Hillary you know that you are JUST scratchin' the surface here
You must have have enough material for quite a few YEARS
It is interesting what the the GB has for the TO seminars...kind of make you sick
by hillary_step 85 Replies latest jw friends
Hillary you know that you are JUST scratchin' the surface here
You must have have enough material for quite a few YEARS
It is interesting what the the GB has for the TO seminars...kind of make you sick
Hillary that was friggin' hilarious!!!
I think their "psychologist" was really a delusional nut on the nutward passing as a psychologist!
Okay HS, I've put in bold the parts of the Society's paragraph that has a little bit of truth in it:
4 Further, many authorities recognize the subservient role of the wife and the helpful position she can occupy toward her husband. Notice what one woman psychologist said recently: "I am a woman, hence my chief interest is men. And because I am also a psychologist, my interest in men is greater than it otherwise would be. Recently the National Management Association asked me to do some research on the different psychological factors of both men and women. It hoped that what I learned might point to ways of reducing the pressures which develop when men and women work together. I saw emerge these two truths: 1. All women like to work under a ceiling of authority. In short, they like to be bossed. 2. All women must feel that they are needed. These truths arise from the fact that, basically, women feel while men think. Women frequently measure up to men and surpass them in intelligence, but they are handicapped by the weight of emotional drag. Men have more practical minds; they can judge, organize, direct. Thus the supervision of women by men seems to be nature?s plan, however desperately women may fight it." What this authority refers to as nature?s plan we recognize as God?s purpose. How wholesome an arrangement it is and how well it works for happy family circles!
The rest is basically rubbish.
Now, pick apart what I boldened, tell me that women are not just feelers (while ignoring the word, "basically") and throw in a few ad hominems while you're at it. Since I'm a man I won't get my feelings hurt.
Bradley
Unbelievable! My copy of Esquire magazine came just in time for this thread! Notice the feature, "Ten Things You Don't Know About Women" on page 66 by Smantha Mathis. I think it illuminates my point nicely:
1. We willingly admit to being creaturees of at least two minds -- the rational, intellectual side and the female side. And though our rational, intellectual side recognizes that buying us some silly stuffed animal for Valentine's Day is a complete waste of money, our female side really needs you to go out and buy us that tedddy bear.
I rest my case.
My reality:
Kate and I have had innumerable "patio chats," and more often than not she makes some very visceral/intellectual observations that just set me back in my chair; me, the theoretical-physicist-philosopherwannabe-pseudotheologian-typical-testosteroned-guy.
This "male-brains/female-feelings" dichotomy is nothing more than social conditioning.
We live within the constraints of our own perspectives, as narrow as they might be.
Craig
Craig,
This "male-brains/female-feelings" dichotomy is nothing more than social conditioning.
lol...It took an 'unthinking' woman to hammer the nail on the head. Now she is entitled to hammer Bradley on the same spot.
Best regards - HS
I have a hard time understanding why anyone who believes in human evolution would adamantly rule out the possibility of evolved psychological gender differences.
There are plenty of evolved physical differences between genders, aside from just the ones having to do directly with reproduction. Presumably, these differences arose out of a combination of sexual selection and environmental fitness.
Our minds, however, are products of evolution just as the rest of our bodies are. If certain psychological differences were advantageous in the ancestral environment, why would they not evolve?
Granted that social conditioning can enhance or diminish the differences; and that individual variation is more important than either of those factors. (Men have evolved to be stronger than women, but there are plenty of female bodybuilders out there who could kick any average guy's ass.) And empirically, I do not think that the thinking/feeling difference is nearly as sharp as the strength difference.
But Hillary, Craig... given all the above, how can you categorically deny that a difference in averages may have a genetic root?
Men have evolved to be stronger than women, but there are plenty of female bodybuilders out there who could kick any average guy's ass.
The evolved differences are mostly supfical reactions to growth homones. Since there is a bell curve which individuals produce high hormome levels those female body builders are generaly producing more or injecting more androgens, and that effects the brain and the body. If you castrated a man all those things people claim men evolved would disappear and he could even grow breast.
Hi Hillary_Step,
I just want to congratulate you on what I think is a brilliant idea for a continuing series GB exposes.
I'm sure you'll find no shortage of raw idiocy to work with, courtesy of the "spirit-led" GB!
Best wishes for a long and successful run!
Hello Euphemism,
Hope all is well with you.
But Hillary, Craig... given all the above, how can you categorically deny that a difference in averages may have a genetic root?
I have never denied this. What I question is that one can seperate the world into two camps, 'thinkers' and 'feelers' and that the 'thinkers' are men and the f'eelers' are women and because the 'feelers' are women they are happier working in subservience to the 'thinkers. Sheer nonsense, but a nonsense that suits many men. Social conditioning does indeed play a large part in such attitudes, as a historical review of matriachal societies throughout history will show.
Evolution incidentally does not rely on 'averages' to sustain its direction.
Best regards - HS