A rant on gender stereotypes

[Losty]

[abaris]

I did read him a little bit and pictured him as an upright man always dressed in a suit, . . . and could not afford to enjoy his life in fear that he would shit himself (obviously so full of it he was).

Sorry to dissapoint, but suits weren't in fashion when Kant lived.

[Chili]

I did read him a little bit and pictured him as an upright man always dressed in a suit, . . . and could not afford to enjoy his life in fear that he would shit himself (obviously so full of it he was).

Sorry to dissapoint, but suits weren't in fashion when Kant lived.

I suppose his Categorical Imperative was the suit he wore.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He had the benefit of writing coherent sentences.

He did, as the leader of the pack that became known as Rationalist. Great thinkers, so they say, and that already makes them deprived of the privation that they see.

The difference here is that philosophy means love of wisdom and not search for wisdom, and therefore they 'must think' and are lost before they start.

I did read him a little bit and pictured him as an upright man always dressed in a suit, . . . and could not afford to enjoy his life in fear that he would shit himself (obviously so full of it he was).

Philosophy ... it's the top of a cereal box.

[Chili]

He did, as the leader of the pack that became known as Rationalist. Great thinkers, so they say, and that already makes them deprived of the privation that they see.

The difference here is that philosophy means love of wisdom and not search for wisdom, and therefore they 'must think' and are lost before they start.

I did read him a little bit and pictured him as an upright man always dressed in a suit, . . . and could not afford to enjoy his life in fear that he would shit himself (obviously so full of it he was).

Philosophy ... it's the top of a cereal box.

Sure, but you are also telling us that you do not know what philosophy is.

[Jenny A]

My sister is your general size and pretty tough in her own way. I don't know why stereotypes persist. But anyone who thinks they need to find out what it is to be masculine or feminine and then emulate that is pretty pathetic. You only get one shot in life. If you don't be yourself, who will? I read somewhere about how a bullfighter said when asked what it was to be masculine. He answered that he just did what came naturally and since he is male that must be what is masculine.

Your perfectly right in living your own life, but the reason why stereotypes persist is non-conformity and that makes those afflicted victims of our modern day society.

Non-conformity leads to stereotypes? I suppose then that grey leads to black and white.

Sorry to say, and that certainly is not their fault but is a societal dis-ease. Notice that the word 'societal' is culture driven and that is in which we, as in all of us, are a product that is designed by the previous generations with that same diminishing influence again the farther back we go, but most certainly the previous 2 because 'quality' is RNA by design instead of DNA and therefore skips one generation to rebound.

What you have there is a bad case of word salad. Do you think the "problem" is genetic (DNA) or societal?

In the ideal masculine males and effeminate females make the prefect match to procreate and since the Y chromosome is the fleeting one it must be charmed to remain and therefore societies are known to be male dominant. (((This is simply true and is why many years ago in Burma very few boys were born and that is what created 'snake charming' as a 'worthy' enterprise (from the Greek word axiom that no self contradiction shall remain), and hence the sage was right to say))).

You're going to have to explain this vanishing male population in Burma. Not only that it happened, but if it did, what it has to do with the "fleeting Y chromosome." What pray tell is fleeting about the Y chromosome, other than that Y sperm are slightly faster than X sperm because the Y doesn't weigh as much. But that's a rather different kind of fleeting.

The real problem is that life is an illusion (or eternal life could not be real) and therefore a stand is made in which two opposites are needed to validate the other one as opposite.

What makes you think eternal life is real?

This is what placed human opposite to woman, with woman being the womb of man and human just, or nearly just, the idiot who thinks that he has something to say as the womb of man made manifest. They so make a perfect hunter-gatherer pair that the ancients called TOK and TOL with TOL being the mainstay for TOK that we would our 'right' and 'left' for short.

More word salad.

Then, because life is an illusion a subliminal axiom looms in which an 'estate' (or greater worth) is seen (that we would call par-ousia). In our modern day this is what set woman free to find her own destiny in life in what became known as our 'gender equal' society where a claim to fame is sought by woman on her own. And of course she will, but also fails to take care of her own womanity (archaic word these days) and that left the next generation void with no idea of destiny = no par-ousia seen for them and hence the a- was placed to make known atheism with no labyrinth (integrity) to protect -- and will obviously look for a bigger dick to ride with the barn-door (soul) left wide open.

Womanity, is at best a 1864 word, made up then by feminists. If you have a more archaic usage, I'd like to see it. And the 1864 version it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Perhaps you mean femininity?

Important to understand here is that an increase of our humanity will be at the cost of our womanity, and obviously this would be true the other way as well.

I don't think I'm going to miss it.

This also explains where homosexuality has cause to be, and just like you and me should have the right to be as a product of our society.

Homosexuality is older than Judaism. To call it a modern byproduct is silly.

---

oooooh...the wo-manity!

You must have noticed that there is no such thing as man-ity, in which Christ is fully man as the solitary individual and that puts a dead stop to all of Christian-ity.

This would certainly mean that atheist is a valid stand to take, but should they not be burning all those Christians churches then? or just let them do it on their own, and bring back spontaneous combustions again at the foot of the cross they serve.

Translation please?

What would manity be if it existed? Definition please.

What the hell is Christian-ity as opposed to Christianity?

What possible cross do you think atheists serve? Or are you mistaking Satanism, a name for several kinds of theism and at least one non-theistic religion, for atheism?

But I'm not particularly concerned about spontaneously combating at the behest of a non-existent god, if that's what you're suggesting.

[Creed of Heresy]

Sure, but you are also telling us that you do not know what philosophy is.

You mean philosobabble.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Philosophy ... it's the top of a cereal box.

Sure, but you are also telling us that you do not know what philosophy is.

Nonsense. I'm giving you my valuation of it.

Lrn2cultural reference.

[Chili]

[quote='Chili' pid='834557' dateline='1420300164']

Your perfectly right in living your own life, but the reason why stereotypes persist is non-conformity and that makes those afflicted victims of our modern day society.

Non-conformity leads to stereotypes? I suppose then that grey leads to black and white. [/quote]

No, in the old opposite sex society black and white were opposites and in our modern 'gender equal' society grey is forced to be the norm, as that is what gender equal means. It is from here our sex is trying to find a common identity in the many shades of grey, and they all have equal ground to be.

Sorry to say, and that certainly is not their fault but is a societal dis-ease. Notice that the word 'societal' is culture driven and that is in which we, as in all of us, are a product that is designed by the previous generations with that same diminishing influence again the farther back we go, but most certainly the previous 2 because 'quality' is RNA by design instead of DNA and therefore skips one generation to rebound.

What you have there is a bad case of word salad. Do you think the "problem" is genetic (DNA) or societal?

In 'gender equal' anything goes and if fertility is a problem you can just pay the fee. If you are homosexuals you can adopt, and females can both use artificial ways to get pregnant. So I do not see a problem when friends have things in common in a love relationship. You can just get a different friend. The problem only exists if you do not agree with that.

In the ideal masculine males and effeminate females make the prefect match to procreate and since the Y chromosome is the fleeting one it must be charmed to remain and therefore societies are known to be male dominant. (((This is simply true and is why many years ago in Burma very few boys were born and that is what created 'snake charming' as a 'worthy' enterprise (from the Greek word axiom that no self contradiction shall remain), and hence the sage was right to say))).

You're going to have to explain this vanishing male population in Burma. Not only that it happened, but if it did, what it has to do with the "fleeting Y chromosome." What pray tell is fleeting about the Y chromosome, other than that Y sperm are slightly faster than X sperm because the Y doesn't weigh as much. But that's a rather different kind of fleeting.

Never mind Burma and you can Google that if you like. I came across that in Soc. 101 many years go. The fact is that with the opposites removed in our gender equal society the boy-girl birth ratio has changed with more girl babies born than boys, which is especially true in upper middle class families. Further, increasingly more homosexuals are born, and also more people who feel wrong about their sex identity and are troubled with stereo type imagery. To say the least, the opposites between males and females is reduced, as that was the purpose of this plan that also would make people more gentle and kind, and less violent for sure.

The real problem is that life is an illusion (or eternal life could not be real) and therefore a stand is made in which two opposites are needed to validate the other one as opposite.

What makes you think eternal life is real?

Eternal life is known in our soul where time as such does not exist. This would be where intuition is home and therefore is non-rational as distinct from rational and irrational.

This is what placed human opposite to woman, with woman being the womb of man and human just, or nearly just, the idiot who thinks that he has something to say as the womb of man made manifest. They so make a perfect hunter-gatherer pair that the ancients called TOK and TOL with TOL being the mainstay for TOK that we would our 'right' and 'left' for short.

More word salad.

[quote='Chili' pid='834557' dateline='1420300164']
Then, because life is an illusion a subliminal axiom looms in which an 'estate' (or greater worth) is seen (that we would call par-ousia). In our modern day this is what set woman free to find her own destiny in life in what became known as our 'gender equal' society where a claim to fame is sought by woman on her own. And of course she will, but also fails to take care of her own womanity (archaic word these days) and that left the next generation void with no idea of destiny = no par-ousia seen for them and hence the a- was placed to make known atheism with no labyrinth (integrity) to protect -- and will obviously look for a bigger dick to ride with the barn-door (soul) left wide open.

Womanity, is at best a 1864 word, made up then by feminists. If you have a more archaic usage, I'd like to see it. And the 1864 version it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Perhaps you mean femininity? [/quote]

No, that is a dictionary definition. Womanity typically is non-rational, or right brain orientation as opposed to left brain as rational. So now and increase of being rational will be at the cost of non-rational.

Important to understand here is that an increase of our humanity will be at the cost of our womanity, and obviously this would be true the other way as well.

I don't think I'm going to miss it.

That is fair comment and is your choice to make.

This also explains where homosexuality has cause to be, and just like you and me should have the right to be as a product of our society.

Homosexuality is older than Judaism. To call it a modern byproduct is silly.

---

[quote='Chili' pid='834658' dateline='1420305961']

Of course it is, but there is more of them today. That's all, and still more on the way.

You must have noticed that there is no such thing as man-ity, in which Christ is fully man as the solitary individual and that puts a dead stop to all of Christian-ity.

This would certainly mean that atheist is a valid stand to take, but should they not be burning all those Christians churches then? or just let them do it on their own, and bring back spontaneous combustions again at the foot of the cross they serve.

Translation please?

What would manity be if it existed? Definition please.

What the hell is Christian-ity as opposed to Christianity?

What possible cross do you think atheists serve? Or are you mistaking Satanism, a name for several kinds of theism and at least one non-theistic religion, for atheism?

But I'm not particularly concerned about spontaneously combating at the behest of a non-existent god, if that's what you're suggesting.

Just telling you that Christian is wherein humans are fully man, and if this is true the -ity does not belong and has no room to be, or it would also fit to man. That is just language.

To note here that when Jesus became a Christian he was no longer a Jew. The same is true for Catholics, who likewise are no longer Catholic when they become a Christian, and therefore Christianity has no room to be.

From this follows that it is not possible to be a saved-sinner as Catholic, and I add this only so you can understand my point of view on this (and therefore are not theists either and can rightfully not become an atheist).

[Losty]

Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Catholics don't need to become Christian because they already are Christian.