Female power over men

I have another groupie.
Going back over my posts, quoting me back to me.

:sunglasses:
Yeah but could you please stick to the subject for a change.

ADDRESS MY POINT?
about pregnancy and risk?

Also, the other one, about peoples complaining that they don’t have as much power as this or that other person or group being an excuse for not having power.

You can quote almost as well as Sauwelios, I’m no sucker for quotations though. If you can’t think, leave.

I will. The number one cause of female suicide around the world is pregnancy stuff!!

Either being infertile, or saying it is evil to give birth to a girl.

In fact, tribes that shame female births have higher female suicides than male suicides. Because the country is telling THEM that their birth is evil indirectly by stating not having a son is evil!

I did. Apparently your eyesight is as bad as your memory viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=125#p2700069
:teasing-slap:

I meant: to address the idea, not to click “quote” and rant some.
101.

The point you certainly didn’t begin to address is vast. It is a revaluation of modern ideas about the female psyche.
She was known in classical times as the more capricious one. Classics understood that a woman, a beautiful one especially, is risk.

Ecm, male suicides are through the roofs in Britain, one every 4 hours.

I’ve never heard of a woman who said “I think I will get pregnant because it’s risky.”

Men do things specifically for the risk while women label that behavior as “stupid”.

Serendipper,

Have you heard of women who so desperately want to get pregnant ~ have a child ~ that they WILL take that risk even though they realize it could be detrimental to their life and to some degree may even cause their death? It depends on what we value.

Every man?
There are many women who indulge in risky behavior too ~ they realize it but they cannot help themselves. The call to excitement, lust, instant gratification is too strong for their psyches.

Look at the Olympians, both the men and women. They take risks that some would never consider even though they are very skilled at what they do for the most part. Life can change on a dime ~ coma, paralysis…

Is risk taking an individual thing or is it more geared toward one gender or the other?

I had a friend some years back who’s daughter got pregnant. She already had one child and there were no problems. The pregnancy and delivery seemingly went fine and the baby was born. The next day something happened ~ I cannot recall what the condition is called ~ but she bled out in the hospital and died. It was a terrible thing for the family.

I am working on it. :mrgreen:

Ive never heard of a man who said “Im going to go to war because it is risky”.

We take risks to allow for certain outcomes beyond ourselves. This is not a choice, but what evolution means. We’re subservient to the risk-taking nature of life. Both genders are inherently lethal to themselves, so during the period we have, both take the risks that have evolved to be taken, and end up with progeny and culture.

Hello! Now you have :wink:

I do it because it’s fun. I don’t know why it’s fun, but we can speculate and never know for sure.

“Choice” opposed to “Evolution”?.. I’m not sure where you’re going with that.

Who is subject to the whims of nature? If one is a fatalist, he must recognize that he is part of the nature that is kicking him around and therefore there is no one to be kicked around. If your view is that you have no choice, then you have no choice but to accept that you do not exist.

So then why do you desire to have it understood that women are brave? Why fight for something that no one can have control over?

Oh yeah? Which wars have you fought in?
Was it fun?

I mean that it is necessary, a part of what it means to be a mortal.

I said “the risk-taking nature of life”, not “the whims of nature”.
There are many differences here. For one thing, not nearly all risk taking is whimsical. In fact the greater risks are usually taken with careful deliberation. Risks like going to war, or indeed getting pregnant.

Where did I say that women are brave? I don’t think I did, because I don’t think that this is categorically the case at all.
Rather, many are quite mad. Which is what happens when people are exposed to risk but aren’t brave enough to keep their eyes open, their mind clear.

Only very few women are capable of fully dealing with the risk their gender embodies.
Humans are in pretty bad shape overall. Maybe one in ten thousand is truly sane. From where Im standing, that is. I have certain criteria which not everyone shares, to put it mildly.

Why do I write on ILP, you ask? Because I find my own writing beautiful, deep and sublimely styled. :sunglasses:

That depends how you define war.

Not all risks undertaken are for fun, but those that are fun are fun.

War must be fun since we have so many sports and video games devoted to and modeled after warfare.

I have no idea the point of this.

Apparently you haven’t realized that if you’re subservient to nature, then anything nature does is a whim. I mean, unless you want to ascribe purpose to nature.

If you’re subservient to nature they are.

Bullshit. Hardly anyone sets out to get pregnant. I am the only person I have ever known to have parents who actually tried to have kids; everyone else was an accident.

By suggesting that pregnancy is an exercise in bravery and your continued harping on and on and on about it.

Then stop cheerleading the pregnancy issue.

Hellos Narcissus

“That depends how you define war.”

“None” would be the honest answer.

Your points stand all refuted. You are a little pampered boy, trivial at heart.
Your mother took more risk than you ever will- and from what we can see, she lost the gamble.

Serendipper

Are soldiers court-marshaled for refusing to obey a command that they intuit or know to be morally and ethically wrong?
Can a member of the military march in the street in protest of other things?

Do you not think that THEY deserve free healthcare and their family too?
Who told you that they are not willing to risk life and limb? Who is it that you are speaking of here?

Just a little side-bar here: taskandpurpose.com/heres-why-yo … -military/

I am not what you might call a politically-inclined person but is a soldier marching against a war that he doesn’t believe in dictating policy? Perhaps. Maybe I just have a problem with some authority figures. lol

Will you spell things out better here. I am not sure what plant you are speaking about. Cannabis?

More clarity please. Who and what?

Please define what you mean here by *no enforcement of morality". Does that mean that by your book anything has the right to go, even if it is illegal and just as long as no one is hurt by it? (the protect part).

lol Are you being facetious here? There can be repercussions to these things, you know. Driving without a seat belt at the moment of an accident might make one lose control of their car and less able to keep it from barreling down into another car with children…who because of this die.
Also, a seat belt might protect someone from crashing into the windshield. Who would want to do that? Would you?
Using drugs and getting into a car…well. Using drugs and beating your wife and children because all sanity and inhibitions have left you…

But they are not always victim-less crimes. Even the gambler may gamble away all of his money, his house, et cetera. Tell me, who might the real victims be in that scenario? We will forget about the gambler. He caused the effects.
Victim does not necessarily mean DEAD!

Do you not see the logic in laws? Can you tell me what laws are illogical to you?

Yes, it is the mindset of many men STILL that we have specific roles. I daresay that there are still women who feel that way. Of course, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, if men and women are comfortable with some traditional roles in the home, why not?
What you call perversion of tradition though I call human evolution or going against the grain.

huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/ … 59776.html

pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/stu … estic.html

No, evidently everyone does not know and is it not so bad that the woman herself does not know?
Some men may actually feel that it is to their greater benefit when the wife takes over and then again some men may just be wimps.
I think that there ought to be a flow of harmony from both sides ~ at times the woman rules the roost and then vica versa. That is a partnership, no?

Being the skeptic, I somewhat find these statistics to be over the top so to speak. It does not mean that it did not happen to this man though.
Reading the below hyperlink was kind of an eye-opener to me although I think that the jury is still out about the statistics/percentages.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ … gainst_men

Give me an example of what tradition being abandoned would take its toll on civilization and society.
Do you not think that with the changing world holding to some traditions itself might be less sensible and practical? Come to think of it, they might be downright impossible.

Is forsaking attendance the same as abandonment albeit forsaking could mean abandonment.
So, you can see yourself finding someone else to help?
I do understand what you mean though. Maybe I myself am not evolved enough but I could not see myself leaving my children and going off to war or for a better cause than my children. But how do I know that my feelings or actions here are more real or valid than someone else’s. How can I know?

What are we women? Nothing but a bunch of sardines in a sardine can to you?
I am sure that there are some or more who are trying to prove the above but I somehow do not intuit that that is the prevalent mindset.
How do you feel about the man doing the same thing?

Do you really believe that terrorism would stop and that the terrorists would stop coming for us?
Like I said, I do not really know or understand politics but it seems kind of naive to me to think that we would be left alone, all terrorism would stop if we stopped.

What happens to the child when he is too scared to stand up to the bully?

But how can you know, that in the long run, you would be safer?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemoller

I wonder how far Hitler would have advanced and Nazi Germany had the allies thought that way, had the German people and other peoples thought that way. Stop fighting Nazism, think peace and they will go away by themselves! Send out the doves. Oh, what a happy day!

[b]The US is like an infestation:

[/b]

For instance? What law would restrict your freedom?
Do you see the possibility at some point of some other country or despot eventually making its way into your/our country and restricting your/our freedom or way of life? Did the Europeans?

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” Aldous Huxley

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana

Did you think that way before 9/11 and all of the terrorist attacks?
Do you feel secure that there could never be another attack like 9/ll?
The worst thing I feel is to feel secure (not paranoid though). We soften or lessen our vigilance and voila - destruction.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you already know the answer to this question.
Must I do all of the work for you? :mrgreen:

slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/0 … rseas.html

Do you really believe that they all thought that they were doing good? The
psychopaths like Hitler were only mindless murderers of innocent people. Who would think that torturing, slaughtering shooting and raping children and innocent people was for the good? They were not about being good. They were about following the orders of one just like themselves and about destroying human lives, because this is what they were like, these soul-less creatures. There was no moral or ethical strain within them. That is not to say that there were not good German soldiers, Russian soldiers, et cetera, doing what they felt would be good for their countries. There are always bad apples in the bunch.

:evilfun: If you are ever in the market for a woman, I might suggest that you make the above your on-line dating profile.

lol Now THAT I will have to give some thought too.
I personally think that insofar as women being better with people and men being better with things, that is an individual thing but again I may be wrong. It is possible that more men are better with things than are women and vica versa.

What larger organism might you be speaking of here?

My first response was this and I decided to leave it here. That is a very good question. I was going to, at first, try to come up with some answer but then I decided that there was no easy answer to it though there might be for some who know sooooooooooooooo much more than I do. So I will reflect on it. I think that I am confronted by a puzzle which has many pieces to it.
I will wait on you for your response.

I haven’t read this yet but I will.

I do have a strong constitution but I am also a feeling human being. I remember some time ago listening to some chapters/excerpts from a book where someone was describing the chemical effects on the innocent people due to the bombings in Nagaski and Hiroshima. It was horrible. I could not contain my tears and at some point I had to make it into the bathroom. It was one of the most disturbing things I heard and ALSO experienced in a sense. I have never forgotten that.
Perhaps my constitution is not as strong as I think.

As for the first part above, I can almost agree with you but not quite. Evidently things were not well thought out in some cases and terrible things happen, but I think that those who were actually trying to liberate others, and/or trying to make a better life for themselves, were more in the right. It really just comes down to how it is done ~ what one is willing to do to gain the upper hand and be the winner. Those who were/are willing to commit any travesties are in the wrong. I do not think that this is even debatable. But then again, I am only once voice so I suppose that it may be.

Are you speaking of particular isolated incidents here?
I may be being a bit biased here, but I do not think that it is even possible to think in terms of what you say above. Anyone capable of going into homes in the dead of night and dragging people out, slaughtering innocents, CHILDREN no less, sending them to gas chambers, experimenting on the mentally and physically ill and deformed, et cetera, in my book at least, were not being framed. As far as Hitler and the rest of those Nazi pigs were concerned - it was all cart blanche!

Are you saying that you do not believe that there can be any impartial historians?

How do YOU yourself observe and judge when one is being self-righteous or trying to be real and objective?

You would appear to be an anarchist. lol I think that the majority of police officers are honestly trying to just do their job according to the laws…the majority of them. Otherwise, wouldn’t there be pure chaos and anarchy?

Something seems very lost in this translation considering how women were raped, tortured and burned in the crematoriums. What a pathetic, sick wimp he was…a real psychopath ~ but still responsible for his actions.

I wonder if history might have been a lot different had Hitler never met Dietrich Eckhart and been so influenced by his demonic. How careful we have to be in the ways in which we influence people.

On his deathbed Eckart Stated ‘Follow Hitler !He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune !’ ‘I have initiated him into the ‘Secret Doctrine’, opened his centers in vision and given him the means to communicate with the Powers. Do not mourn for me: I shall have influenced history more than any other German’

What an arrogant narcissist and what a sad legacy to leave. I wonder if Hitler ever realized what a puppet he was.

Am I a self-righteous human being, Serendipper?

psychologytoday.com/us/blog … was-hitler

I am figuring that the above is not your viewpoint in light of things which you said above, true?
It would appear here that we are back in biblical times. :evilfun:
What, to you, would actually make these listings wrongful behavior?

That is not necessarily true.
What Hitler and the Nazis did was not based on doing what they felt to be the right thing. It was not even based on righteousness. It was only based on sheer barbarism, sadism, despotism, callous indifference, etc.
I totally disagree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do not know how the war could have ended more quickly but I find it ludicrous and unthinking that we bombed these places in order to save the possibly ______________ of soldiers who might die if they had not bombed these places.
It is one thing ~ soldier of one country fighting against soldier of another country, bombing certain installations of other countries but to deliberately bomb cities where innocents live, especially children, is horrendous and terribly wrong to me.
There were many people who fought against Nazism but they did not give up their moral code. Of course, it is possible where they felt they had no other recourse but these are the people who probably felt guilt and remorse for what they had to do. They fought in their own ways to bring Nazism down and in order to have a better, free life.

Yes, it can be. Is it possible though that some of these people are trying to come from a good place but are doing it in an unbalanced way? Maybe I am wrong here though.

I am not so sure that I agree with that but you may be right in a sense. Couldn’t you say though that THAT might also depend on the INDIVIDUAL. I can see my country, and I love my country, feeling and thinking that it was the righteous thing to do, bombing those two cities but WAS IT REALLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO, was it even the most practical thing to do, in light of all of those people who suffered and died.

War is insane and I do know that there are no easy answers. Too bad that there is not enough time before we do the things we do which harm people to really think things out ~ Is this the moral thing to do? Is this the ethical thing to do? What will be the repercussions and the effects of doing this?

Again, psychologytoday.com/us/blog … was-hitler

A very dark, sick mind is capable of anything and how contagious it can be, especially when surrounded by other psychopathic, narcissistic, sadistic personalities or those who would do their duty without any questioning of just what they ARE doing. What about the mob almost experiencing an orgiastic moment as they watch someone being hung or burned alive.

Please let us not downplay what Hitler and Nazi Germany did to these people. Do you believe the pictures of all the slaughtered Jewish people, gay people, et cetera laying in open graves and thrown on top of one another? Many people found that so hard to believe. Why? Because they could not realize just how depraved we humans are capable of becoming under certain circumstance. This is why “Know Thyself” is a great command for us.

I have seen the pictures of them very often but never a dead fat person. I have always been interested in this and feel a great affinity for those people who died in the camps.
Many of them died of diseases in the camps.

Do you think that there could possibly be another reason for this embellishment?
I would not even use the word indignation. It does not describe ANYTHING?
Righteous is not necessarily a negative, you know.

I still do not see though how this lessens valor. I do not see the animal example as being such a good one. But that is just me. The animal is coming from a place to survive. That human being is taking the risk because of someone else. Well, maybe you are a bit correct where the animal is concerned. When I was attacked, at first I was so afraid I could almost taste death but then at some point I got my, whatever you want to call it, my dragon back, lol and sensed somehow that he did not have a gun, and after he threw me down on the ground, I fought and fought, and screamed and screamed and I won. The wimp got up and ran.

But I do think that there is a difference between someone saving someone else and saving one’s own self. I think so anyway.

I can agree with this. Sometimes though people can be rather swamped with their off-line life, no?

For his own good? What am I missing here? If he holds LIFE as being valuable and meaningful, he will value that of a child. Does he want to die because he realizes that he might in saving the child?
AT that moment, when he rushes into the ocean, is he consciously thinking to himself" "Ah, I shall die with honor. Oh boy, my picture shall be plastered all over the news. I am a baby saver.
It would NOT be for his own good. It would be for the good of the child.

True, he may not be an expert but we cannot determine that he has low odds of surviving unless we can see him, know something of him, his arm and leg strength, his determination, how steep and high the mountain is.

This is true I think. Adventure junkers, one who is addicted to thrill seeking.

lol That made me laugh. Some would not understand that point of view; that is, someone who is not on a P.F.
Yes, I would agree.

Thank you…and I am still a coat of many colors or perhaps a multi-faceted yet-to-be diamond in the rough (a piece of coal).

Many men want females to have power over them… if those females are above-average in looks, but for the long-term? maybe they want someone that they can dominate… or, how to separate the insincere from the sincere?

A male coming onto women (especially those of a certain age) far too strongly, should set alarm bells off as to the intention of that male… but, then again… that male could simply be showing that he can attain that female by the force of his raw sexual power alone. :neutral_face:

It’s that time of year… all the human does and bucks are out… the above enquiries and observations are real/spawned from the inception of the dawn of human conception… the formality of approach being reserved for a certain kind/a certain few.

147147

Serendipper,

I know that I can sometimes be a bit naive but you were just trying to be funny here, right?
If not, will you please define for me what you mean by tried and by accident.

I know that I myself WAS an accident (of sorts) but I happily and wholeheartedly tried like the dickens :evilfun: (I was determined), to get pregnant. There were no accidents with my children. My children are not accidents. They are more like the sculpture of David as seen in the Marble before Michelangelo even began to create it.

That is also the way in which multitudes lol of children came into the world. No accidents. They were lovingly planned.

There are many out there who are looked upon as accidents and unfortunately still are.
How can we possibly know since we cannot really know for certain all the ways in which the universe does work and if there is or is not something called fate or destiny.

Was your statement a form of irony? I am still a bit unclear about that word. :chores-chopwood:

…meaning?

147 looks like :confusion-scratchheadyellow: to me. We already know he’s 1096 :smiley:

I don’t recall my state of mind from that moment, but that’s an accurate statement since I am the only one I know whose parents actually endeavored specifically to have a child. Everyone else seems the result of an accident in the backseat of a camaro (it’s just a joke :stuck_out_tongue: ). I met a woman named Errinn (spelled something like that) who asked me to guess the meaning of her name. I said without hesitation “an accident in a hotel room.”

Most kids are completely unplanned and if anything, the woman is hoping to not get pregnant rather than gallantly marching in to assume those risks. “Hold my beer, I’m gonna get knocked up tonight!”

I think it would be a better argument if the woman were brave for choosing to have sex since the’s undertaking the risk of getting pregnant (and diseases), but even then risk is mitigated by contraceptives and the argument loses momentum.

So it boils down to whether or not you see yourself as choosing to become pregnant as an act of bravery. So you say to yourself “Hmmm… cute baby on one hand… death on the other. Decisions, decisions.” I wouldn’t guess that you weighed the possibility to dying into the equation and I doubt my mother did either. Hospitals are pretty good at keeping folks alive nowadays and probably your biggest concern is the health of the baby.

At the end of the day, there just isn’t enough evidence to characterize women as generally brave. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s just a thing.

Also, doing something specifically because it’s dangerous (for the fun of it) is different from accepting risks in exchange for a reward. What women gets pregnant specifically because it’s dangerous?

:laughing:

=D>

…and you are? if at all…