideration to fight a man openly when she can do so by other means ...just as effective and just as dehumamiizing...or even fatal. What you see alot more of today is a woman getting another man to take care of the problem for them. It is just as effective. Just as lasting. Why...because many men are in fact this dumb.
By the way..this is happening more and more..or it is being come out into the media more and more than previously was the case. My point is that in their own manner women can be just as effective, effecient, and deadly. Do not sell them short here.
I am reminded of a teenaged girl across the river in Glouster who was having a quarrel with her parents. Her parents did not approve of the guy she was seeing. He was as I recall 17 and she was 15. She talked him into killing her parents. When it came to trial it was she who initiated it and he followed her lead. He was tried as an adult and in about 5 years ..executed for the killing. In my mind she needed lethal injection too. It was no different to me her directing him, as if she killed her parents herself.
You see this more and more frequently too..women hiring out someone to kill a man for them. It is happening with more frequency.
I also know a woman who is getting child support from a man in here in Virginia. Upon moving to Florida..she went to social services and got them to take out child support for the same child. This type of chaos is very easy to do in a pre set up and cloistered system without checks and balances. I call this RAPE! He is so naive that he thinks it can be resolved with a couple of forms and letters. I think it will go on for about a year.
This is an example of very effecient and diabolical RAPE. Very perceptive of her...in getting away with this. Social Services needs a cross check computer system to prevent this type of fraud and double jeopardy. I wonder how many men in this country and others are stuck on this type of treadmill. No relief in sight.
Are all women doing this..no ..but I am sure it is happening more than is ever brought to light. Cloistered system again.
Why would a woman ever consider going head to head with a man when there are so many more and effecient ways to take advantage of a Nice guy who is ignorant about many things including his manhood...or the sytem of defaults designed to parasite off his ignorance and manhood...both.
"Manhood is the application of vital energy into a pursuit of the masculine virtues as a way of life"
You are in jest here ..right??? I am sure you meant to say...the effecient application of energy in the pursuit of survival.
Sorry Shazam..I find it very offensive the concept of gobbling like a turkey or chest thumping ..et al..as vital energy in a male...in persuit of a masculiine way of life. I also dont find it virtuous.
Do not make the mistake of thinking women without a man do not do these things too ..and find themselves in the roles of men. Hence many of them are hunting and gathering men..to relieve themselves of this burden such that they can persue more womens values. Which is obvious..by the emphasis here in this thread on womens marketablility as RISK. I dont find this tack very intelligent on the part of women either...though I understand its motivations. I just dont find it very honest or with integrity...in lieu of real female skills in life. However it does work effeciently on most males who cannot think it through. In that, it does have my grudging admiration for effeciency.
I think you are talking about some television program which was popular some years back. I never liked it and did not watch so I dont know whay you are applying such a tack to me. It doesnt work. I refer to Xena here.
Your point about sex and virgins...this is very similar and parallel to a womans tack. Sexuality to make a point. However it is the best many can fall back upon. It is the default setting. It is also femmine. Insufficiency by sexualilty. Very feminine.
I am simply pointing out, that in many of these situation men are better equipped.
Somehow I dont think this is true. More like ...men are more expendable and disposable. Hence my point in an earlier post ..that most violence is male on male. Not male on female. The sad truth for me is that even men tend to buy into this concept that men are more disposable and expendable ...by the non virtue of capability in this arena.....even that this is core to thier manhood. What a pitiful condition for a man to admire. This is the very best to which a man can aspire. No wonder men are falling way behind to social default settings. Sorry Shazam..but flexing tostesterone and tosterone thinking can blind a man to what is really happening around them in defaults/subtiltys. It also can blind a man to his real value in this world...subjecting him to second and third place while takinig RISKS for first place....for others..and often for frivilous things...often with no safety net under him....ever!!!
Remember also about men in war..They are sent to war..often by feminine politicians...who do not take RISKS themselves. I personally like the practice of the early Roman Empire...where the politicians who voted for war..had to lead the attack. Cuts down on alot of wars when you spread around the RISKS. Same thing with defaults...subject them to RISKS. Cuts down on alot of nonsense.
Shazam, I will tell you pretty much the same thing that I told MrdDstbr..in that just because I am a male does not mean I will automatically default over to male values and thinking. I find much of what passes for male values and thinking pretty useless. I find it as useless as much of what passes for female values and thinking.
What I find will seperate males from females is more in the ability and willingness to take RISKS..not necessarily strength. I find women to be very strong in arenas in which many males cannot grasp for some reason..their male radar does not work in this arena. I admire this ..it is nonetheless strength.
Women will take risks ..even for the male at times ..both male and female will take risks for their offspring. This is clear historical record and to be admired. The overall history and track record is that females do not look to take risks for males as a career. This is the significant difference. It is the telling difference. Males are generally for the purpose of taking risks for the female...hence expendability and disposability. I dont necessarily go along with this in a time of claiming equality. The social expectations are what is going to trumph..not the political rhetoric. I try not to mix the two...or failing that ..hold to one standard...RISK.
I am the kind of male who when I detect that I am taking an inordinate amout of risk for a woman..or a woman and children and for frivilous reasons..I will ask myself what I am getting in return or balance. I expect a woman to be perceptive enough to understand this concept ..not just view the world throught her prizms, needs, beliefs, consumption levels.
Which is most of what you find happening out here. This will become clear if we go to some $ 6 or $8 per gallon. Who is going to take the RISK and who is going to default through. Buckle up. We are going to need it....all of us.
Thanks,
Orangetom
[edit on 15-5-2008 by orangetom1999]
reply to post by darkelf
Dark Elf,
Yes...women do take risks every day. No doubt. However as stated to Shazam...how, why, and for what is the telling reason to be observed.
As I recall you work or worked in a mostly male enviornment. I understand your reasons for retiring. Your reasons are not any different here from a males reasons..no problem here with me on this. This was also a decision between you and your husband. A division of labor under the circumstances. Understandable?
Wait a minute here. Men don't weigh the risk of having someone else raise their child or children. This system we are under ..this choice is often defaulted away from a man..he has no choice in this.
As to financial risk when deciding to work or stay home...do males traditioinally get this "choice??" "deciding??"
Notice who is often presented with the choices/options here. When the choices or options are removed ...and RISKS take place..there is a sense of outrage.. unfairness.,...more options are not available..but men have found themselves in this position by default...from the starting line. It is only offensive when applied to women without a safety net. The angst is only female angst...or womens angst. Male angst doest count or can be defaulted so as not to be noticed or paid any attention to. Male angst is hardly heard ..hardly worth mentioning. We know this clearly because there are hardly any male "victimization" programs abounding.
Notice here DarkElf...most of these risks are for and about herself!!?? Notice this...they are not about the male...in thier lives.
Most of the time a woman working to put a man through school is so that he can have higher earning potential..the payoff comes later. Is this the same as a man putting a woman thorugh school? The outrage as mentioned ..in many posts is that the man earns more and then leaves the woman..more insecurity...about her.
Notice in this same vein..how many men are working to expendability and disposability to put not only their women in college or school but also thier children. Often with long hours of overtime worked..against failing health...physical well being...over and over and over.
I may be wrong here but most of the RISKS I know are men working to put thier children through college and long hours and overtime doing so..years and years and years..loan after loan after loan. Probably alot of this is because of the blue collar area whence I work. I do not see many as women doing this. I know of one who has done so...a single woman. I am sure that single women do this for their children and in this they would be very much like the male.
The point again here is for whom, what , and how the RISKS are taken. The circumstances.
Is it about the family per se..or are the postings mostly about her..her risks. IF she takes risks for the family..she is just like any male in this...this would be equality.
But when I see or detect that it is about "her" and her marketability..I get very let down.
What would a woman think of a man who worries about his marketability in taking RISKS...when she expects more from him??? Do you think that a man should not be aware that many women have this in mind...or should a man stay ignorant of this so as to be defaulted through...often with more RISK, disposability and expendability?? Where, when, and how often does this play through.....for frivilous reasons??? Not real value today.???
Should light be put on this concept so that men are awakened ..or should we worry about "Her" and her RISKS..marketability.
I agree ..in your individual case...you both weighed the risks together. No problems with this. This is what marriage partners should do...weigh the risks.
I say also that the caliber of women and men both out here is not as well tempered as is yours and your husbands. Especially in a consumer oriented social structure. To me ..my way of thinking ..many men out here have defaulted thier manhood to consumption levels..not real value.
And this is a man's fault for imperception about many things...including manhood.
Gotta get ready to shove off,
Thanks for your post.
Orangetom
Dark Elf,
Yes...women do take risks every day. No doubt. However as stated to Shazam...how, why, and for what is the telling reason to be observed.
As I recall you work or worked in a mostly male enviornment. I understand your reasons for retiring. Your reasons are not any different here from a males reasons..no problem here with me on this. This was also a decision between you and your husband. A division of labor under the circumstances. Understandable?
Women have to weigh the risk of having someone else raise their child to the financial risk when deciding to work or stay home.
Wait a minute here. Men don't weigh the risk of having someone else raise their child or children. This system we are under ..this choice is often defaulted away from a man..he has no choice in this.
As to financial risk when deciding to work or stay home...do males traditioinally get this "choice??" "deciding??"
Notice who is often presented with the choices/options here. When the choices or options are removed ...and RISKS take place..there is a sense of outrage.. unfairness.,...more options are not available..but men have found themselves in this position by default...from the starting line. It is only offensive when applied to women without a safety net. The angst is only female angst...or womens angst. Male angst doest count or can be defaulted so as not to be noticed or paid any attention to. Male angst is hardly heard ..hardly worth mentioning. We know this clearly because there are hardly any male "victimization" programs abounding.
They take a risk by staying home to raise their own children. They take a risk when working to put their husbands through school. They take a risk by putting off childbirth to pursue a career. They even take a risk by getting married.
Notice here DarkElf...most of these risks are for and about herself!!?? Notice this...they are not about the male...in thier lives.
Most of the time a woman working to put a man through school is so that he can have higher earning potential..the payoff comes later. Is this the same as a man putting a woman thorugh school? The outrage as mentioned ..in many posts is that the man earns more and then leaves the woman..more insecurity...about her.
Notice in this same vein..how many men are working to expendability and disposability to put not only their women in college or school but also thier children. Often with long hours of overtime worked..against failing health...physical well being...over and over and over.
I may be wrong here but most of the RISKS I know are men working to put thier children through college and long hours and overtime doing so..years and years and years..loan after loan after loan. Probably alot of this is because of the blue collar area whence I work. I do not see many as women doing this. I know of one who has done so...a single woman. I am sure that single women do this for their children and in this they would be very much like the male.
The point again here is for whom, what , and how the RISKS are taken. The circumstances.
Is it about the family per se..or are the postings mostly about her..her risks. IF she takes risks for the family..she is just like any male in this...this would be equality.
But when I see or detect that it is about "her" and her marketability..I get very let down.
What would a woman think of a man who worries about his marketability in taking RISKS...when she expects more from him??? Do you think that a man should not be aware that many women have this in mind...or should a man stay ignorant of this so as to be defaulted through...often with more RISK, disposability and expendability?? Where, when, and how often does this play through.....for frivilous reasons??? Not real value today.???
Should light be put on this concept so that men are awakened ..or should we worry about "Her" and her RISKS..marketability.
I agree ..in your individual case...you both weighed the risks together. No problems with this. This is what marriage partners should do...weigh the risks.
I say also that the caliber of women and men both out here is not as well tempered as is yours and your husbands. Especially in a consumer oriented social structure. To me ..my way of thinking ..many men out here have defaulted thier manhood to consumption levels..not real value.
And this is a man's fault for imperception about many things...including manhood.
Gotta get ready to shove off,
Thanks for your post.
Orangetom
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
Generally speaking, I agree. However, I’ve seen individual men in the military who wouldn’t be able to carry a 100lb load into direct combat. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of WMs (Women Marine) who could run circles around most men. This is why I hate generalizations. If the requirements for women were the same as men, you would actually see less women in the military and more capable women there.
Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
But to put women carrying 100lb loadouts or more into direct combat wont, and never could work.
Generally speaking, I agree. However, I’ve seen individual men in the military who wouldn’t be able to carry a 100lb load into direct combat. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of WMs (Women Marine) who could run circles around most men. This is why I hate generalizations. If the requirements for women were the same as men, you would actually see less women in the military and more capable women there.
new topics
-
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People: 2 hours ago -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 3 hours ago -
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News: 7 hours ago, 17 flags -
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People: 2 hours ago, 16 flags -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 3 hours ago, 12 flags -
Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 10 flags -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three: 9 hours ago, 9 flags
active topics
-
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 31 • : GENERAL EYES -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three • 7 • : nugget1 -
Meta Llama local AI system is scary good
Science & Technology • 33 • : ArMaP -
Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet
Mainstream News • 48 • : GENERAL EYES -
New York Governor signs Climate Law that Fines Fossil Fuel Companies
US Political Madness • 29 • : NeedInfo -
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News • 26 • : NeedInfo -
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People • 11 • : hangedman13 -
Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States
US Political Madness • 13 • : charlest2 -
This is why ALL illegals who live in the US must go
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 33 • : GENERAL EYES -
Elon Musk futurist?
Dreams & Predictions • 20 • : GENERAL EYES