A woman

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Thu Sep 28, 2000 6:43 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Women start out with my respect because of the gifts that are bestowed on humankind by women. Men, OTOH, start out as mere acquaintances, who earn respect through their actions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can think of many gifts that are bestowed on men and women alike, with varying contributions from each gender. But as far as I know, child birth is the only gift that is truly unique to women. I think that everything else that goes on has at least one representative from each gender. And if the ability to become pregnant, is what makes women respectable (which I'm not saying you think), I guess I just don't understand that any more than I understand why the ability to impregnate women isn't worthy of a similar respect. Maybe I'm just overlooking gifts that women have that men don't. There are traits more common in women, and traits more common in men sure. Is that what you mean?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If more men understood the purpose and concepts behind this belief, there would be less men on women violence especially by younger men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only if those men commiting the violence were the same ones that understood the purposes and concepts behind that belief. I assure you that despite the fact that I don't share that belief, I never have and never will commit violence against any person (excepting self-defense), including women.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
It means to place them in a position of esteem... which in turn means to place them in a position of high worth, value or regard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I believe 1> in evaluating each person individually and not making assumptions about the greater population and 2> that men are in the same humanitarian sense, worthy of being places in a position of high worth, value or regard based on their value as people. But that's on a general level. On a more personal level, I fail to see the virtues that woman posses which make them superior to men, just as I fail to see the virtues men posses which would make them superior to women. There are many virtues I recognize as being commonly found more in women than in men, but in my albeit rather limited experience, I think people are general are of a rather consistant quality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
THere are many types and levels of feminism... the majority [of women] think that "modern
feminism" has done more damage to women in the last ~20 years than help!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly I agree that there are many types and levels of feminism. And as to whether the representatives of feminism have done more to help or harm women in the past 20 years is not something I feel qualified to talk about. However, I do not profess to be a feminist. I was merely recognizing the fact that the comment I was making is one that feminists have made as well. The point I was making is that the idea is feminist, not that me, or my agument neccesarily are.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I never said to "idolize" women and I certainly don't fail to see them as people!

Sorry, reading my statement I understand how you could think I meant you personally. That was not my intent. I do not presume to know you personally based on the things you write online. I was merely stating what I think to be a general condition.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

That's not something I'm going to get baited into... I guess we've just read different historical accounts of certain things... and followed different paths of understanding for more recent members of that list.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Gee, now who's offering "uncritical approval", "blind acceptance", and useless idolization? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never stated in any way my feelings about those people. If you don't wish to discuss why you don't approve of them, then that's your right. I have not read a great deal of these people's histories, and do not know much beyond common knowledge about them, and frankly am not in a position to evaluate whether they "truly" deserve respect as people. But given that most of them are somehow perceived "great" women by many (or otherwise why would they be in the list in the first place), I was wondering what it was they had done to warrant your dismissal such that you proclaimed several of them belong in sewage. I did not intend to make it a political argument about liberal vs. conservative beliefs or similar. There are enough women in that list that I would expect you could enlighten me about a few. If that is not the case, well then so much the worse for my understanding.

[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited September 28, 2000).]

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Thu Sep 28, 2000 8:03 pm

Panther,

Sorry, some clarification needed. I didn't mean to say that they were all "good" or "bad" women. Just people who didn't have time to stand on a pedestal, unless it somehow helped them in whatever they were doing at the time. Maybe they created their own pedestals. I don't know anything about them, never knew them and can't debate any of their qualities.

"thank U falettin me be mice elf again."
Sly and the Family Stone.

------------------
sean

[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited September 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited September 28, 2000).]

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu Sep 28, 2000 9:58 pm

Friends, friends...

calm down... chill out... have a cold one... relax...

Valkenar-san,

I've read your posts from various forums and threads... there's really not a problem here. I didn't intend to place words in your mouth any more than you had ill intentions towards me! I think this has been a lively, friendly discussion of personal attitudes towards women... This particular calamity was precipitated by my clarification of one of my personal thoughts on what defines a woman. I think it has gotten off topic...

I never meant to suggest that you (or anyone else here) would be violent towards a woman. That was a throw-back to another recent thread that somehow crept out of my subconcious while writing my response. I guess I just thought it fit in at that point and those who remember the other thread probably understood what I meant, as opposed to the disjointed verbiage as it appeared!

Unfortuantely, I must confess myself as a "realist", who doesn't believe in the inherent goodness of mankind. I've seen and been through too much to believe that as gospel. I also must confess that I treat men and women very differently... men earn my respect only through their actions, women lose my respect only through their actions... that's just the way I am. I have lots of people here (men and women) who have my utmost respect... Reading their words makes me feel automagically connected with them... (yes, even those that I have disagreed with.

)

Without getting into the political arguments or other debates... yes there are women on that list that I find despicable, lacking any right to respect, and who have lowered themselves (through their own actions) into the sewage.

Sean C-san,

"Just people who didn't have time to stand on a pedestal, unless it somehow helped them in whatever they were doing at the time. Maybe they created their own pedestals."

Thanks for the clarification. It's why I tried to make my clarifications... which boil down to this: 1) my ideal of a woman is one who deserves to be on a pedestal, but who would never climb up there herself, and 2) my ideals for women are that I put them up on the pedestal (a place of high esteem), unless and until they take some action by which they either fall-off or deserve to be removed from high esteem.

Standing on a pedestal to "somehow help them in whatever they are doing at the time" and "creating their own pedestal" both violate #1. (And there are some on the list mentioned who have done both...)

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 12:11 am

Exploding stereotypes

Apropos of nothing and directed at nobody.

All the men are in the women's forum, clucking like hens, while the women are somewhere else working out.

------------------
sean

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 1:29 am

sean,

Good point, but it all depends on the definition of " women" ! Are they just the female specie or are they women! A workout always ends at some point, then there is free time into the evening.

A "woman" would not be afraid to post. Most of the ones here are just lurking.

This thread on the Italian forum would draw the response of hundreds of women...Why so, I wonder!

“ He is no true man who ever treats women with anything but the profoundest respect. She is no true woman who cannot inspire and does not take care to enforce this.” __ Lamartine

This seems to be in agreement with panther’s view. I must say I concur.

Sophisticated and perceptive men tend to consider women in a creative ideal not discharged by the mere procreation of the human race.

Contact with a high-minded woman is the pinnacle of man’s existence.

There are females of the specie, than there are women, and then there is the feminine woman [the lady] discussed in previous threads.
This is where important distinctions about women lie.

A real lady is seen by the non-Anglo-Saxon, generally, as a woman of creativeness, deep feelings, imagination, smoldering passion underneath a gelid crust, deeper above and beyond the begetting of children.

And the sincere, gentle, and sensible woman will never go out of style.
This begets dignity to the lady, which is the most admirable trait in a woman.

And:

“The brain woman never interest us like the heart woman; white roses please less than red.”__O.W. Holmes

About says it all.

------------------
Van Canna

Lori · Post by **Lori** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:48 am

Let us be VERY careful about making judgements about any type of religious belief. That would be a different kind of forum. Choice of religion and discussion there of is optional - and free - last time I thought I understood (some of) our rights in this country - and - as a volatile subject - no jugements of any type will be tolerated here by me. And I'm still the boss here - last time I understood the rights on this web site.

And before getting too high and mighty and refuting any concept of a higher power or entity containing or being embodied in a female personae - draw your nose out of a dusty science book and look a bit farther into the literature. Many references abound - even in Christianity - God as "mother" is a recurrent theme - reference Julian of Norwich, Thomas Traherne, The Cloud of Unknowing, St. John of the Cross - and various others. Not to mention other female aspects of the "creative force" represented in cultures from the most primitive to even modern day interpretations - western AND eastern variety. Also the creative aspect attributed to "mother" earth - in Native American AND many other cultures.

This is not a religious forum - I will go absolutely no further into that concept here - although aspects of religion as they apply may certainly be discussed in other threads should you desire - participation optional and no baiting allowed - but do NOT allow personal bias, jugement, insult or even innuendo in a less than flattering manner enter these threads - including THIS one.

So let it be written - so let it be done.

And:

Revenge is mine saith the Lori!

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:56 am

Lori sensei,

Yes!!

------------------
sean

lori macleod-doyle · Post by **lori macleod-doyle** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 3:21 am

Revenge is mine saith the Lori!

I like it!!!! I like it a lot!!!!

Mind if I use that one from time to time?

Lori M-D

Lori · Post by **Lori** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 3:39 am

And I add:

Discretion is the better part of valor!

Thank you good sir.

Lori-san:

Go for it!

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 3:53 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther:

relax...
Valkenar-san,
there's really not a problem here. I didn't intend to place words in your mouth any more than you had ill intentions towards me! I think this has been a lively, friendly discussion of personal attitudes towards women... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm perfectly content with the way things are going. I'm not upset, annoyed or similar. I just didn't want you to get the wrong impression about what I was thinking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
This particular calamity was precipitated by my clarification of one of my personal thoughts on what defines a woman. I think it has gotten off topic...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't call it a calamity, I would call it an interesting discussion.

Either way, I think that as long as we're discussing what defines women, such as the traits that place them on a pedestal, then it's on topic for this particular thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I also must confess that I treat men and women very differently... men earn my respect only through their actions, women lose my respect only through their actions... that's just the way I am.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, that's fine, and if you'd really rather drop the discussion. But before you did mention "gifts that are bestowed on humankind by women" as the reason for it. And what would help me understand is if you would tell me what gifts those are. Then again, if you really don't want to continue, that's fine, but I'm not feeling angry, upset or anything else, just enjoying a stimulating discussion)

P.S.
I showed my girlfriend this thread, she had a somewhat different take on it than I did, and said (pasted from an IM conversation)"what else should a woman be than a good person? all of these wild expectations are ridiculous" Just another opinion, but not mine.

[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited September 28, 2000).]

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 4:34 am

Van-sensei,

One European woman referred to Americans as Puritans.

On the other hand, just what the hell is an American?

Maybe European men and women enjoy each other for who they are, not what they wish they were. Maybe American men and women have a big fat stick up their A**, and a glass bubble around their heads.

I think you and I share the same taste in women. All of the women I have loved have fit your description, in spades.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

p.s. I'm American (Irish, German, French, Chippewa(?), throw in some Scots/English, and that's only what I know about.)

"I love you all, I just want to kiss and make love to you!" - Roberto Bertollini.

------------------
sean

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 5:22 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

I think that women are just as deserving of basic respect as men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said that women deserve respect from the start... our differences lie in whether men deserve respect from the start.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Personally I think you should respect all people by default, and then see if they lose that respect. I don't see what makes women more or less respectable than men.

Women start out with my respect because of the gifts that are bestowed on humankind by women. Men, OTOH, start out as mere acquaintances, who earn respect through their actions. Since women have respect from the beginning it is theirs to lose through their actions. If more men understood the purpose and concepts behind this belief, there would be less men on women violence (IMNSHO) especially by younger men.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

As for a pedestal, I'm not sure what that means exactly, and I don't think any person should be "put on a pedestal" as far as I'm concerned. What that conveys to me is uncritical approval of everything they do and blind acceptance of anything they think.

That's not what it means. It means to place them in a position of esteem... which in turn means to place them in a position of high worth, value or regard. It does not mean "uncritical approval" OR "blind acceptance"... if it did then there wouldn't be any concept of "falling off" the pedestal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I'm also sympathetic to the feminist viewpoint that putting women on a pedestal does them no good whatsoever.

THere are many types and levels of feminism... I have numerous sisters, sisters-in-law, wife, mom, mom-in-law, grandmothers and other women that are friends... the majority think that "modern feminism" has done more damage to women in the last ~20 years than help! (And "no", they aren't "conservatives"... they're virtually all very independent, professionals.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I think there is some credence to the idea that it likens them to a fine vase, which is pretty and has value for that reason, but ultimately useless and so fragile that it has to be isolated on a pedestal somewhere.

Not at all, it's a form of respect, recognition, esteem, and gratitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I think much of the idolizing men do of women is a failure to see them as people, who in fact are more like men than they are unlike men (or whom men are more like than unlike).

Setting aside the rhetorical second half of that (which I obviously agree with

), I never said to "idolize" women and I certainly don't fail to see them as people! (Heck, the women that I know and love would kick my @$$ if I treated them the way you insinuate!

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What I believe is Sean's list:
Joan of Arc. Marie Curie. Cleopatra. Ng Mui. Salome. All the women of the resistance during WWII. Hillary Clinton. Eleanor Roosevelt. Rosa Parks. Mother Teresa. Eva Von
Braun. Florence Nightingale. Eva Perone. Margaret Thatcher

I'm just curious who you think belongs in that list, and what. What "unwomanly" acts they commited to make them lose place on a pedestal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not something I'm going to get baited into... I guess we've just read different historical accounts of certain things... and followed different paths of understanding for more recent members of that list. Gee, now who's offering "uncritical approval", "blind acceptance", and useless idolization?

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited September 28, 2000).]

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 12:17 pm

Why the American women can't find her soul.

Because the message of Love has been subverted by the politics of fear, which begat the non-culture of the reformation, which burned the spirit and froze the body, leaving a vacuum that ate the culture of America, enslaved the culture of Africa, starved some more and bought up the rest.

Lots of technological diversity, no depth of humanity.

No roots.

Need more balance.

------------------
sean

[This message has been edited by SEAN C (edited September 29, 2000).]

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 3:52 pm

First let me say to Lori-san (and Lori-san

), that I promise not to let my religious views leave the litterbox!

As always, Canna-sempai seems to take my rough, unpolished code (bushido, perhaps? ) and expresses it in the eloquent terms that I can only dream of achieving! Thank you Canna-sempai...

I'm listed on all the forms and my co-workers (and even most of my friends) think of me as "Caucasian"... But my beliefs and heritage is decidedly not anglo-saxon... (OK, I confess, I'm "Heinz 57" and I'm sure there's a little of everything in there somewhere as well

)

IMNSHO, the "gifts bestowed by women" that I'm referring to don't (necessarily) include "child-birth". I'm also not saying that men don't contribute gifts to humankind, just that, for me, I maintain that those gifts are inherent in women (but a woman can show me - and have shown me - that they lack those gifts). While I (personally) like to see first-hand that those attributes are part of a man's personality before I trust that they are there.

I can understand the mindset that says, "what else should a woman be than a good person? all of these wild expectations are ridiculous."

Here's my response: NO one can be asked to be anything more or less than simply a "good person". I haven't stated any "wild expectations", so I don't see anything ridiculous about my position. (We were discussing our personal definitions and ideals... so these are based on mine alone. This is a very short partial list of a few of those ideal traits... not complete by any means...) Also, let me state upfront that I don't believe anyone is perfect and certainly don't believe that anyone should be held to a "perfect ideal"... we were discussing our individual definitions and ideals. If some of these seem "unrealistic", you should see the ones that I have for men.

Women (generally, but not always) bring genuine empathy, compassion, and concern for others... exhibit genuine selflessness, desire to improve, and tireless work towards the benefit of others... have a certain distinctly feminine perspective that allows them to express their extraordinary artistry in many ways... have a special genuine gentleness, (paradoxically contrasted by) a unique strength and stability.

This does not mean that these qualities are lacking in men... just that they aren't as prevalent or inherent (in my NSHO).

Part of the key is "genuine"... many people, of both genders do things for pure personal gain regardless of the negative impacts on others. I've been guilty of this in my life and it's something I hope to never have happen again. I can think of very few politicians that are genuine in any of these (or other) traits... Like I said, this is a "cliff notes" version of thoughts and opinions that have formed over decades... and there are other traits that I (personally) look for in those that I know, love, and care about.

Hope this helps...

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Fri Sep 29, 2000 10:22 pm

1) What defines a “woman” in the eyes of men?"

Curves, looks, attitude, sexual availability.

Can't be that; some men have some or all of those attributes

What is the essence of a woman? That which is essential to her womanhood. What is that?

Not breasts; women are women post mastectomy. Not genitals or internal reproductive organs; women remain women post vulvectomy (usually for cancer) or hysterectomy etc. Not reproduction; women infertile from birth or rendered that way or who choose not to bear children are still women. Not being XX; there are XY women, XXX women. Not lacking the male-determining region called the SRY in their genes; some women have this but are insensitive to testosterone and are born female appearing and actually a bit more attractive than average to many. Many would argue (and many others would not be able to tell the difference) that male to female transsexuals are women, either before or after hormones and surgery. Not thinking of themselves as women, because there are some men who surely do that.

In fact I'm not sure I can come up with one thing that's essential to womanhood, and therefore, I doubt there is an "essence."