Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What's happened to the fo...
Today at 11:58 AM

New Britain
Yesterday at 08:07 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:55 AM

Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
October 04, 2025, 09:23 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
October 02, 2025, 12:48 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 02, 2025, 12:03 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM

Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM

Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
August 09, 2025, 10:33 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Women

 (Read 63572 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 12 13 1415 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Women
     Reply #390 - April 11, 2010, 05:16 PM

    No I'm still sexist as ever--I'm just more open about it now. lol  Tongue

    No but on a serious note, everyone, both males and females are like that. I personally feel it's a form of prejudice that is ingrained into our genes due to the way both males and females evolved to attract each other. Same with racism. Racism isn't taught, but everyone, to some degree is a racist. The goal is however, due to the fact that we live in a very conscious, and multi-cultural society, is to suppress such prejudices if we want to get anywhere in life and make friends.

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #391 - April 11, 2010, 05:30 PM

    To add on to the above: I've ran into women who say that all Men are cheaters, players, and pigs etc.--this isn't true, but in my honest opinion, I don't find it offensive, since I know that none of those descriptions fit me; so I have nothing to really worry about. They can all say what they like--it's their opinions not mine. I think being offended is a choice, and it's very easy to switch of that trigger.

    Maybe no one else feels this way but, *sometimes* sexist remarks is quite the turn on for me. For example, when my ex-gf and I used to fight, she would call me a "player" and frankly that didn't piss me off. It was the opposite. It made me feel good actually. Furthermore, when we would have sex, she would get turned on if I called her a "bitch" during sex.

    Not that I'm defending calling women a bitch or a ho; I'm just simply pointing out that *by nature* due to evolution, it's in a Man's gene to be a bit empowering, and a women to be a bit submissive--I think most women agree with this; the girls I've been with certainly do, no matter how tough they wanted others to perceive them as. However, that being said, this does not give anyone the authority to treat women with disrespect in any form or fashion.

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #392 - April 11, 2010, 05:32 PM

    No I'm still sexist as ever--I'm just more open about it now. lol  Tongue

    No but on a serious note, everyone, both males and females are like that. I personally feel it's a form of prejudice that is ingrained into our genes due to the way both males and females evolved to attract each other. Same with racism. Racism isn't taught, but everyone, to some degree is a racist. The goal is however, due to the fact that we live in a very conscious, and multi-cultural society, is to suppress such prejudices if we want to get anywhere in life and make friends.

    You believe we are genetically pre-disposed towards racism and sexism. Are there many other complex social dispositions written into our genes? Communism, perhaps?

    The recognition of difference and the way it's acted upon differ from culture to culture. How would you explain matriarchal tribes, for example? The men have sissy-DNA?


    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #393 - April 11, 2010, 05:35 PM

    You believe we are genetically pre-disposed towards racism and sexism. Are there many other complex social dispositions written into our genes? Communism, perhaps?


    What does communism have anything to do with racism?

    You don't have to buy into anything I say--no one does. But if you study evolutionary psychology of man, and anthropology, you'll see my point.

    Racism, and sexism isn't only in existence in our society--it's true for even tribal societies which exist today.

    I'm still not sure why you felt the need to bring up communism?  Huh?

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #394 - April 11, 2010, 05:45 PM


    Maybe no one else feels this way but, *sometimes* sexist remarks is quite the turn on for me. For example, when my ex-gf and I used to fight, she would call me a "player" and frankly that didn't piss me off. It was the opposite. It made me feel good actually. Furthermore, when we would have sex, she would get turned on if I called her a "bitch" during sex.

    Not that I'm defending calling women a bitch or a ho; I'm just simply pointing out that *by nature* due to evolution, it's in a Man's gene to be a bit empowering, and a women to be a bit submissive--I think most women agree with this; the girls I've been with certainly do, no matter how tough they wanted others to perceive them as. However, that being said, this does not give anyone the authority to treat women with disrespect in any form or fashion.

    I didnt know that it was in female DNA to be submissive - have you got any sources for this, or the name of the gene responsible?

    I think you would be advised to explore what I see as your misconceptions. 

    I think culture & society define roles for men & women and these are the reasons for these differences.  For women who do not conform to these pressures, e.g. margaret thatcher, indira gandhi etc then the results are different. 

    There are matriarchal (e.g. Jewish) societies as well as patricarchal societies, and they function just as well.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Women
     Reply #395 - April 11, 2010, 05:47 PM


    The recognition of difference and the way it's acted upon differ from culture to culture. How would you explain matriarchal tribes, for example? The men have sissy-DNA?



    Actually, lets look at the most tribal societies of today. Young boys go through an "initiation" process to become a Man. Native American tribes even have this to this very day. For example there is one tribe in near the Amazon where young boys have to stick their hands into a bowl of bullet ants and be stung for an hour. They must not flinch, or show any signs on pain for 24 hours. Once the day is past, they are then considered to be a Man.

    This type of ritual is present in all societies. Even look at our history for example (I'm presuming you live in the U.S). The society that we have to day, where it is encouraged males to be more *feminine* was never present during the times of the Wild West. In fact, even during that time, boys had to go through many initiation processes to prove that they are ready to be a Man and take on family responsibility. It is only due to the fact that our society has advanced so much, that our need to dominate physically is gone. Instead our focus is now on careers. The Man who makes the most money, is seen as the bigger man. so that perspective has shifted greatly.

    Every male is born with the gene to be childish, and carefree, but every society has a way of getting that inner child sucked outta him. Our society today actually encourages Men to be uber nice to people, and letting this slide way to often--it's not in our genes that men become sissies but it's society that converts a Man into that.

    I forgot who said this quote, but it's summarizes what I'm saying:

    "When I was a boy, I acted like a boy, and when I became a Man, I had that boy shot in the back yard."

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #396 - April 11, 2010, 05:49 PM

    I didnt know that it was in female DNA to be submissive - have you got any sources for this, or the name of the gene responsible?


    No I don't have the link, but here is one of the books that I'm using as my resource: http://www.amazon.com/Disposable-Male-Money-through-Darwins/dp/0977655237/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271008140&sr=8-2

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #397 - April 11, 2010, 05:50 PM

    And here is another: http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evolution-Consumer-Behavior/dp/B002ZNJWHW/ref=pd_sim_b_1

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #398 - April 11, 2010, 05:51 PM

    What does communism have anything to do with racism?

    What does DNA have to do with racism?

    You don't have to buy into anything I say--no one does. But if you study evolutionary psychology of man, and anthropology, you'll see my point.

    You're conflating basic human impulses with belief, social perspective and outlook.

    Racism, and sexism isn't only in existence in our society--it's true for even tribal societies which exist today.

    I didn't say that it didn't exist elsewhere.

    I'm still not sure why you felt the need to bring up communism?  Huh?

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to hide behind scientific theories you obviously don't fully grasp in order to justify your sexism. Throwing around words like anthropology doesn't prove your assertion that sexism is encoded into my DNA anymore than the qu'ran proves allah's existance.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #399 - April 11, 2010, 05:54 PM

    I didnt know that it was in female DNA to be submissive - have you got any sources for this, or the name of the gene responsible?

    I think you would be advised to explore what I see as your misconceptions. 

    I think culture & society define roles for men & women and these are the reasons for these differences.  For women who do not conform to these pressures, e.g. margaret thatcher, indira gandhi etc then the results are different. 

    There are matriarchal (e.g. Jewish) societies as well as patricarchal societies, and they function just as well.

    He obviously hasn't encountered a woman who doesn't get off at all on being dominated, but being dominating. Perhaps he's missing out.  Wink

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #400 - April 11, 2010, 05:57 PM

    Actually, lets look at the most tribal societies of today. Young boys go through an "initiation" process to become a Man. Native American tribes even have this to this very day. For example there is one tribe in near the Amazon where young boys have to stick their hands into a bowl of bullet ants and be stung for an hour. They must not flinch, or show any signs on pain for 24 hours. Once the day is past, they are then considered to be a Man.

    This type of ritual is present in all societies. Even look at our history for example (I'm presuming you live in the U.S). The society that we have to day, where it is encouraged males to be more *feminine* was never present during the times of the Wild West. In fact, even during that time, boys had to go through many initiation processes to prove that they are ready to be a Man and take on family responsibility. It is only due to the fact that our society has advanced so much, that our need to dominate physically is gone. Instead our focus is now on careers. The Man who makes the most money, is seen as the bigger man. so that perspective has shifted greatly.

    Every male is born with the gene to be childish, and carefree, but every society has a way of getting that inner child sucked outta him. Our society today actually encourages Men to be uber nice to people, and letting this slide way to often--it's not in our genes that men become sissies but it's society that converts a Man into that.

    I forgot who said this quote, but it's summarizes what I'm saying:

    "When I was a boy, I acted like a boy, and when I became a Man, I had that boy shot in the back yard."

    You have failed to provide proof that sexism is "ingrained" into us at a genetic level.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #401 - April 11, 2010, 05:58 PM

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to hide behind scientific theories you obviously don't fully grasp in order to justify your sexism. Throwing around words like anthropology doesn't prove your assertion that sexism is encoded into my DNA anymore than the qu'ran proves allah's existance.


    Look dude, if thats the way you wanna look at it, then by all means, do so. I have nothing to gain by imposing what I belief on you; as you're trying to imply by playing a victim. As I've said before, you don't have to believe in what I'm saying, and I'm certainly am not justifying sexism since I do believe that both Men and Women deserve equal respect. I was giving you a scientific perspective on racism. It's in our genes to be prejudice; but I'm by no means saying it's right to be so.

    What does DNA have to do with racism?

    Read a book on Evolutionary Psychology and Anthropology. I'm not dodging the question, but the explanation is way too long and I wanna avoid going back and forth with you on this--especially since I see that you have a bias on the subject and on the high defensive.

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #402 - April 11, 2010, 05:58 PM


    It's a link to buy a book. This is also a link to buy a book.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #403 - April 11, 2010, 06:00 PM

    It's a link to the same source I used. I have no Wikipedia article on it if that's what you're looking for.

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #404 - April 11, 2010, 06:03 PM

    Actually, here is a good pdf I found on the subject. It's on racism and psychology:
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/psycn/psycn012.pdf

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #405 - April 11, 2010, 06:04 PM

    Look dude, if thats the way you wanna look at it, then by all means, do so. I have nothing to gain by imposing what I belief on you; as you're trying to imply by playing a victim.

    I'm afraid I'm just a victim of my DNA. It's forcing me to argue with you. Evolutionary psychology and string theory prove this.

    As I've said before, you don't have to believe in what I'm saying, and I'm certainly am not justifying sexism since I do believe that both Men and Women deserve equal respect. I was giving you a scientific perspective on racism. It's in our genes to be prejudice; but I'm by no means saying it's right to be so.
    Read a book on Evolutionary Psychology and Anthropology. I'm not dodging the question, but the explanation is way too long and I wanna avoid going back and forth with you on this--especially since I see that you have a bias on the subject and on the high defensive.

    Actually, you started by saying you were still sexist and that this was because it's because of genetics which are beyond your control. I called you out and now you're fumbling around with links to amazon.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #406 - April 11, 2010, 06:08 PM


    Actually, you started by saying you were still sexist and that this was because it's because of genetics which are beyond your control. I called you out and now you're fumbling around with links to amazon.


    I never said it's beyond my control guy. Read the my posts again. I'm not fumbling around with my links to Amazon--you can buy that book, or go to your local library and read it. Once you're finished, we can continue this discussion. If after you're done reading you find an opposite conclusion (so long as you read the book without any biases) then by all means, we'll discuss that too.

    Your attempt to ridicule me instead of reading the content of my posts only shows me that you're not really interested in learning. You're more interested in getting the pat on the back from your internet friends.

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #407 - April 11, 2010, 06:13 PM

    Actually, here is a good pdf I found on the subject. It's on racism and psychology:
    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/psycn/psycn012.pdf

    I just read it. Wow, not at all ideologically motivated. Some really in-depth scientific research in there regarding the imaginary racist DNA (sorry, couldn't find the reference in the footnotes). I did like this, though:
    Quote
    ... anti-libertarian ideology ... is the real enemy of blacks, not someone with a burning cross or the non-existent ‘fascist menace’ conjured up in this country by assorted ‘anti-racist’ groups.

    Try telling that to every black person who's been beaten or harrassed by the NF over the years.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #408 - April 11, 2010, 06:18 PM

    I never said it's beyond my control guy. Read the my posts again. I'm not fumbling around with my links to Amazon--you can buy that book, or go to your local library and read it. Once you're finished, we can continue this discussion. If after you're done reading you find an opposite conclusion (so long as you read the book without any biases) then by all means, we'll discuss that too.

    Or you could just quote the proof here, or at least give page references, etc.

    Your attempt to ridicule me instead of reading the content of my posts only shows me that you're not really interested in learning. You're more interested in getting the pat on the back from your internet friends.

    Sorry, it's in my DNA to ridicule you in particular as a way of getting positive reinforcement from people I didn't even know existed until a few days ago. I'd post a book about it but it wouldn't really prove what I'm saying, so I won't bother. I'll just try to be more aware of it in the future in the interests of forum harmony.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #409 - April 11, 2010, 06:24 PM

     Cheesy

    Call me TAP TAP! for I am THE ASS PATTER!
  • Re: Women
     Reply #410 - April 11, 2010, 08:04 PM

    I have been in the position of having to come to terms with my own prejudices too at various times.

    If its not too personal could you perhaps share what some of those prejudices were?
  • Re: Women
     Reply #411 - April 11, 2010, 10:23 PM

    I didnt know that it was in female DNA to be submissive - have you got any sources for this, or the name of the gene responsible?

    I think you would be advised to explore what I see as your misconceptions. 

    I think culture & society define roles for men & women and these are the reasons for these differences.  For women who do not conform to these pressures, e.g. margaret thatcher, indira gandhi etc then the results are different. 

    There are matriarchal (e.g. Jewish) societies as well as patricarchal societies, and they function just as well.

    If you think the Old Testament laws are "matriarchal" then you have an odd definition of the term.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Women
     Reply #412 - April 11, 2010, 11:08 PM

    You have failed to provide proof that sexism is "ingrained" into us at a genetic level.

    You failed to provide any evidence that it isn't.  Wink  And yes, I am aware that in formal debates the person making a claim is required to support it, but if you are going to tell Tommy he is wrong it would be a good idea to give him something to consider.

    Now, I'm going to throw a spanner in the works by arguing that he has a point.

    Example: in general women prefer men who are physically larger and stronger than they are. Even our renowned Berbs admits to this preference. Sure, you can say that maybe not all women are like this, but that doesn't negate the fact that this still seems to be a general preference.

    When you think about it, this should not be at all surprising given that we are members of a species that has evolved so that in general males are physically larger and stronger than females. To claim that the two are completely unrelated and have no genetic basis does not seem at all plausible. 

    As an analogy, the fact that most people don't like being pissed on is not negated by the fact that some odd bods get off on golden showers.

    You have to be wary. Sure, it would be wrong to claim that all human behaviour is genetically determined and incapable of modification (conscious or otherwise). That would be a stupid claim. However, you also cannot reasonably claim that yes, we are all individuals (cue Life of Brian vid clip) and therefore uninfluenced by genetic programming. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Women
     Reply #413 - April 12, 2010, 12:06 AM

    You failed to provide any evidence that it isn't.  Wink  And yes, I am aware that in formal debates the person making a claim is required to support it, but if you are going to tell Tommy he is wrong it would be a good idea to give him something to consider.

    Now, I'm going to throw a spanner in the works by arguing that he has a point.

    Example: in general women prefer men who are physically larger and stronger than they are. Even our renowned Berbs admits to this preference. Sure, you can say that maybe not all women are like this, but that doesn't negate the fact that this still seems to be a general preference.

    When you think about it, this should not be at all surprising given that we are members of a species that has evolved so that in general males are physically larger and stronger than females. To claim that the two are completely unrelated and have no genetic basis does not seem at all plausible. 

    As an analogy, the fact that most people don't like being pissed on is not negated by the fact that some odd bods get off on golden showers.

    You have to be wary. Sure, it would be wrong to claim that all human behaviour is genetically determined and incapable of modification (conscious or otherwise). That would be a stupid claim. However, you also cannot reasonably claim that yes, we are all individuals (cue Life of Brian vid clip) and therefore uninfluenced by genetic programming. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

    I understand where you're coming from. I think what has to be made clear is that TAP's initial assertion that he is still a sexist was backed with an argument that sexism is ingrained into us genetically. Sexism is a complicated social issue which by no means features as a complete mechanism coded into our DNA. Berbs may well like big strong guys, and many guys might like tanned girls. However in the Victorian era pale women were considered more beautiful. In some places obesity has been considered attractive. There are strong arguments that attraction is a complex interweaving of genetic predisposition and culture, and I'm not just talking about physical attraction. If anything more complex than basic urges and traits were installed (to varying degrees according to individual) in each gender then how could matriarchal tribes such as a Mosuo have persisted?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoTrARDa8BU
    I stand by my arguments. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Scientific evidence for what TAP asserted simply hasn't been provided, ergo his excuse for sexism is fictional.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #414 - April 12, 2010, 12:31 AM

     Wink Ok, take a close look at that video again. What you have provided is an example of a tribe that is matrilinear.

    See the part about the pool table at the local store? "Only men play. The women have too much work to do."

    Then there's the woman speaking from 8.20 onwards. "Real power is in the hands of men." "Women are tied to the home, while the boys are more likely to go to school."

    Dude, methinks you have not exactly made your case. In a society that does not have access to modern paternity testing it makes sense to track descent through the mother. Judaism does the same thing and this custom was probably a lot more widespread in the past.

    Now, take a look at all the societies where men have realised that paternity can also be tracked through the male line, as long as you control the sex life of women. How common is that? We're back to my analogy about golden showers (or any other relevant analogy).

    You say that only basic drives can be assigned to genetics. I agree. I think we are talking about basic drives. I have already said they can be modified either consciously or unconsciously (ie: in the case of being born into an existing culture that counters them), but on closer inspection it seems the Mosuo may not be a great example of this. 

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Women
     Reply #415 - April 12, 2010, 01:20 AM

    Wink Ok, take a close look at that video again. What you have provided is an example of a tribe that is matrilinear.

    See the part about the pool table at the local store? "Only men play. The women have too much work to do."

    Then there's the woman speaking from 8.20 onwards. "Real power is in the hands of men." "Women are tied to the home, while the boys are more likely to go to school."

    Dude, methinks you have not exactly made your case. In a society that does not have access to modern paternity testing it makes sense to track descent through the mother. Judaism does the same thing and this custom was probably a lot more widespread in the past.

    Now, take a look at all the societies where men have realised that paternity can also be tracked through the male line, as long as you control the sex life of women. How common is that? We're back to my analogy about golden showers (or any other relevant analogy).

    Having reviewed the video again I see your point. Apparently the Mosou and Naxi peoples have moved away from matriarchy in recent times as their interaction with the outside world has developed, but still maintain a matrilinear descent.

    You say that only basic drives can be assigned to genetics. I agree. I think we are talking about basic drives. I have already said they can be modified either consciously or unconsciously (ie: in the case of being born into an existing culture that counters them), but on closer inspection it seems the Mosuo may not be a great example of this.

    I think those basic drives can be fulfilled by systems other than patriarchy, but that this became dominant for a variety of reasons. The point of the Mosuo example is that their culture is obviously not classically patriarchal (women are the heads of the houses). Men do not see themselves as superior to women in respect to making decisions affecting their families. I'm not arguing against any genetic predispositions towards certain drives or urges, not at all. What I've taken issue with is the idea that it's natural to be sexist in a social sense because sexism exists as a set of ideas encoded at a genetic level, apparently in the same way racism is. Conflating complex sets of ideas and social values with basic urges and impulses (which may well be the catalyst for the development of the former) as a way of justifying the continuation of sexism or racism (since PAT included both) seems just a tad disingenuous. I want to be clear, I'm not rejecting evolutionary psychology but what I felt was its hijacking in defense of maintaining a sexist (or racist) outlook.

    Each of us a failed state in stark relief against the backdrop of the perfect worlds we seek.
    Propagandhi - Failed States
  • Re: Women
     Reply #416 - April 12, 2010, 01:39 AM

    If its not too personal could you perhaps share what some of those prejudices were?


    Sure. When I was younger, I had to come to terms with the anti-semitism I was raised with, and bought into. As I mentioned in the other thread, I was raised to believe that Jews were intrinsically bad. It took time and education and exposure to other points of view that made me realize that this was a false stereotype.

    Growing up in the U.S., there was a time I had also became swept up in disdain for poor people, the homeless, and immigrants from Mexico and the south American nations. It didn't last long, because I was myself brown and not from a wealthy family, but I did have some friends when I was in my teens who espoused somewhat bigoted views which I was peer-pressured into believing. It took a short foray into living in an urban environment with lots of racial and other diversity, and getting educated in economics and sociology for me to discard those notions about the poor, the homeless and Latino peoples.

    Until about 6 or 7 years ago, I was quite ignorant about the issues surrounding transexuality and felt that it was something irreconcilable with what I thought was a binary gender system, that everyone was just a man or a woman and no variations could exist. There was a time when I thought transexuals were just gay people who couldn't come to terms with their homosexuality. Same with bisexuals.

    As with the other biases, it took education about sexuality, sexual diversity, the history of the invention of these terms "homosexual" "heterosexual" "bisexual" and "transexual" and a study of how sexual diversity has been viewed in other cultures, in other times and places, that I came to get a better understanding that there are many different ways of being in the world and what feels "natural" to me is a product of all the various influences that have affected me, and it may not feel the same to someone else. It also took listening to "the others", hearing them out, considering that their life experiences are as real for them as mine are for me, that I developed empathy and a sense that if I want to be authentic to who I am, I have to give other people a chance to be authentic to themselves too, to take their perspectives into consideration and that I should avoid trying to speak *for* them, but talk with them, let them speak, and listen.

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Women
     Reply #417 - April 12, 2010, 01:56 AM

    Along the lines of being bigoted - I have to admit I still have bigoted views about heroes

    If there weren't any heroes, mankind would long ago have stop looking for external help but those bloody heroes made the rest of us lazy!

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Women
     Reply #418 - April 12, 2010, 02:02 AM

    LOL. It could also be argued, that we create heroes in our minds, that every hero is a projection of our hopes and our fears. And that "them" making "us" lazy would be like saying a character I create for a story, makes me do or not do something. Maybe there are no heroes. And maybe we are all heroes. Smiley

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • Re: Women
     Reply #419 - April 12, 2010, 02:03 AM

    ...or maybe I should stop trying to be funny  Huh?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Previous page 1 ... 12 13 1415 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »