PGP

Fair point. My initial reaction is that a marriage is also about vows. When you say the words in a social forum, you better mean them. In sickness AND in health etc. Also a social recognition within families and communities that the vow has been made and that it is a value to the community and will be supported in terms of reminding the married of their vows etc. It's not in a vacuum, it needs to be fed and supported and valued as a social good. Just my opinion.

I can't, but at least now I know it is possible and that others are at different stages of achieving it and just how hard it is. Excellent question IMO. The self-reflecting question of integrity is paramount. At this stage it allows me to see what I am not. Then question why. There's a Tiesto track that is called or has in it a line: "Just be". Like in Stefans interactions, people will often come with one question but bring the real issue in how they "are" in the call. I suppose, if you know someone and you ask if they have integrity, it will be self-evident in what they "are" in totality rather than with justifications or rationalisations. Kinda like "you'll know it when you see it".

Of course, it's friday, fish day!!! Cos' Zombie Jesus died on the cross for me and you and our sins. And also cos' of the powerful fishmongers union lobby!!!

Excellent analysis above. I am suspicious: 1. Why she was chosen. She had a prominent place in the life-experience of many children/teens for their formative years. After the HP years, back when I still watched TV and followed pop culture, she seemed to attempt a break from the HP character she had to avoid type-casting. This took the form off more adult-oriented photo-shoots, forming a "celebrity couple", change in appearance and attitude etc. All carefully prescribed and crafted. 2. Role of PR/agent. I haven't been following her career but I would be interested to know if she was requested for this position, requested it or if there was an equal reciprocation. The transition for a child-star to adult-star has been generally difficult. A polyanna position with the UN will appeal to her direct target audience: young females who (I posit) generally decide which movie is seen at the cinema. Rom-com and all that. She's the empowered multi-millionaire who triumphed in the face of adversity in the patriarchy and now she's part of the establishment come back to give all girls/women the same opportunity. All it needs is for men to change. It is interesting the contrast between this and the Scarlett Johanssen thing over SodaStream. She gave up the position to make money in a sexy ad. Her reputation suffered to anyone with a conscience but who cares, shes hot as hell? It appears Watson, in contrast, is lamenting sexualisation of women in her position in order to raise her profile in order to make money. I suppose men are to blame for both outcomes?

An analogy I like to remember is that of a sports team. On my sports teams growing up, we always had the "hard-edge" of two or three lads who would enforce and be prepared to get sent-off to nullify a threatening opposing player or intervene at a crucial period in the game through violence. This is common across all successful contact-sports teams I believe. The feminist who comes out with this stuff is the equivalent of this "enforcer". She might express her view differently but at the end of the day, all feminists are wearing the same jersey. Unfortunately, the men hearing this stuff are very often hearing it as isolated individuals.

Yes, oppression would be the correct word to use in this instance. I do not think there was any methodology used in terms of seeking truth. The main methodology I can see is using clever word-play to link wives (across the board) staying home to look after children with absolute misery. It starts with him saying : "everything you know is wrong" about this issue. ie implication that if you think wives or I suppose husbands exclusively looking after the children as an occupation is worthy, you are wrong, I'll now show you what it is really like: cue horror story. And by the way, even if you chose it for yourself and your children, you're still a victim of the patriarchy. I must admit, I did not interpret it this way, although it is probably closer to the mark than how I interpreted it. I watch him as I like to see what I consider the completely opposing view and their "rationale". To add to what I said above, the issue was not dealt with exclusively as an attack on Christianity or some narrow extreme interpretation. His statement of "everything you know is wrong" related to wives looking after children in the home while the father works. He emphasises patriarchy and control. What then is the difference between a secular wife or husband staying home to look after the children in terms of outcome and this ladies story? Thom does not indicate that there is any. If you choose to stay at home and perform these duties (as the lady said, many of the wives pushed this agenda), you are being "oppressed" and the results for mother and child are negative. This is the message I thought the "average" viewer would get from the piece.

I am newish to the board and I am just at the start really of seeking self-knowledge in any meaningful way. I just want to second Patrickc above. I have already left some open-hearted messages on the boards that are allowing me to break into sharing things in this way to work it through both in terms of sharing my past and thoughts and perhaps letting others know that I have had similar experiences and issues so that they know they are not alone as I have thought of myself in the past aswell. I view this open-heartedness as vital to this community while developing better judgement of people in the real world. I do not want to have to second-guess myself and tailor my expression of issues. I absolutely welcome constructive criticism but with this there is a responsibility of moderation and thoughtfulness. There are enough people in the everyday world who will express judgement in a harsh and absolute manner.

An interesting segment on Thom Hartmann show on RT dealing with the Christian Quiver movement, housewives and patriarchy. The segment begins at 36.00m and goes to 42.00m I am interested to get peoples take on: a. What Thom presents the issue as. b. What the guest is talking about and what the issue actually is. c. What the "average" viewer is likely to take from it.

Goin to throw a wild idea out there. I get the impression that within the feminist industry that much like pop music or the like, the new kid on the block has to come out with something new and shocking. After all, whatever her name is would probably not be known at all if not for this 90% craziness. Although, I have seen where something called the SCUM manifesto called for something similar back in the 60's or thereabouts. I am beginning to think of alot of these characters as grotesque cultural memes vying for attention. I'm just waiting for the feminist with the new book who proposes that women are evil and inherently inferior to men. And yes, it is insane.

Indeed. We were "confused" here in the Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 referenda. Mainly because they were both voted down. Curiously, after some re-education, scare-mongering and outright implied threats, we all realised( well, 50% or more) what the right answer was and voted them both to pass when they were re-run. I'm sure if the Scots had voted for independence, they would have been deemed "confused" also.

I find it difficult to parse out the issues here, so I will ask a few questions. When you say"false feelings" and "false self", I am not sure what this means. Is it the personality that you display in interactions based upon what you think others expect? Self-judgement or moderation of actions would seem healthy enough to me. Is the "self-imposed judgement" and guilt because you are not behaving in concert with your "false-self" or because you think that your real self is unreasonable in being assertive and expressing preference? Is it a fear that if you show your "real-self" via your preferences and you get push-back that you will feel rejected or criticised? Whereas if you fulfill the role of your "false-self" in interactions, push-back will not actually be against you, but your false-self? Also, how do you deal with conflict or differences of opinion/preference in general?

This is quite interesting. In general, it can be said that capital flows to where it gains the best return. In research, this has been interfered with by the political process. ie. funding dedicated to modeling and mitigating climate change with the assumption based on the "consensus" that climate change is man-made and can be managed through adaptive and mitigative measures etc. If the above is correct, this does not preclude corruption and fabrication in privately funded research aimed at counteracting the "consensus". After all, alot of capital is dedicated to fossil fuel production and trading. In general, there are major challenges facing scientific research in terms of efficiency, validation and relevancy. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong Research and research funding has its challenges and these challenges are being exploited by partisan groups on different issues, climate change is just one example where political interests and entrenched financial interests can model using convenient variables, selectively publish results etc. In short, who pays for the research and has publishing control over the research is very important. IMO, how scientific research would be funded, validated, tested etc. in a free society is an important question. It is one I think Stefan has dealt with in the recent past in terms of drug-trials.

It is my view that euro govs are now just conduits for law and cash to and from Europe. Problem in the country? : Not our fault, we have to do what Commissioner Euroweenie said. "Success" in the country?: You're welcome, don't forget to vote! If a yes vote goes through (And I'm nailing my colours here saying I hope it does (just to piss London off), but it hasn't a snowballs chance IMO), there will be a smaller geographic area governed, that is all. Salmond and his crew are socialist to the bone and I refer to what Maggie Thatcher said about socialism. Except this time, they won't have access to the London ATM anymore.

I've been going back through the podcasts and there are two that have stood out for me recently: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_695_Mysticism_As_Scar_Tissue.mp3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_696_Mysticism_As_Scar_Tissue_Part_2.mp3 695 and 696 available from: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume3Shows562 My best attempt to explain it is that they go into how knowledge of peoples desire for virtue is subverted and manipulated with approval and the necessity for doublethink.

Interesting question. Just my newbie grenade, but under these criteria, what would be the difference here between the infant and a person in a coma who is treated with a new drug by a new procedure and recovers fully to health? Is that aggression? I'm sure there's a whole philosophical explanation and I will follow studiously.

In this capitalist age, surely some objective, rewardable measure of fitness and form is necessary. I would like to highlight this highly objectionable assessment of the bovine community in this respect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUROP_grid This surely is pure Bullarchy. I call for Heiferism to combat lean bias and valuable priveldge!!! Then, all heifers can graze in peace and safe in the knowledge that they will never be judged objectively or deliver a return.......

Unfortunately "Rachel" has a 10 inch vagina. Wide. Hehehe....

I just want to say that you are not alone also. I have had some deep periods of depression and numbness in my life and I can empathise fully with what you have described. For me, I experienced something very similar to this. I would feel numb and alone for periods. Like I was floating with no anchor and no purpose through blackness and pain. I would have to make a tremendous effort to rev myself up to rationalising that there was the possibility of hope. That if I did certain things that the train would get back on the rails and I could feel like everyone else seemed to feel. In my own case, it is only with retrospect that I can see that I was feeling and experiencing in a quite rational way. This is the only way I can describe it. It was a horrible, awful circumstance I was in in my teens and early twenties with death, destruction, alienation, humiliation and manipulation from those closest. Looking back, I can only say that there would have been something wrong with me if I wasn't depressed. The fact that I felt such pain and isolation meant that I had conception that so much was wrong. I think of it as they say in V for Vendetta: the very last inch. It is the very last inch of decency and resolve and resistance that kept me going. Listening to FDR, for me, I have looked at my past and been able to treat myself with empathy and compassion when before there was only brutal self-attack and shame. I am actually crying as I write this. To have it explained in detail what is right and what is wrong has given me a great sense of peace. It is from within this peace that I have been able to make judgement. To make judgement and experience the anger that I should have felt in the past. Instead of sadness I should have been angry. But anger was not allowed. If I was angry, I would have been just like my father, I would not have been a victim and an object to manipulate. I would have been bad, I would have been an aggressive man and a threat. I should have been angry. I should have told the truth and smashed the crystal prison of lies that had been built. With my anger now, I am glad. I am glad and thankful that I have been given this chance in this time and place to know these things. That althoug htime has been lost, it could have been much worse and I might never have found out at all. Your life is so precious and unique and the clock is ticking. I'd like to write more but I have to leave it at that for now. Peace out.

Interesting final few lines: "Mateo told the Times she wished there were women-only taxis available when her children were young and needed to be ferried around the city to various activities" Struck me as odd to entrust care of young children to a stranger. Secondly, it seems implied that stranger women would be safer to entrust children to than stranger men. Thirdly, I have no idea what the law is in this locality but is it not discrimination in terms of both customers and employees? I understand fully that an ancap would be for free association and interaction but this is a financial transaction with employment implications that fall under existing laws. Perhaps the branding and business model allows circumvention of such legalities? I would have no issue with this at all if it was the case that men could have exclusively male organisations aswell, but from notional experience over the years male-only organisations have been largely forced into admitting women.

I think the tone is biased. The tone should be conformist, not judgmental!!! Why are you so misogynist and hateful towards the va-va-jay and the fruits of the va-ja-jay? On a serious note, I am not sure if this is a reflection of my own bigotry? or not but when Kasparian talked about gaining "off someone elses dime", I could not help but think: what is the difference between this and government child-support and all the rest? But of course everything is relative and we should not judge. As long as the dollars flow it is justified. Just like TYT.

Just a tid-bit of information that may be relevant. Study on obesity and homosexual females: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874217/ Discussion: We provide rigorous evidence that lesbian women are an at-risk population for overweight and obesity, and thus, for negative health outcomes secondary to obesity. Overweight and obesity are recognized as a cause of preventable deaths,46–48 although recent findings link only obesity, not overweight, to excess deaths.49Other negative implications of obesity and overweight are the substantially increased risk of morbidity from hypertension; dyslipidemia; type 2 diabetes; coronary heart disease; stroke; gallbladder disease; osteoarthritis; sleep apnea and respiratory problems; and endometrial, breast, prostate, and colon cancers.3 We conclude from our findings an urgent need for weight-reduction interventions that target the high-risk group of sexual-minority women. At present, the targets of such interventions should be women who identify as lesbian, rather than bisexual women or women who report identifying as “something else.” We prove the need for weight reduction interventions in this population, but do not provide specific information for the development of culturally appropriate interventions for this population. For the time being, one can use published differences between lesbians and other women in social, behavioral, and cultural norms that affect overweight and obesity18,50 to develop a culturally appropriate intervention for lesbians." Why, I'm shocked. Who would have thought that heterosexual females were disproportionately predisposed to maintaining a healthy weight? Perhaps lesbianism and obesity are genetically linked? Or could it be that lesbians have been diverted towards lesbianism by the toxins in food they were given in childhood? Or perhaps, men generally desire and demand a healthy weight in a female partner. No magic get out of jail free cards. After all, you are what you eat.

I am genuinely puzzled by your argument. If a woman or a man is anorexic or obese then they are clearly unhealthy. The health of your heart and other organs does not depend on sentiment or whether your weight should be understood and sympathised with by others. If you prefer women with a bit more meat on them, fair enough, fine. In this manner, beauty is in the eye of the beholder in terms of weight. If most men find obese women unattractive or even disgusting in their weight, that is their decision. It also happens to be a decision backed up by reason and scientific evidence. Please don't say "what if they smoke" or some such, we are dealing in generalities and population level in this era.If a woman has a predisposition to obesity then in a very real way she is of lesser quality than someone who isn't for the purposes of healthy offspring.

I blame the patriarchy. And, to borrow a line from R Gervais: slow metabolism, fast pie-arm. Nom. It is an interesting survival and success strategy to be obese and proud of it. As long as they reap the rewards and/or consequences themselves, I say good luck to them. I'm sure they would never externalise the cost of their actions on others or try to force their agenda and personal choices on society at large.......

I'd like to throw my grenade into the mix. As mentioned above, there are definite and measurable differences in males and females from a genetic perspective. Now, bringing in the epigenetic development and dynamic interaction with environment can intensify or dilute or possibly counteract the predisposition at birth. For example, the brain can be extremely plastic due to environment in early years (saw this recently, may be of interest: http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/men-are-from-mars-women-from-venus-myth-harmful-285155.html ). Now, why are boys and girls treated differently or encouraged down different lines in the early years? Perhaps because the parents and wider society deem these treatments and the consequences as desirable and additive to survival and success? Perhaps to maintain the status quo to what has been proven to work in the past over countless generations? For example, East German weight-lifters of the female sex ended up exhibiting alot of the male characteristics due to training and not a little use of growth hormones etc. This met the social ideal and goals of the "society" in which they lived. In the end, the individual suffered horrendously for the collective. Other examples abound in different societies, feet-binding, Female and male circumcision, pillorying of weakness or emotional expression in boys and so on. Now, we have reached a point through feminism, rule of law and technology etc. that alot of the desirable traits encouraged in development are perceived, or perhaps are, detrimental to an individual of the male or female sex reaching their own individual potential. So, formerly desirable traits are now viewed as limiting. Therefore they should not be perpetuated in this paradigm. So, I have heard of the genderless upbringing in some countries such as Sweden. One key question for me is, what will the consequences of this genderless upbringing be? Will physical ability be narrowed, perhaps nullified? Will different spatial, reasoning, mathematical, communicating skills etc be much more shared in the absence of gender-direction in childhood? Above all, for me, the question will be: is this desirable on a civilisational level? Are the differences between the sexes genetically and then in development now irrelevant? To be discarded? Perhaps, the question of children being made to feel bad for doing certain things (like boys playing with dolls or whatever) has no answer. Maybe this shaming of certain behaviours or the corollary of genderless upbringing are just different strategies to achieving success for the individual and by extension the group.

I have an inkling that you are correct. I also had an inkling that my ADHD comment would be picked up. All I can say is that whether it was dyslexia or ADHD or something else, a one-size-fits-all education system came nowhere near to being adequate for these chaps. There was one guy who was sent out of class so much to stand in the courtyard that he had a permanent tan. That's quite an achievement in this country. I have also seen countless( particularly males) who were highly intelligent and indeed gifted who just were not catered for in this system. Alot of them seemed bored and unchallenged from the schooling. Some of them went on to do great things but some of them went the opposite direction. All they needed was a little understanding and communication. It is an incalculable waste of human talent and time.