I'm not sure it measures up well to a dram of Glen Goriach for taste either . . . but then, how would I know?
I'm assuming you don't know because you have tasted Glen Goriach and not the other, then?
We recognize when posters are drinking....but I have a delicate query...
by Glander 67 Replies latest social physical
-
-
00DAD
I for one do not have a drinking problem. I simply pour myself a glassful and then drink, no problem!
What was your question again?
-
ziddina
All right, I'm going to be serious for a moment....
Glander has posed the question as to whether the menstrual cycle may affect some posts made by women...
I would like to point out "ElderElite's" previous response - he said he was "posting while drunk"...
I've read many, many posts by the on-board males who have admitted, either in the midst of a "flame war" or somewhat shamefacedly afterwards, that they had been either 'drinking' or using 'substances' while posting...
But beyond that....
Many people here on-board are suffering from long-term or chronic health problems. Some are literally handicapped, which would certainly indicate that they might be in near-constant pain. Some are suffering from long-term health issues - like chronic insomnia, in my case - which will affect one's outlook, mental state, level of flexibility and ability to "roll with the punches" or allow the issues to roll off like "water off a duck's back"...
Add to that, the long-term mental and emotional problems that can still linger, from having been in a dishonest, manipulative cult...
In my own case, I am the child of two - count 'em, TWO - manic depressive Jehovah's Witness parents... Who were physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive - not molestation, but they frequently threatened me with being 'raped', and constantly reminded me that I was "worth LESS", because I was FEMALE...!!!
Every woman on board has had to deal with that "MEN-tality", at one time or another. It was ESPECIALLY difficult, being in a CULT that is based upon Bronze-Age MIDDLE EASTERN MALE mentality...
So, to make a flat - or semi-flat - implication that "some" posters are not responding in a "proper" fashion, based upon their gender, is an over-simplistic and naive viewpoint - to say the very least. And if I were to apply the same simplistic thinking, such a flat viewpoint could also be called a backwards, Neanderthal, death-oriented-male blindness...
As usual, the REALITY is far more complex... Which is something for everyone to keep in mind...
And let me ask one last question...
What do you think will happen to a species that has historically viewed and continues to view the death-oriented half of the species as "superior to and more valuable than" the LIFE-ORIENTED half of the species???
Will such a species survive? Or - more likely - go extinct??
Think about it...
-
-
sizemik
So, to make a flat - or semi-flat - implication that "some" posters are not responding in a "proper" fashion, based upon their gender, is an over-simplistic and naive viewpoint - to say the very least.
What do you think will happen to a species that has historically viewed and continues to view the death-oriented half of the species as "superior to and more valuable than" the LIFE-ORIENTED half of the species???
Assuming you're being serious (as you stated) . . . I'd like to know how you reconcile these two sentences. Just asking.
-
ziddina
Notice the "historically viewed..." part...
For nearly the entire period of written history, males have been viewed as superior to and more valuable than females... With a few exceptions here and there, men were/are viewed as nation-builders, while women have been/are viewed as PROPERTY - and later on, as "seductresses", "the little woman/baby-maker" and so on...
Ironically, men are the death-oriented half of the species. And nearly all men fail to realize that.
This is in large part because of all the "male-god-creator-gives-'birth'-to-life" fantasies floating around for the last 3,000 to 8,000 years - at the very least.
Most discussions of this sort pretend that women have a "level" playing field, when in fact it is only within the last 100 years that ANY sort of "progress" has been made towards some version of "equality" - or as the late, great George Carlin put it, "kinda sorta 'equal', but not so's you'd really notice..."
And when one looks at the facts of human violence - nearly all wars, at least 90% of murders, an extremely high percentage of rapes - are male-generated, anyone who ignores that glaring aspect of male behavior is deluding themselves as to the true COLLECTIVE nature of the human male.
Unfortunately I don't have time to go into this subject further - right now. I have the bare beginnings of a book on the subject, but it's not ready to be put forth right now.
However, anyone with a clear mind can ask themselves that question - "What will happen to a species that glorifies and over-values its more violent and death-oriented members?"
I've asked myself that question, and the answer is chilling... BUT there is a possibilty of positive CHANGE - but positive change will NOT happen without REALIZATION of the problem.
The male ego, I have found, is terribly resistant to such realization. Culturally, males have been viewed as the "source of life" for thousands of years, and it is very difficult for a gender that has held the reins of power and authority for so long to release the power and control that comes with that illusion of "ownership" of the "source of life"...
Zid
-
-
Glander
Zid, you must be on your period.
-
sizemik
Thanks for your reply Zid . . . believe me, I do have some understanding of where you're coming from.
And yes, I did notice the "historically viewed" reference . . .
I have no contention over what recorded history depicts. I do however, have a totally different perception of why this is so, and where I draw the line of demarcation as to victims and perpetrators . . . and the reasons why.
Modern times have given us the opportunity to be much more analytical of human dominance and oppression. Through in-depth analysis on a sociological and psychological level, chiefly through advancement in scientifically related analyses, and the culmination of knowledge in this area, my take on humanity and human dominance is as follows;
The oppression and abuse of humans, one toward the other, has indeed seen traditional boundaries of race, religion and gender being used to exercise and achieve dominance. And it is true that Male has dominated Female, White has dominated Black, Majority religious belief has dominated Heresy. But this is more associated with "opportunity" than the individual characteristics of the majorities / minorities themselves.
As you pointed out . . . there has been a large degree of progress and some reversal in modern times, of oppressive practices along these traditional boundaries. This in turn has opened up fresh opportunites that were previously unavailable. But what has this revealed?
Take the traditional gender boundaries as an example. With new opportunites, women now engage in ever increasing numbers in violent sports such as boxing, wrestling and martial arts. Freedom to enter traditionally male domains has seen increasing numbers of women joining the armed forces in combat roles. I'm sure you'll recall the female involvement in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners some years back. Many females around the Globe now occupy positions of Governmental and State Authority, using such positions to support military aggression. The competitive nature and subsequent aggression of females regularly surfaces through roles in entertainment (movies etc), and is also seen in reality television on a regular basis. Why? . . . because of "opportunity". Having said that, "opportunities" for Males will always heavily outweigh those for Females on account of physical differences . . . paricularly at a domestic level.
The same can be applied to some examples of race . . . The political regime in Zimbabwe being a prime example. Once again, it is primarily on account of "opportunity".
I have no contention with the fact that historically, the minorities who have been oppressed and suffered are obvious for all to see. I simply don't see it as intrinsinc to the various groups defined by the boundaries between the two . . . but merely as a response to opportunity, which is a universally human failing. The true boundary lies between those who hold to and sanction such attitudes . . . and those who reject them.
There have always been Men who abhor the oppression of Women, White folks who abhor the oppression of Black folks, Men and Women who detest war, members of Majorities who abhor the oppression of Minories . . . or the vulnerable in any form.
When we see things in terms of traditional boundaries we inadvertently cement those boundaries in place, and unwittingly perpetuate the problems.
As a great philosopher and humanitarian once said . . . "We cannot solve the worlds problems using the same thinking that created them."
New thinking allows us to see the evil of oppression along traditional boundaries, as well as newly formed boundaries, as a human problem and something to be abhorred and resisted in any form. The new boundary needs to fall between those who sanction and perpetrate it . . . and those who detest and resist it. I believe this is more "the problem" that needs to be realised.
Oppression and resistance based around those traditional boundaries only serves to keep them in place.
It requires people . . . of any gender or background . . . to resist it in all it's forms.
-
Nickolas
That was an interesting conversation you had in this thread, ziddina and sizemik. Kind of stalled the dialogue a little, though. You both make very good points but zid's argument struck me as the more emotional while sizemik's the more cerebral. And I would not have expected anything different. Both are legitimate avenues one could take to prevail in an argument or debate and both have their place. The extent to which ziddina's posts touched a nerve with me vs sizemik's eloquent affirmation of what I already know or believe compels me to give the nod to zid. I hadn't thought of things in quite the way you expressed them and for me that was a bit of a positive paradigm shift, and if there is one thing I thoroughy enjoy in life it is a positive paradigm shift. Thank you. Be assured there are gentle men as well as gentlemen out there. I cannot even imagine what life was like for you with both parents bipolar and brainwashed by the Watchtower. It is quite apparent that it didn't crush you, so it has to have made you stronger.
Men really are stupid.
Some of us are. Some of us aren't. Those of us who aren't look askance at being generalised, just as we regard the negative generalisation of women as inappropriate - vis the subject of this thread.
