Woman vs Man

[gnosis_within]

i'm not offended gravy...i am just posting to see if my avatar looks good.

------------------

[Mr. Robin]

In her book "Dear and Glorious Physician" Taylor Cauldwell noted that a society that was headed/run by women (and she is one)would actually be worse then one run by men, because men have this sparceness tendancy, whereas woman have this materialistic tendancy (insert Madonna's "I am a material girl!" song, *Here*)

From the idea that women tend (note the word is tend, as in tendancy, NOT as in A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E!!)to be more materialistic we would therefore be more inclined to be destroying the earth, and the precious resouces thereof, faster then in a male run approach.

Aside from the simplistic observation that female leaders tend to act with more male patterns to become female societal leaders.

Also, as one who likes logic, I would wonder why, if women are truely superior, then why the heck are they attempting to androgynize the names of girls into male/female indistiguishable names. If they are superior, then they would want there femininity to stand out, especially from there names.

After all, to androgynize means we would lose really nivce feminine(sp?) names like Annabel, and all of the rest of them. WHY?

P.S. Pardon my spelling, no "spellchecker" on this computer....sorry

------------------
My teacher is in all people, but not all people are my Teacher

[utopianChaos]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Robin:
Also, as one who likes logic, I would wonder why, if women are truely superior, then why the heck are they attempting to androgynize the names of girls into male/female indistiguishable names. If they are superior, then they would want there femininity to stand out, especially from there names.

After all, to androgynize means we would lose really nivce feminine(sp?) names like Annabel, and all of the rest of them. WHY?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if anything i'd be tempted to rebutle that the reasoning is this world is still in essence a male society (Not speaking from just a north American society, but globally). Regardless of any and all feminine revolutions ( not to say they weren't effective ) women are still judged and men are still admired. Authors, like "Taylor" you mentioned prior would of been considered male if you hadn't clarified. And that in the saddest regard gains more attention and respect from those reading (especially male) until proved otherwise. I'm not saying in the least to demolish any femine names, but the reasoning is clear; an male/female name is an advantage (depending on the route one takes) because of the male tendencies (associated with power ie. CEO's presidents etc.), it is never a disadvantage, but that's not to say women are less superior because they know how to use the name as leverage. IT's still a struggle.

It's hard to stereotype women as a collective group, and men as a collective group. But within this thead, i've appreciated everyones comments. Thank you!

------------------
utopianChaos

[Mr. Robin]

As much as I can appreciate the understanding of the current situation, as it is structured, it is none-the-less a conflict of reasoning to assert a position of superiority, and then employ a mannerism that relegates that to a pointless assertion, by means of undercutting the point in practise.

That it is a struggle, is obvious enough, but it is also a struggle for men, as single males are probably the least trusted persons in society.

Employablity for a male rises if that male is married, or attached, as do a number of other factors.

The basic differance is that men are not organized about it, do not talk openly about it, and act like men when it comes to doing anything about it.

------------------
My teacher is in all people, but not all people are my Teacher

[This message has been edited by Mr. Robin (edited December 17, 2001).]

[utopianChaos]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Robin:

That it is a struggle, is obvious enough, but it is also a struggle for men, as single males are probably the least trusted persons in society.

Employablity for a male rises if that male is married, or attached, as do a number of other factors.

The basic differance is that men are not organized about it, do not talk openly about it, and act like men when it comes to doing anything about it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i very much appreciate the points you've stated, and by no means are they less valueable or should they be depreciated.

In my views... men and women are equal, there are differences, there have been battles, but that is on a case my case basis.

Both men and women struggle, whether equal, that depends on the person you're speaking with. Heck, look at insurance, I pay 122/mo and a friend of mine pays 330/mo, only because he's male. Theres that stereotype that all men under a certain age are reckless. In lue of you're points above concerning employability and trust, and mine concerning the naming issue, i say this... it's hard to purchase a top hat and expect it to be one-size-fits-all.




------------------
utopianChaos

[Mr. Robin]

Couldn't agree with you more, and especially on the equality aspect, as that is really the issue of the thread.

Each of the sexes has it's good points, and it's bad points, and I suspect that that balances out rather well, if aligned properly.

But I would mention the Biblical admonission, it tells us of a deep enmity (hatred) between men and women, which I suspect arises when men and women act in sexually distincted groupings.

That was why I had posted, in another place, that "Couples rule" as that is probably the best manner that the balance is achieved, and the hatred overcome!

------------------
My Teacher is in all people, but not all people are my Teacher