Women

William

Nothing in your OP constitutes a philosophical discussion: you have stated your views, and thanks for getting that ball rolling, but if a discussion rather than an argument is what you're after, you should really have done more to explain why you hold those views.

Why, for instance, when a couple cannot agree does the man have the overriding vote? What breaks down if the woman has it? What breaks down if they agree to disagree and do as they will?

As for "forcing women into the workplace" - did this happen, or did women fight their way into workplaces that male-centric society had previously forbidden them access to? I do think feminists have perhaps been inadvertently guilty of a certain masculinisation of women insofar as they have placed a huge emphasis on women proving themselves in the male pissing contest - the what-do-you-do-and-how-much-do-you-earn competition. The importance of such activities was formulated by men and by which to judge men, thus feminists have insisted that women be judged on men's terms rather than their own. Nonetheless, it is important that they did so, else nothing would change. To replace a structure, you must first break it down, and this is what women have almost succeeded in doing, and hopefully will succeed entirely in the near future. Alas, there are too many hangovers from the old schema - much of the bias persists.

The ideal situation is that society does not reference a person's occupation to their gender - for instance whereby a mother might stay at home because she thinks it is the best thing to do, rather than because social politics forces her to. Again, this cannot occur globally until the male-guided, male-centred society is entirely torn down.

Bones, thank you for you comment. If you will note very rarely do I respond in one or two sentence sound bites. Please bear with me I will address your comments. Thanks for you patience. But please peruse my other posts and perhaps you may find an answer there in the mean time.
William

Kascijin's comments in bold, mine all else.
In your response, I find a number of connections that tie in with that first statement you had made in post #8. These are as follows:

What it meant to me with in hindsight . . . I can comment in context with . . . he did practice what he preached, they stayed together for their entire lives, divorce was not that easy, marriage is not easy, [the well-being of the child] is what marriage is all about, and, . . . those who chose to engage in sex should know each other well enough, that if the woman becomes pregnant, they will have what it takes for each to live up to the enormous responsibility that will entail.
I very much reason that to balance all things that come into play, in their various degrees, is going to be really, really hard to do (if not impossible), but I'll do my best to adhere to the nature of things--because, after all, that is the real core--backbone, muscles, and tendons--of it all.

In the highest respect, I think I know where this is going with this as you refer to nature, so we will handle it as we get to it. Aedes commented on it a little bit in his post, if I am correct as understanding what you mean.


Since the words that your father had told you had most obviously been pinned on the premise that impregnating a female demanded adherence to a social construct (marriage), would it not be fair to weigh that premise (which itself is most definitely due to a specific social condition) against the bulk of nature itself, to test for any possible variation of value assignments?

Again, as you refer to "nature" I am going to hold. Your thought as to what is considered the standard and the norm, "demanded adherence" is not exactly how I would interpret it. Yes, I will assert the value of what it means to have a child is estranged as it relates to the various "social constructs" in the world. That's where communication comes in of which, as it relates to these various "societies", is lacking tremendously. It must be on solid ground with a smidgen of truth before it will be heard. At least enough to insure a somewhat attentive ear. It is not a adherence that must be demanded, in that I think it is wise, to do so. That can be taught. What limits that communication is a term we have created as one of those measures to define freedom is "ethnic purity" as it alludes to everyone should respect their heritage. In that measure, I whole heartedly agree.
If you will please note my signature as this issue in regard to our children, is one of the cornerstones that led me to that truth. At least a truth to me that is. I can only hope, it be a truth for others as they begin to see the whole of things as my eyes do and not limited on their individual and narrow "view point" that in my opinion is controlled by the ego. Even if we cannot know for sure that we are immortal, it is imperative we act as such so we will establish a solid foundation for our prodigy and our posterity to build from or we create a decaying civilization, IMO. Even if it is out of selfish motives as we envision ourselves in that future or altruistic ones for our children, the end result it the same.

"In a social condition where the harem model is a choice by those who can afford such, we could reasonably conclude that such words would not have as much weight as they would in a social condition wherein marriage would, by legal demand of that society, be a one time event of a male taking a female to be a legal, lifetime partner, which partnership could not be broken (divorce illegal; as in Peru)? In a primative social condition where promiscurity (polygyny/polyandry) is a choice (no great taboo), such words would admittedly have even less weight--and could be seen as not being so wise economically, even".

The two words in the above statement that will help explain it are "afford" and "economically".The cultures who support creations such as the harem, seraglio and concubines have little or no interest in the welfare of the child, or the people they rule, which is evident by the poverty under the rule of those who have such. It is the ultimate master/slave scenario regardless if it is carnal in nature or not. Nevertheless that does not take away from the truth of your statement. No human being should have such power or wealth, for then it would be up to the rest of the world to feed there starving people which we should do anyway. That is why we must establish a entirely new economic system in which such power cannot exist. If on the other hand it is totally self sufficient and can exist apart from the world in which we live, so be it. But that is impossible. Only global cooperation can eliminate those ancient traditions in which slavery was a common practice. A practice still present today even in our most advanced cultures, but of course cleverly disguised under the banner of "freedom". Eliminate the catalyst of power which is "monetary wealth" and such atrocities will cease to exist. I have no idea of how this can be done, but collectively, it can be assured we will find a solution to all of the injustices in the world, the most important of which affects our young.
Ha, I can imagine the aphrodisiatic effects of being smothered in beautiful women. Of course to me it is just an illusion, but to those of gross opulent wealth, which is available to those so heirs of royalty, which by the way to me personally is a crock evident by the amount of bloodshed these "mortal gods" have caused to maintain their thrones. The ego gone insane. The sad part about it is this insanity in not reserved to those who maintain harems, it exists in all cultures. Greed is greed regardless of all attempts to justify it or hide it; it will be our downfall.

"Therefore, in light of even just this much, would it not be reasonable enough to understand that within the framework of a certain social condition, his words could well be seen as representing wisdom, whereas in another, they may not be seen in such light--to varying degrees? I reason that due to such a naturally possible understanding, we must use caution because we are indirectly asserting one social condition as being in absolute correctness over another--which will surely depend on many other factors than just their marriage systems".

Absolutely accurate as I have addressed it early on as to the necessity of creating a economic structure that would negate the amassing of any commodity that could allow such atrocities to take place, whether it be knowledge, gold, oil, land, food or human beings. If we don't do that, there are no solutions and humanity as we know it will sink farther and farther into oblivion. We had a dark ages once, it can happen again. It is not necessarily one social condition pitted against the other as it is just a real good case of common sense. You can't get that from "mortal gods" who reign over the poverty stricken of the world behind those demarcation zones they call "their countries". Diplomacy as we define it will not work, only the truth of common sense has a chance. All, even these gods, will respond, in that they themselves have rarely heard it from those they rule for fear they have instill in those they rule. For even common sense to have an affect it must come from a majority of those who also occupy this planet in favor of this new global effort to establish balance. Once we establish trust which is backed up by deeds then we will be able to rescue the ignorant and impoverished who are having so very many children behind these lines of demarcation causing a flooding effect as they effort to escape their bondage. Due to the insanity of our current economic structure, most of the poor have no means to escape. It will be incumbent on those most brilliant of us, dedicated to this ideal to work out the loop holes that will be encountered. That can only be done as a group effort that will represent a global consortium of those who have excelled in all human endeavors regardless of what social group that is their heritage.

It is a fact, however, that around only 3% of mammals are permanent pair bonders (about the same rate as one take on the percentage of homosexuals in the USA); and yet in most of the world that has become the social condition. Most of us guys would probably not like the idea of sharing a woman, a wife, with our brothers, but there is that social condition in which that choice is there. . . and it is legal marriage--although some of us would likely not mind the certain island condition wherein at some point in time, the females have the choice of 'raping' a male--if we could really call it 'rape,' rather than festive liscence to have sex with any male of choice by a group of females.

Now to the nature question of which this vaguely addresses. In any respect the human being is equated to the animal other than those physiological conditions that are necessary to live and breathe on this planet, I for one will turn a deaf ear to. If you can show me an ape that can build a "Kool-Aid" stand, then and only then will I consider such dialog. Who ever did the design work on the male and female knew exactly what they were doing as it relate to those natural attractions instilled in those two "human creatures" that inhabit this planet. I can only offer my "male" view point stemming from my experiences from observing both. I have a keen awareness of what my personal drives are and when it comes to a woman they have, at times been out of control. Most of those in my younger days when I experience how testosterone really worked. Without the female, I had no desire. When she was present, especially in those young years, there were times when I thought I would lose control as I had an uncontrollable urge to satisfy that desire. Then I soon began to realize one of the many reasons why the male human being is gifted with "opposable thumbs". Ha. It is my body and I can wash it as often and vigorously as I want to. Ha. Giving reason to the sobering affect of a cold shower. Ah, the relief. Ha.

Now I have two daughters and I as my Father past on a little bit of my wisdom to them. I had no idea of what it was to be female, but I was well versed on what it was to be male so I offered a a bit of what being male was all about from my perspective. That little lecture consisted of the following:

The relationship between a man and a woman is special and should be treated as such. Now the male is programmed to pursue the female. That is a part of our genetic code and basic blueprint. It is the woman who decides if she is to be "caught" or "not caught". She determines that, and only she determines that. The female in the animal kingdom by and large, have no such decision making authority, nature has taken care of that and when she is ready, she has either has to run like hell, fight or submit. It is that simple. Now in the human species she has a choice as to who her mate will be. But the male drive is much similar to that of the beast, but it is the woman who makes the final decision. Once you encounter this "male beast" understand his motives are for the most part carnal and it is the woman who soothes that primal urge that will allow him time to understand there is more to a relationship than just satisfying that carnal desire, such as the children that could be created from that ever so important union. In all cases, at the onset say no. If he goes his merry way and does not return, then bid him good riddance. If he returns again and again, then and only then will you come to realize you have possibly found a keeper.

As I have mentioned in my OP, sexual intercourse had but one purpose and one purpose only. To think of it as a "recreational activity" is playing with fire. Well it used to be anyway. Prior to any measure of birth control, the rhythm method was strictly adhere to for those who wish to engage in this activity who were not ready for children. It was safe, natural and full proof, provided she was educated enough to know how her body functions. In passing, it would be interesting to know how many young girls today even know what the rhythm method is? Though I know due to the birth control pill, and it's induced affect make it unnecessary for the young girl to know this. Much like the way the calculator has done away with the necessity to know how to multiply, subtract, add and divide. Of course today, it really doesn't matter any more, does it?

Marriage as it is in most of the world today, is a relatively new concept compared to the history of the earth, permanent pair bonding is not natural to the human, is very dependent upon biology, and so why should we not be careful with the idea?

Everything is new today when compared to the history of the Earth. That is what trial and error is all about and is a prerequisite to wisdom. Life is our teacher, so to speak as we determine that which is complimentary to the continuance of that life, as apposed to that which is antagonistic to that continuance. Abortion being the greatest antagonism to that continuance, followed closely by homosexuality, and both being obsessive, irresponsible carnality stemming from greed for life itself and unbridled sexual gratification. Now the permanent pair bonding as not to be "natural" to the human, IMO, is pardon my bluntness, an attempt to use the malignancy of some knowledge to rationalize erroneous behavior and I do not agree. If it were not for the children involved, I might give it some credence. We are not animals my friend. We are human beings. There is a big difference.

Thank you Kaseijin for your honest and sincere comments. I do hope we were able to establish some common ground. Your input is greatly appreciated. These dialogs are, IMO, so important once we can silence the ego. Sometimes that is extremely very hard to do. Thank you for that.

Sincerely,
William

---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------
Khethil's remarks in bold, mine all else,

"Yea, I'm with you on this one - with a twist.

No one's "place" is anywhere. The instant my ethos says "because you're X, your place is <there>" I will, by my words and actions, judge this person as neglectful or in-error if they're not where I think they should be. This is, in my opinion, the best view.
Now, with that being said... I agree that it is healthiest, most nurturing and overall most beneficial for a parent to be with an infant - 24/7 - until they've gotten over the youngest years. I also agree that it's better for our youngest to be breast-fed by their mothers for a myriad of reasons. I phrase it this way ("I think it's better that <yada>") because I feel its important to make the distinction between "should" and "I think it's better" - one is categorical, sweeping and commanding by right of the speaker's Ethics. The other is an opinion - stated in such a way as to suggest solid support".

I totally agree with your twist and it should not be determined where a person's place is. IMO, A Mother's place should opt for the home as I feel it is an innate for her to feel that way, not as a result of a directive of anyone, especially a man. Whew, and if I said that, which I think I did say, I apologize. Bad choice of words. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do get a little zealous at times.

Now here is the truth behind your ethos. That is exactly what the feminist movement did. Dictated to the Mother's of the world where their place should be, when at that time most women enjoyed the comfort of the home and their role as nurturer to her children. There was, by and large, no problem, until the radical feminist created one as it was given a voice in which it never had before to espouse it's vitriolic venom that stemmed from it hatred of men and the children they produced and the traditional family structure where they lived. They did an amazing job considering the infinitesimal number of radical feminist in the world. Without the aid and assistance of the mass media that venom would have never been heard. I know, I was there and witnessed every bit of it.
As far as the next paragraph, I totally agree.

"Well, disagree here. But that's the good thing about relationships: They belong to, and are defined by, the people who are in them. If I and my mate decide she should have 77.432% of the decision-making responsibility (while I get my 22.568%) then that is how it should be. To categorically attribute any particular role - en masse - to one gender or the other is inherently limiting. No, I don't think that's what you're doing - just my take on relationship roles"

Thank you and I totally agree, though I did say that 1% is not etched in stone and must be earned. In that respect only will it be accepted by the wife. It should not be forced in any respect whatsoever. Yes, it is a personal perspective because in my mind to exchange the Grrr.... for the Purrr.....as it relates to the male and the female in reverse roles is impossible to imagine in my male mind. As I said, I dearly love women and love them on pedestals to be cared for in every respect. I like that and furthermore find great comfort in it and would seem to me most women would. IMO.

"If I understand you rightly, I'd agree. Economic considerations have relegated parenthood in general to the background, as have some social expectations (to some lesser or greater extent). As far as the competitive aspect you spoke of; Naw. Competition exists even without gender diversity. Where gender does plays a role in our feelings about competition, this is only a product of our socialization/sentiments about gender roles themselves. Competition between humans simply is (watch me cuss at the clouds that block out my sunshine)".

Yes, you are right except for the "naw". Ha. Yes it has always existed and could be construed as human nature to compete for there has never been a precedent otherwise to draw upon. Competition in any respect requires an arena or a battle ground as it were and I believe the relationship between a man or a woman should not be one. It should be more about communication, understanding, and respect of one to the other with a whole lot of desire in between of one for the other as a reward for that communication, understanding and respect. IMO.

I will not comment on your closing remarks except to say thanks. As always I respect your input.:a-ok:

Your friend,
William

I appreciate the time and thought put into your post, William. While I will respond more specifically (to the degree that I deem there would be any benefit in doing so) to some points a bit later, I just wanted to check something here. I seem to sense--and the above quote is perhaps a stronger example--a religious belief-system presupposition.

Your second sentence may simply evidence an area where further study may give room for seeing the continuum--even when, if not especially when, looking at brain--but could I please ask you to be more specific with the rest of your thought there (and if possible, along with a few examples of evidence for thinking, or tending to see it, as something that relates only to human sexuality)?

Thank you Lily for your input there. While I'd hope to have your understanding and trust in saying that I will touch base with your point (in some ways) later on, I might point out now, that probably by your usage of the term religious you would mean members of the major living religions of today. There are some primative societies whose members are religious, but who do not have the same base as, for example, the Abrahamic-based faiths, or Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on, and do not have strict adherence to the permanent pair bond concept. I will get back to some other points you have raised...trust me.

I appreciate your addition there, too, Aedes. It was not my intention to assert any comparison, but rather to lay facts on the table; only that, and nothing more (for now). The likelihood that H. sapein of 20,000 years ago, the H. erectus, and so on...practiced strong permanent pair-bonding, is just as weak as the likelihood that most other animals practiced it. The genelogical push most likely ruled the day during the hunter-gather, 'pre-dawn' days. For that reason, most likely, it is not in the biology yet. The later point I will touch on later...again, as above...trust me. KJ

Yes, I will agree my thought processes do align with that information espoused by many doctrines, include those of religion. To be wise, one has to venture into those areas deemed by other as false to learn and find that balance that precipitated those "warnings" rather than just blindingly adhering to it because it satisfies one's ego. A practice alive and very well in this reality and in my opinion very wrong for more reasons than I can discuss here and now. I have written many posts and all have a central theme that I have gathered from venturing on both sides of the road. If one were to only venture on that side of the road that reinforces their perceptions, the become blind and deaf to any truth they could learn and become enslaved as they cater only to that which make them feel safe regardless if those perceptions are true or false. The "negative" side of our existence is a scary place most will not venture for fear of it dismantling a truth they have been conditioned to believe. And one in particular that is most guilty of instilling that fear is religion itself. And coming out from under that indoctrination is, to say the least, very, very hard to do.
.
Personally I am not qualified as you to discuss the physiology to the human brain. Though I do believe it a capable of only one function, influence by other un-empirical phenomenon such as the mind and the memory. I feel it number one function is the care for the body. I firmly believe that. And it is that association with the memory and the mind that will determined how well it cares for the body. Unless you can explain to me in a language I can understand otherwise, we don't have a clue as to how the mind and the memory affect it's function, except when it has to deal with worry, stress, guilt and fear, it goes haywire for it will effort to reach a balance with that which causes it to malfunction as it tries to solve problems it was not intended to solve such as the emotions I mentioned. It works amazingly better in a "smiling" state that it works in a "frowning" state. To understand what makes us smile, first we must understand that which makes us frown. That in my opinion is were wisdom comes from. If we accept that which makes us frown as a paradigm essential in the universe as it relates to human frailities, we will IMO only make matters worse. We must effort to eliminate those and there are many.

As far as human sexuality, if you would pleasc be a little more specific.
Thanks,

By the way, I am enjoying this dialog and the grace you exhibit. :a-ok:
William

Same here !

After having read your above post over once, and having done some of my 'today's things to do list' items, I went over into my studio to check through some journals, files, and a book or two, to pull out some stuff to try to reword and explain to you. After some 90 minutes or so, I was kind of at a loss--what to do??!. Wow...it's simply so much. I mean, William, we have to look at chromosome structure, protein function, DNA, mRNA, hormonal substances, cellular structure, function, and life patterns, prenatal neurocrest development, postnatal brain activities, brain structure and anatomy and function, and differences and similaritites between ganglion structures up to the brain build of the H. sapien, if we really want to get as full an understanding as possible to see just how it is a continuum (which it is, though not so absolutely smooth in shading differences).

[size=3]embedding I[/size]

I have noticed that you have tended (looking at that last post only, here) to express your opinion, or beliefs--and that ability and 'art' (as I call it too) is well appreciated (Japanese students have problems with that ad nauseam (almost)). I'm still trying to see if I can come up with a way to make a decent presentation (but it might have to end up in another thread [which I am kind of working in]), but would like to point out one thing here. I can only ask for your concerned trust here, as I do make a good effort to stay up in the field, am subscribed to six journals, have availability to another four, continue updating my resource materials (the most recent being the two volume set The Encyclopedia of Consciousness (Academic Press; 2009) which just came out in March), and make effort to be balancedly sceptic (as much as natural implicit conscious [sub/unaccessable conscious] will allow).

The human brain, just like the primate brain, just like the mouse brain, is made up of brain. This is like saying a muscle is made up of muscle--in that the word can be a countable noun and an uncountable, collective noun. As far as brain (tissue; uncountable noun) goes, the substance and drive of activity between the mouse and the human is very, very small (especially if we allow that, for example the activation that substance A in the mouse brain executes equals that same execution as carried out by substance B in the human brain). Much of the structures of the human brain are found in the primate brain. What makes the big difference is size, prefrontal cortex, and system processing probably due to differences in environmentally induced needs that evolved simutaneously with the various splits in evolution. (For example brain size pressured social adaptations which in turned pruned certain traits selectively.)

The way memory works in a mouse brain is very much the exact way memory works in a human brain--both are built of brain, you'll recall, so we shouldn't expect so much difference. Human genetic material can be added to mouse genetic material to make mouse models of human neurological diseases and malfunction, in order to study that of the human. Memory is divisible into a number of classifications, but short-term and long-term are two of the major divisions looked at. By removing brain area, we can completely destroy the ability to remember 90~95% of the daily life in long-term memory terms. What this shows, is that memory is brain, and is empirical a matter, as well. (Because if we destroy the ability to remember long-term (except for some implicit storage) we destroy the ability to learn from experience.)

For brain to store memory, in turn, certain genetic programming will have to be within a certain allowable build. Certain neuromodulators and transmitters will have to be within certain volume ranges. Also, the hippocampal formation will have to be relatively free from malformation, epileptic-like short circuits, and so on. This is the same for humans, mice, primates, and a number of other brains, on down the line, to lesser and lesser degrees. (We must keep in mind that even octopuses have been noted to learn from watching other octopuses act, and they have more of a ganglion structure than a brain structure.) We do have clues, major clues on how the brain uses memory to act (thus memory affecting brain).

Guilt, fear, and worry, come in maps, but the central player, and source of input, is the agmydala and the hippocampal structures (the amygdala being the main). These are midbrain structures which are found not only in humans, and which work alike across the brains that have them. A true smile, is not executed by the cognitive cortical area, but through this limbic system (the area based around those things just mentioned above). Forcing ourselves to smile, to think on certain things, acts on the reward circuitry, makes feedback loops, and leads to changes which alter, especially, the serotonin feed areas which lead to 'feeling better.' (also this can increase receptors for serotonin, thus creating a 'double shot' effect)

The number one function of the brain is to survive as a genetic built biological entity. The purpose of the body, is the extension and 'biosuit' for the brain. I would like to try to explain how your call for seeing a primate build a 'Kool-Aid' stand to believe that humans are in a line of contiuum with all animal forms, is likely sourced from an 'urban mythological' error. Then, explain some detail about sexual determination--of course in both humans and non-human animals...to the extent that it is similar (some animals change sexes, you see, some are both [wouldn't it be easier if some 'boil built up on our bodies, bounced off like a Gremilin (the movie) then because our offspring?] This post is mostly embedding so as to demonstrate some points which in turn will demonstrate some points made towards the OP. KJ

Hello My Friend,

Let me see if I can develop a scenario or analogy in which we can communicate taking into consideration your knowledge and my knowledge, which, IMO is extremely important in those who, for whatever reasons, have a gift of "learning" and those who "don't". It's not that I don't, it is as though I am not "programmed", in other words, my brain, mind, and memory have been, inexplicably, certain parameters I was born with, that make me unique from you and everyone else on this planet, as do you. Like we were all pieces of a puzzle.

Now I am talking about "human pieces" and do not consider trying to find correlations between "animals" and "humans". I understand science's experimentation there because, it used to be unacceptable to kill human's simply to do research, thus creating the the "lab rat". God, have we kill a whole slue of rats in our "brilliant" efforts to understand the "human being". Please, forgive me, but in my opinion that was a big, big mistake. Although, it was an inevitable one. IMO, it was destined to happen. Now you have to excuse me, for I am a person that relies on "mind/memory" predominantly, because I believe what it is comprised of is that which is complimentary to "those parameters" I was born with. As what is in yours is complimentary with those parameters you were born with. What you and I are doing now is trying to find "common ground" that will allow our "selfs" to "mesh". What is so exceptional about you is your ability to "dismiss" the ego which is so necessary for two people, "two puzzles pieces" TO JOIN.

Much of what I know, I was programmed to learn. That which I was not programmed to learn, I cannot learn unless it is "forced" on me to learn. That which I am programmed to learn is extremely easy. It "fits" with that program I was born with. Like "going into another chapter" of my existence. As are you. The reason why I complimented you on your patience is because, though you may not realize it yourself, your connection to "mind" (not memory) and my connection to "mind" (not memory) put us together. We are two pieces of the overall puzzle that are "connecting".

We have not developed the "language" yet that enables us to understand what I just said. Ha. It is that very language we are working on now and that takes a lot of patience. Patience is just a term we use to "make" us "slow" down. God, I hope I don't lose my train of thought here. I don't think I will.

What speeds us up (metabolically) is the memory speeding up to access "information" it has stored there. Information "you" are requiring it to look for. Now for what ever reason it is that you are attempting to "command" it to search, it will effort to deliver to you. It is susceptible to your commands. The problem is it has to sift through information that was "forced" on it, not complimentary to those parameters or programming you were born with. Now the esoteric part of this entire dialog, or the un-empirical part if it is "just what are we born with".

It is assumed we are a nothing, just "programmable" pieces to fit the puzzle man has created giving little regard to any un-empirical "mind" programming. Now let me explain what I mean by "mind" IMO. The mind, to me that makes any sense, is that universal construct in which we are a part. That God, if you will, we talk so much about. That puts the pieces of the overall puzzle together and connects them up. The memory is what we learn from our senses experience, forced or unforced. It's all in there, all of it, good, bad and ugly. Now the good is connected to that "mind" and is a part of that information you acquired that you will carry with you into the next chapter of your existence. Now that mind of which we are, as a whole, are desperately seeking to establish connection and we are trying to do it based on "forced" information we have stuffed into memory to "survive". That "mind" has no idea of what "survive" means. Ha. It does not compute.

Now in your knowledge, KJ, and my knowledge are being connected by that mind in order to find a "truth", which is that knowledge we can communicate to other pieces of the puzzle that mind will guide us to. It, that mind, has slowed you down so that you can hear me and I will be able to hear you, thought we are vastly "different" in the knowedge our individual memories hold. How we were put together, the language we have established cannot determine such is the phrase "it is beyond me" which we commonly use when we frustratingly are faced with a situation in which we cannot find an answer in memory. And the "it is beyond me" is what science is all about. We a humans are extremely "uncomfortable" in "not knowing". That is innate and it is that drive to know as we venture into areas we are "not meant" to go that has us so utterly confused. Ha. Our "free will" as we define it is our link to that mind that will teach us what is "good" in memory and that which is "bad" in memory, thus allowing us to communicate with the mind being the guide of which we are all apart of. We just have a hard to understanding that from the "stuff" we have stored in memory.

Now back to the "lab rats". We in our "assumed" autonomy, which is what we call free will had no choice but to "explore" our unique surroundings for that is all we know and what we "empirically" know is what knowledge is. As we grow, we know and we learn. Wisdom is objectively reviewing that knowledge allowing us to discard the bad from the good. IMO, there is a enormous amount of knowledge we need to discard. Not so much that it is necessarily bad, it is it does not fit into our individual programs we were born with. And when you open a book you will either further contaminate that memory with knowledge not compatible or enhance it with which is. How do we know which is which? By the "ease" in which we can comprehend it.

The brain and the memory we have a good understanding of, it is the mind, which is separate, is what we don't understand for it is "beyond us". Ha. Yet it is us, we are just too "contaminated" to realize it. Ha.
The brain is the key and is influenced by the mind and contaminated by the memory. We think we can empirically "figure" it out, but without the mind's influence, that IMO will be impossible. It is that mind that is guiding you and I at this minute. And if I am at all correct our ability to communicate will become easier and easier as we go along.

I am running out of steam here. Please digest my knowledge of which comes easy to me and the knowledge that comes easy to you as you consider what I have said, both the empirical and the un-empirical.
Thanks again for having the patience that is allowing us to communicate so well. I look forward to your comments.

Your friend,
William

Please give me some time to try to grasp it better than in just one sitting. I do, off the top of my head see a few bits of data which go against what has been well shown by neuroscientific and psychological studies, but there may be no real need to go into that. I may not be able to get back on line later tonight, so it may well have to wait until tomorrow.

Thanks for the input, and the compliments (I hope I can live up to them). KJ

The whole man over women thing I always thought had it's origins from the hunter gatherer era, and then sort of died out with the socialist era, where women no longer relied on men for survival of themselves and their children, rather the state.

Of course the big time capitalists still hold on to, emphasize, and promote it to keep their sink or swim lifestyle a float.

IMO, if you want to find someone who loves you for you and not just your money or ability to support, hook up in a socialist country.

The only big thing that concerns me over the differences is the emotional differences, which in my opinion are more learned as parents reward emotionalism with girls with comfort, and reward boys with emotionalism with scorn and discipline.

I think this hinders the ability for the sexes to relate to each other and creates the impression of weakness in women. IMO, boys need to be allowed a wee bit more to cry and express their emotions and girls need to not be allowed to as much as children, in other words, they should be treated equally in this arena, and encouraged to express positive emotions and discouraged from negative ones.

Please do forgive the time it has taken to get back here. I had to really throw some of it around a bit to see what associations may come out of it, and to grasp those ([and I have suddenly had a surge of workload increase).

I agree that we can focus on just the H. sapien, the humanbeing, but also realize that by doing such, we will not be cutting the line of continuum with all other life forms that are, and have been. By focusing on the H. sapien, for example, we will not be giving consideration to the H. neandertahlensis, H. heidelbeergensis, H. erectus, H. rudolfensis, P. robustus, and so on, or, even, the H. sapiens idaltu (which is very intermmediate in build--globular braincase) We would not be focusing on the Great Apes, even our very near relatives the chimpanzees (including the bonobo), regardless of the overlap in genetic material we share. So, while we do this, we should, nevertheless, keep that in mind all along.

As far as I can tell, and I could be misreading a bit, I'll grant, it does appear as though further information could be useful on understanding the general and most common referent for the word memory. Firstly, there are a number of memory types; and I am not talking about simply implicit and explicit, episodic, emotional, and so on, but memories that have been shown to be there in brains but which do not reach consciousness level--we don't know of them subjectively. These matters, however, I do feel (and reason) would have to come little by little on the other threads which I am also slowly posting on, rather than on this one.


And with that...time is up. I'll be back, in due time. KJ

William, I can't help noticing the generalizing and assumptions in your OP. I can see your views on one hand and understand where they may come from culturally, but as a feminist I disagree with the 51/49 partnership idea of yours. What are your reasons for suggesting that a male's view should be accepted in a stalemate scenario by default? Also, what are your thoughts on femininity and why that is a more desirable quality than feminism? What is your understanding of feminism? Just inviting friendly discussion. (If you happened to already answered these, forgive me, I'm still reading through the thread. )

If we are going to continue, let me relate to you a few things about me.

I am not a religious man, but I do believe in a higher intelligence
I do believe in the traditional, biological family structure
I detest the word abortion.
I believe there are only two genders; male and female
I am not politically correct.
I absolute believe in equity in the workplace regarding male and female.
I do not believe in in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. Over adoption
I do not believe a child should be reared in a same sex. sexually active relationship.

I will not be convinced otherwise as to the above views I deeply hold.There is no hope of that whatsoever.

Now to answer your question. I addressed that in the post. It is not a demand situation, I didn't like the "obey" part in the marriage vows either. It is an earned one and it has to be agreed by both the husband and the wife as to will have the final say. In the marriage there must be communication prior to making any decision. If there is adaquate communication they will both arrive at the same decision. That should be the case in all decision making. When there are irreconcilable differences, someone should make the final decision. Why do you think it should be the woman? I am not saying the man has the final say in all matters. What I am saying is it must be mutually agreed upon by both in all matters. Perhaps I was a little vague and I apologize, for the male to have that final decision, it must be agreed by both that he should prior to the marriage taking place. If it can't then the marriage shouldn't take place. Personally speaking, if it is mutually agreed on by the male and female that the female make the final decision, it shows weakness in the male which serves to create weakness in those male offspring.
William

I'll touch on this then, since the other matter will really be best discussed on other threads (for the most part).

First of all, it is a fact that human sexuality is very much like that of the primates, on down (with slight changes occuring as we go). In this way too, there is a continuum. I'll try to keep this concise and stick to the most important matters, as they relate to gender build in total.

As you would know, there are the 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes contained in the zygote; or we could put it as 22 chromosome pairs and one sex chromosome pair. If the last pair is made up of XX, we have a female genetic build, and if it is made up of XY, we have a male genetic build. This is the basic and most common (naturally) pattern, and it must be kept in mind that at this level, we are only talking about the genetic sex (or chromosomal sex).

The Y carries the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome (SRY) gene which codes for a protein called testi-determining factor (TDF) The presence of a Y in the zygote with a properly functioning SRY, will always develop into a genetic and anatomical male.

For the first 6 weeks or so, the gonads (urogenital system) cana go either way (ovaries or testes). The system the gonads are in contain two ducts--the Mullerian duct, and the Wolffian duct. If the fetus has a 23rd Y and a properly functioning SRY gene, testosterone is produced and the Wolffian duct develops into the male internal reproductive system. At the same time, the Mullerian duct is prevented from developing by a hormone called Mullerian-inhibiting factor (MIF), and degenerates--those cells die. If the Y is not present, or the SRY not functioning properly, the later duct develops (in varying degrees in the case of genetic mishap) into the internal female reproductive system, and the former duct dies. In that genetical function, and state, can and will go wrong, the external genitals (which both come from the same structure) can be displayed in various degrees of intermediate forms (hermaphroditism).

In the case of Klinefelter's Syndrome, the most common sex chromosome misconfiguration (+/-2 per 1000 male births), one or more X chromosomes are carried, making the likes of XXY genetical males, or occasionally, even XXXY, or XXXXY configurations. The person will be genetically male, and anatomically male. Their testes will be small, cannot produce sperm, and they will have considerably lower libido. Also, at puberty, they will develop feminine physical characteristics (though not develop breast-like structurally). They will also have cognitive disabilities, progessively as the number of X chromosomes increase.

With 'Super Males,' we find XYY, or maybe XYYY. This makes a very male, male orientated body (and brain). The average of studies have shown that it is more likely due to the learning disabilities that this configuration creates that causes the higher rate of this type male to end up in prison, rather than any greater aggressive tendencies related to high testosterone levels.

Turner's Syndrome is rare (affecting about 1 in 10,000 female births) and is sometimes labeled as 'XO,' because one X in the couplet is missing. (O=missing) Many embryos with this configuration are spontaneously aborted (this means, miscarried, the natural rejection system) The XO develops physically as a female, with female external genitals, but the internal organs do not form. With the lack of ovulation and ovarian hormones, puberty is not triggered and so other physcial female characteristics are less pronounced (although this can be corrected with hormone injections). XO women are infertile, and show no great signs of cognitive deficiency to any material degree.

I'll post this much for now, but will go on to present more, and fill in more detail about how the homonal processes affect brain build, which in turn, makes neural sex--which is the major determination of overall sexuality. (it may take me a couple of days or so, or more...sorry...'busy' fell in the window last week)

First of all, this may take two posts--as I'm pressed for time at the moment, but wish to go ahead and start; since I'm behind here, anyway. I'd like to first recap one important point which must be kept in mind, with a quote from Hormones, Brain, and Behavior, Vol 4, p 386 (Academic Press, 2002):

[indent]Mammalian sexual differentiation is biased in a female direction. By this we mean that morphogenic processes are geared to producing female end-points in sexual differentiation as the default path, meaning it is the pattern that most easily occurs. This concept is valuable as it implies that the failure of a process necessary to produce a male trait leads to the creation of a female phenotypic unit instead. The converse is not true; that when a female process is blocked, a male characteristic arises. Thus while there can be no doubt that female differentiation requires a suite of active morphogenic processes, it is also the case that male differentiation requires two specific processes that allow the male phenotype to alter what is essentially female-biased differentiation.

It is now apparent that two processes are necessary to create a male; masculinization and defeminization. Masculinization imposes malelike characters [sic] on the developing organism, whereas defeminization suppresses femalelike characteristics that would otherwise arise. (bold mine; possible edit miss in original (characteristics may have been intended)[/indent]

My time is about up. . . please allow me to post tonight (which will probably automerge anyway)...sorry ! KJ

KaseiJin, wonderful post and spot on.

We'd be remiss not to mention testicular feminization, a syndrome of complete testosterone resistance. XY males are outwardly indistinguishable from females (and they often look particularly feminine because they have less testosterone activity than the average female). Their internal genitalia is not normal, because they have MIF activity, but their external genitalia is 100% female. And they usually but not always think of themselves as female, XY or not.

This stuff ain't simple.

Ain't this an understatment...hee, hee, hee....

Thanks ! and ah shucks...you beat me to a good one (although I am not so informed on that particular one, just kind of caught mention of it somewhere)...but I'll do androgen insensitivity syndrome tomorrow...no time again...and go into a general spill on sexual dimorphic differences in brain tissue later.

All of this, as also Aedes' post above, is to present data showing that sexual state, especially the brain sex state, is a continuum with simply greater mean (for the average), but with valid states of gender identity (not genetic or genital sex) besides what is average. (so, after all, not so black and white a matter!)

Why? What possible reasons do you base this on? Are you assuming that the male is better at making decisions than the female. What factual evidence have you based this on,ie.they are weak if they let the female decide?

One very famous actress is thought to have this syndrome, though it's not confirmed. But there are some models and actresses who have had it -- you'd never know from their bikini shots that they are XY.

No. I am saying all dicisions should be mutual. Period. If a child is reared, in all cases, where either the male or female is dominate is a bad situation. In that situation where there one is dominate the other has to be submissive. But in those rare times when their are differences if must be determined before hand before they are to have children who would make the final decision. Hopefully there would be no irreconsible differences but one or other must have that responsibility on the RARE occasion it does, being male, I think it should be his responsibility. Now I will agree, there may be a little bias because of that, because I am not a woman and will not be submissive to one. I will not be submissive to any human being; neither should any human being. Like I said in that period in which they get to know each other, the male should, out of his devotion and love for his future betrothed he earns that right of which she will agree to. There needs to be a strong, loving, caring hand to support that family structure. It is good for both the male and the female offspring to witness the synergy of that male/female connection. A mother should not be put in a position in which she is force to challenge that strength. She IMO, should welcome it. I realize in todays society in which it "requires" both mother and father to be in the work place puts one hell of a strain on
that relationship.

IMO, the family is about "OURS"; not "YOURS, MINE and OURS" as is so popular these days. Adhering to that scenario, the family will fail. evident by the statistics and divorce rates that have skyrocketed since Women's Liberation. Because of the word "obey" in the marriage vows, many men took that literally. and that is indeed sad. Entering into that environment that will bring new life into the world is one that cannot be taken lightly. It carries enormous responsibilities. IMO, it takes the strength of the male and to loving nurturning hand of the female to provide balance to that environment that provides that balance in the offspring.

Had the word "obey" been "commit", it would have made more since and that should have been established in the courtship. That union of a man and a woman with the intent to bring children into this world must be solid as a rock. That takes time. Yours, mine and ours ain't gonna git it. That ends up a two strangers raising children. Sad.
I hope this better explains my view, IMO.

William

I agree with you in that no one parent should be the dominant but you say because of the mans devotion to his family etc that he should, (if needed), be the one to make the final desicion, but the woman is equally devoted. And if the situation means the male makes the decision then the woman is submissive and you dont agree with one being dominant? And i wouldnt be submissive to a man iether, it is exactly the same as you not wanting to be submissive to a woman. If both sexes are equal and the man, (if need be), makes the final decision based on his devotion, im sorry it just doesnt make sense?