What is anger?

[Socrateaze]

Wooart said, Like I said – anger is the bellows that stokes the fire in our belly – and motivates us to fight. Our constant fighting is what denies us peace. How do we stop fighting?

Is fighting not sometimes necessary?

[Woodart]

Wooart said, Like I said – anger is the bellows that stokes the fire in our belly – and motivates us to fight. Our constant fighting is what denies us peace. How do we stop fighting?

Is fighting not sometimes necessary?

Yes I believe fighting is necessary. I think we need to fight now for the equality of women. We have not seriously played this card yet. I think if we honor and respect women – truly – the world will change for the better. This is not an easy task. Women must play the largest role to bring about this change. It is mostly an intellectual shift, but it will have profound consequences. I think humans are stupid – all of us. Why would we want to hold half of our group down? Why would half of our group accept it? It is because we are dumb - cowards. Let’s try something new – and – see what happens.

[Socrateaze]

(Nested quote removed.)


Is fighting not sometimes necessary?

Yes I believe fighting is necessary. I think we need to fight now for the equality of women. We have not seriously played this card yet. I think if we honor and respect women – truly – the world will change for the better. This is not an easy task. Women must play the largest role to bring about this change. It is mostly an intellectual shift, but it will have profound consequences. I think humans are stupid – all of us. Why would we want to hold half of our group down? Why would half of our group accept it? It is because we are dumb - cowards. Let’s try something new – and – see what happens.

That was not quite the fighting I was referring to, but anyways.

In your "women's rights" argument, I think anger might be useful, but as you say - it is a state of mind and it must be fixed on both sides.

[Woodart]

(Nested quote removed.)


Yes I believe fighting is necessary. I think we need to fight now for the equality of women. We have not seriously played this card yet. I think if we honor and respect women – truly – the world will change for the better. This is not an easy task. Women must play the largest role to bring about this change. It is mostly an intellectual shift, but it will have profound consequences. I think humans are stupid – all of us. Why would we want to hold half of our group down? Why would half of our group accept it? It is because we are dumb - cowards. Let’s try something new – and – see what happens.

That was not quite the fighting I was referring to, but anyways.

In your "women's rights" argument, I think anger might be useful, but as you say - it is a state of mind and it must be fixed on both sides.

Oh yes - it must be fixed on both sides, but women must lead the way and teach men of its advantageousness.

[Socrateaze]

(Nested quote removed.)


That was not quite the fighting I was referring to, but anyways.

In your "women's rights" argument, I think anger might be useful, but as you say - it is a state of mind and it must be fixed on both sides.

Oh yes - it must be fixed on both sides, but women must lead the way and teach men of its advantageousness.

I have a better idea, how about we all just decide on no extremes?

[Burning ghost]

Fight for the equality of women? How? Are men and women equal with identical biological roles and social roles?

[Woodart]

Anger can lead us in quite a few different directions. It seems simple and yet can get a bit complex. Anger relates to most conflict/fighting and fighting deprives us of peace. How do we get peace on Earth? I don’t know. We have tried a lot of different things over the last 5000 years and nothing has worked. Let’s try something new.

I say let’s empower women. We have not really tried this yet. They bring something different to the table - a different way of looking at things. It seems to me the right thing to do, but also the most intelligent thing to do. We can keep going with men making most of the important decisions, but I don’t think it is going to end well. We need to share the power somewhat equally in order to try and balance the human equation. Balance is what we need, not dominance of one or the other. We are running out of options and time. Do you see a better way to go for world peace? Or do you just abstain from voting and wait to see what happens. Abstaining is the mark of a coward.

[Burning ghost]

Anger can lead us in quite a few different directions. It seems simple and yet can get a bit complex. Anger relates to most conflict/fighting and fighting deprives us of peace. How do we get peace on Earth? I don’t know. We have tried a lot of different things over the last 5000 years and nothing has worked. Let’s try something new.

I say let’s empower women. We have not really tried this yet. They bring something different to the table - a different way of looking at things. It seems to me the right thing to do, but also the most intelligent thing to do. We can keep going with men making most of the important decisions, but I don’t think it is going to end well. We need to share the power somewhat equally in order to try and balance the human equation. Balance is what we need, not dominance of one or the other. We are running out of options and time. Do you see a better way to go for world peace? Or do you just abstain from voting and wait to see what happens. Abstaining is the mark of a coward.

I don't think this is a problem in the west (more the opposite in some situations.) In other nations there is an issue of women's rights. We also know that educating women brings down population growth. The first obvious step is to help other nations provide education to women.

-- Updated August 24th, 2017, 5:28 am to add the following --

"Steven Pinker on Taboos, Political Correctness, and Dissent":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0W9sSqeJnA

[Socrateaze]

Anger can lead us in quite a few different directions. It seems simple and yet can get a bit complex. Anger relates to most conflict/fighting and fighting deprives us of peace. How do we get peace on Earth? I don’t know. We have tried a lot of different things over the last 5000 years and nothing has worked. Let’s try something new.

I say let’s empower women. We have not really tried this yet. They bring something different to the table - a different way of looking at things. It seems to me the right thing to do, but also the most intelligent thing to do. We can keep going with men making most of the important decisions, but I don’t think it is going to end well. We need to share the power somewhat equally in order to try and balance the human equation. Balance is what we need, not dominance of one or the other. We are running out of options and time. Do you see a better way to go for world peace? Or do you just abstain from voting and wait to see what happens. Abstaining is the mark of a coward.

We are misguided in thinking women are as a rule more peaceful. I am a woman and am capable of just as much a men, if not more. How long do we think women will give us a world of peace, until the stereotype runs out?

[Burning ghost]

That woman with the Italian sounding name is pretty good to listen to ... Paglia? Paligia? Wait ... Camille Paglia!

Not massively familiar with her work yet, but what I've skimmed over, and the segments of her talks on youtube I've listened too, seem to be very well thought out and reasonably far reaching.

Certainly an interesting character on the scene right now.

[Woodart]

Burning ghost wrote:
I don't think this is a problem in the west (more the opposite in some situations.) In other nations there is an issue of women's rights. We also know that educating women brings down population growth. The first obvious step is to help other nations provide education to women.

I think you are mistaken about the west & women. We have begun to appreciate women – but – to use an analogy – I think we are still in preschool. We have a long, long way to go. The rest of the world – women are barely on the radar. The whole world has to dance to this tune – we are leading in the west – but – the party has just begun.

Burning ghost wrote:
"Steven Pinker on Taboos, Political Correctness, and Dissent":

I agree with Pinker – we are not a blank slate – but we are malleable – I hope.

Camille Paglia is a potent force and opens up the dialog.

Socrateaze wrote:
We are misguided in thinking women are as a rule more peaceful. I am a woman and am capable of just as much a men, if not more. How long do we think women will give us a world of peace, until the stereotype runs out?

I agree women can be as ruthless as men. I don’t think women are better – they are different. I think we need the different perspective at all levels of decision making. We need to balance the human equation – not distort to one side or another. The balanced equation is something we have not tried – yet. It may not work and we are all doomed. If we don’t try something new – we know what the outcome will be. What do we have to lose? I think we need to stay positive and hopeful.

[Synthesis]

We are misguided in thinking women are as a rule more peaceful. I am a woman and am capable of just as much a men, if not more.

I agree with you 100%!

[Burning ghost]

Woodart -

Well, pinker says in that vid about people viewing things as being doom and gloom when the truth is things have never been better.

I think the west is still balancing out since the explosion of women's rights. It is easy to forget that never before in human history have women had the kind of freedom they have today (in the west at least.) I think in some degrees this has caused some real upheaval for the male population and destabilized parts of society and culture. We are still in the infancy stage and due to mass communications many other non-western traditions are seriously struggling to adapt to all these alien ideas they are being exposed to (and this is also a two-way exposure for many too in the opposite direction and for quite different reasons!)

There are more and more women involved in politics today, and at a high level. My biggest fear is giving women, or any other politically motivated group, a leg up they have not earned. Diversity for the sake of diversity is a troubling course of action to implement. By this I mean simply voting for or hiring person X because of their "group" is a very bad direct to be going in.

In the UK it is very funny to see the young woman who won bake-off being revered as a good example of diversity and Islam. She found it really strange. A very nice person and it is worth listening to her comments about how she felt. Many were saying she was given the win because she was Muslim and because the BBC wanted to show more diversity. She was just good at baking cakes and it is utterly bizarre to bring political or religious views into a baking competition! haha! Humans are quite weird sometimes, always looking for targets or deflections so they don't have to question themselves too much.

The trend mentioned above is something being expressed everywhere in all forms of media. There is a certain sense of hysteria and sensationalism that makes mundane events and statements into huge political debates for no good reason. This is the age of mountains out of molehills and molehills out of mountains. Today it seems like every has an opinion about everything before they've even bothered to actually understand it, dissect it, or question its validity.

I want to see more people having more say who are capable. I don't care if they are males, females or hermaphrodites, I just care that they are smart, concerned about people and the Earth, and want to spread ideas that open up understanding and better communications.

I am not really sure what you mean by "We have just begun to appreciate women"? The key ambiguity being the use of the term "appreciate". Do you mean in the sense of we've only just started to see women having political impact? Then, yes, I agree. Around a hundred years ago women couldn't even vote. Consider that over the span of human history and we're talking about a tiny splinter of human history. Think about how long it has taken western culture to adjust and the fighting that has gone on right up until today. Then compare this to other nations whose cultures where women are essentially at a lower political position than women in the west 100 years ago. The truth is we cannot think about it, we cannot imagine it, we are more than a hundred years away from them now and utterly ignorant to the experience of such a slow and steady progression.

Thankfully there has been SOME global exposure so alien as the western traditions may seem to other parts of the world they are not completely unexposed to them. Meaning it is not like we're travelling in a time machine to a point in history and trying to teach a lot new set of histories (well, in most cases!)

-- Updated August 24th, 2017, 12:49 pm to add the following --

I don't care if your capable of more than most men or women or porcupines. That is besides the point. I care that you are more capable than the next PERSON. That you are not blinded by a need to push gender to the forefront of any given argument and shout "You don't agree because I am a woman!" I want to be able to say to people that I like what they say or don't like what they say without being accused of "siding" with, or sympathetic toward, some imaginary boundary set up to create social distinctions and create political fractures.

[Socrateaze]

Synthesis, I'm glad someone sees this. I would go so far as to say that women are capable of more violence, since they are shrewder. The women on the forum will understand.

Woodart, I don't think we are doomed if we don't change - but we certainly will miss out on a lot.

[Ranvier]

An interesting question comes to mind: Why did our ancestors deem such arrangement of gender dynamics wise or necessary?
Was is simply due to following the traditions of "hunter & gatherer" tribal culture? Why was is so similar on different continents? Many people hold the stereotype that women are wiser and more cunning than men but can be as equally vicious as men, if not more. Why would women then wait so long to achieve "equality" through feminist movement? Is it simply due to an opportunity arising from WWII? Education? Increase in the amount of human benevolence? Wise economics? It would be worth while to understand...