Vigils For Sister Kelly Tonight.

[wenglund]

And I think you will be hard pressed to find women who aren't dissatisfied on some level.  

 

From my limited experience, dissatisfaction on at least some level seems to be at the very core of women's human nature.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

From my limited experience, dissatisfaction on at least some level seems to be at the very core of women's human nature.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Men's as well...especially with women.

[Storm Rider]

Men's as well...especially with women.

 

The sexes are different. For the life of me I find it crazy to think that they are the same, or equal. They are both made for a purpose and it is not to be identical and never has been.  I have never admired power struggles of any kind whether it is a personal one, within organizations, and political.  

 

Ms. KK is someone I have attempted these past few weeks to understand, but the more I read about her the more wary I am of her and her philosophy.  She is has moved so far beyond the influence of the Spirit that it is blatantly obvious that she has long since excommunicated herself from the Church.  Her current bravado will pass and she will become as the tinkling cymbal that is left in the dust of infamy. 

[Calm]

The sexes are different. For the life of me I find it crazy to think that they are the same, or equal. They are both made for a purpose and it is not to be identical and never has been.

I wouldn't disagree if by equal you mean identical and not a value or quality judgment. But women (and men) were human last time I checked. There are shared qualities as well.

Statistically speaking there is a huge variation in personality among a sex and a lot of overlapping between sexes, even more once you remove culture.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

From my limited experience, dissatisfaction on at least some level seems to be at the very core of women's human nature.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I wouldn't say it was just women.  My observations seem to indicate it is a human family trait, at least for certain personality types.

Edited June 25, 2014 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

I wouldn't disagree if by equal you mean identical and not a value or quality judgment. But women (and men) were human last time I checked. There are shared qualities as well.

Statistically speaking there is a huge variation in personality among a sex and a lot of overlapping between sexes, even more once you remove culture.

Oh why bother. If people want to define people's roles in life by their genitalia, there really is no point in arguing. Thirty years from now they will wind up being looked upon the same as those screaming whites in Arkansas trying to stop the escort of little black children into their schools.

[Calm]

I wouldn't say it was just women. My observations seem to indicate it is a human family trait, at least for certain personality types.

Given out of our first three examples were two men (Satan, Eve, and Cain), I would wholeheartedly say the evidence is greatly in favour of your observations being correct. Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Oh why bother. If people want to define people's roles in life by their genitalia, there really is no point in arguing. Thirty years from now they will wind up being looked upon the same as those screaming whites in Arkansas trying to stop the escort of little black children into their schools.

 

A bit of hyperbole .  It was nature, a creator or just they way they evolved that defined people by their genitalia.  No matter how strident some are in their denial there will always be some differences (definition) dictated by their genitalia.  There will/is still plenty of room to find traits in common.

[Calm]

Oh why bother. If people want to define people's roles in life by their genitalia, there really is no point in arguing. Thirty years from now they will wind up being looked upon the same as those screaming whites in Arkansas trying to stop the escort of little black children into their schools.

If science ever comes up with a way to grow babies outside the womb, produce an actually better product than breastmilk (and not just claim it is as good) AND a safe, no side effects way to avoid one's period as desired, it is possible that there will someday be a culture that completely disregards genitilia in determining social roles. Until then however, I think accommodations will have to be made.

Since science already allows for conception to be completely removed from the people involved, sperm donation no longer has to have any cultural overtones to it. Science seems much better at eliminating male roles so far (with strength assists available to male and females) than female.

Much later add on: I am not in any way suggesting this is a good thing. I like variety.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Oh why bother. If people want to define people's roles in life by their genitalia, there really is no point in arguing. Thirty years from now they will wind up being looked upon the same as those screaming whites in Arkansas trying to stop the escort of little black children into their schools.

The leaders of the Church have been defining distinct parental roles by genitalia for many years. If the leaders of the Church ever stop defining parental roles in this way, then you will know the Church is in a state of apostasy. If the Church is true, there is no way under heaven that the leaders would do an about face after so clearly and unambiguously defining the divinely ordained roles of fatherhood and motherhood for so many years, and then join the "progressives" in extolling and implementing Karl Marx's twisted vision of a unisex neuter-world. Try rereading the Proclamation on the Family for starters.

Edited June 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

I wonder if Marx proposed that children should be equally cared for by women AND men or if he assumed that women would still be doing the job of cleaning up toys, teaching the basics, etc. once the children hit toddler stage and no longer needed the nourishment that at that time came almost completely from women, whether the biological mother or not (wet nurses often being used for the wealthy and the motherless).

Even in societies that promoted the absence of one or both parents, I don't know of one that didn't have women taking on the role of caregiver/parent/surrogate parent at least until the child was pretty independent and didn't need round the clock supervision.

[wenglund]

This is an immeasurable tragedy for all concerned. 

 

I am sorry, but this strikes me as way overly dramatic and imbalanced in perspective, and trivializes real tragedies. 

 

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Oh why bother. If people want to define people's roles in life by their genitalia, there really is no point in arguing. Thirty years from now they will wind up being looked upon the same as those screaming whites in Arkansas trying to stop the escort of little black children into their schools.

 

Goodwin's law raises it ugly and unwarrantable dismissive head.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[teddyaware]

I wonder if Marx proposed that children should be equally cared for by women AND men or if he assumed that women would still be doing the job of cleaning up toys, teaching the basics, etc. once the children hit toddler stage and no longer needed the nourishment that at that time came almost completely from women, whether the biological mother or not (wet nurses often being used for the wealthy and the motherless).

Even in societies that promoted the absence of one or both parents, I don't know of one that didn't have women taking on the role of caregiver/parent/surrogate parent at least until the child was pretty independent and didn't need round the clock supervision.

Marx advocated the "community of women" and the abolition of the traditional family. In other words "free love," with the government taking upon itself the ultimate responsibility for the rearing of the children.

[escott3564]

From my limited experience, dissatisfaction on at least some level seems to be at the very core of women's human nature.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And you wonder why you're single.

[wenglund]

And you wonder why you're single.

 

I have no room to wonder when I am constantly told by women that I epitomize female dissatisfaction. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamba Tuhan]

Marx advocated the "community of women" and the abolition of the traditional family. In other words "free love," with the government taking upon itself the ultimate responsibility for the rearing of the children.

 

I read a PhD thesis a few years back that explained how the Revolution could never be complete as long as women were allowed to continue to raise and teach their own children, even in infancy ... since the bond between mother and child is the foundation of the family, and the very institution of the family is an anti-progressive, bourgeois construct.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[why me]

Marx advocated the "community of women" and the abolition of the traditional family. In other words "free love," with the government taking upon itself the ultimate responsibility for the rearing of the children.

I am afraid that I need to jump in here to clarify misconceptions:

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/love-marriage/index.htm

 

The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. The relation of man to woman is the most genuine relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become his natural essence. The relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need: the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need.

... If you love without evoking love in return – if through the vital expression of yourself as a loving person you fail to become a loved person, then your love is impotent, it is a misfortune.

Private Property and Communism, 1844

 

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communist Manifesto, 1848

 

Amazing just how many people get it wrong about marx and the exploitation that he was against. I love the first quotatiion. It speaks to the heart. One just need to see what his daughter eleanor accomplished for women's rights. She was a feminist before the name was invented. And she was definitely her father's daughter and much loved by him, as were all his daughters.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/11/eleanor-marx-life-review-spirited-biography-socialist-karl-marx-daughter

[teddyaware]

I read a PhD thesis a few years back that explained how the Revolution could never be complete as long as women were allowed to continue to raise and teach their own children, even in infancy ... since the bond between mother and child is the foundation of the family, and the very institution of the family is an anti-progressive, bourgeois construct.

Very true. But Marx had a cynically clever tact in his advocacy for the "community of women." He said that since virtually all men cheat on their wives anyway, the community of women would maintain the status quo but without all the hypocrisy and sneaking around... What a guy!

[Storm Rider]

I wouldn't disagree if by equal you mean identical and not a value or quality judgment. But women (and men) were human last time I checked. There are shared qualities as well.

Statistically speaking there is a huge variation in personality among a sex and a lot of overlapping between sexes, even more once you remove culture.

 

In the context I was using it is the attempt to make the sexes identical. They are not and never will be; they are different and have purposes.  The remain equal and only together are they made whole.

[escott3564]

I have no room to wonder when I am constantly told by women that I epitomize female dissatisfaction. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Awww...poor Wade.

[why me]

Very true. But Marx had a cynically clever tact in his advocacy for the "community of women." He said that since virtually all men cheat on their wives anyway, the community of women would maintain the status quo but without all the hypocrisy and sneaking around... What a guy!

Please also see my previous post which is also addressed to your misunderstanding of Marx and the community of women. (post No. 218) Marx very much loved his wife and children and would never advocate nothing less than what he himself had with his wife and children. Reading marx's letters to his wife and her letters to him, one sees a couple deeply in love. And when one considers his daughter and their deep affection for him as a father one can see a man that loved his family deeply.

 

Marx married his childhood sweetheart, Jenny von Westphalen, and stayed married for life. He also took a close and traditional interest in the marriages of his daughters, Jenny and Laura, both to French men (and Eleanor fell in love with Henri Lissagaray, but did not marry). Although ruthlessly cynical in his polemical and theoretical writings, his personal views were somewhat more traditional and romantic.

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/love-marriage/index.htm

Edited June 25, 2014 by why me

[teddyaware]

I am afraid that I need to jump in here to clarify misconceptions:

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/love-marriage/index.htm

 

The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. The relation of man to woman is the most genuine relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become his natural essence. The relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need: the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need.

... If you love without evoking love in return – if through the vital expression of yourself as a loving person you fail to become a loved person, then your love is impotent, it is a misfortune.

Private Property and Communism, 1844

 

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communist Manifesto, 1848

 

Amazing just how many people get it wrong about marx and the exploitation that he was against. I love the first quotatiion. It speaks to the heart. One just need to see what his daughter eleanor accomplished for women's rights. She was a feminist before the name was invented. And she was definitely her father's daughter and much loved by him, as were all his daughters.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/11/eleanor-marx-life-review-spirited-biography-socialist-karl-marx-daughter

 

Right there amidst the "moderate" sounding rhetoric in this quote from the Communist Manifesto, Marx ultimately posits the very position I previously called him out on -- the very position you're claiming he didn't advocate!  Don't you see it? It's right there in the underlined paragraph. I'm finding it hard to believe you missed it. Right there in black and white he says:

... what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women.

 

The above is exactly what I said Marx said and yet you seem to be arguing that he didn't say it. Marx continues:

For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

 

Based upon the communist goal of the community of women he advocates for in the previous sentence, he's not here calling for an end to the practice of a community of women but to an end of the bourgeois version of it! His meaning is perfectly clear.  

It needs to be understood that Marx knew he had to use language artfully while in the midst of the Victorian Era, and this so as to not shock the traditionally informed sensibilities of his allies and potential converts. Just like the devil himself, Marx here wraps his lethal poison in an attractive and reasonable sounding exterior package so that the unwary might not hesitate or stop to reconsider before ingesting his deadly bait. When dealing with the adversary, it's always important to understand that when he's trying to make inroads his standard propaganda ploy is to mix truth and pleasantries with mortal error. Yet it seems you took the bait after being lulled and persuaded by Marx's clever employment of obfuscating language. 

Edited June 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[Wants2know]

do you know if she is on record for actually asking questions? do you know what they are?

What I should have said Duncan was that she appears to have asked questions, according to her brief on her website.  However, after reading the letter from her Bishop I'm wondering if there is as much truth to her side as she would like the public to believe.  Or he this all been a PR game by a skilled, narcissistic woman?  The interview with her tears in a rocking chair over her eXcommunication.... the last place I would be is on tv!  But she seems to love the attention....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Great, a woman bashing thread!  Just what we need today. This attitude illustrates why so many women who aren't OW are fed up with how they are dismissed, demeaned, and generally ignored by far too many men who think the priesthood gives them that right.

What right is that Juliann? To steady the ark? Rofl. Sometimes I think you read way to much into people's posts. Carry on.