Men are just happier

[Joe]

You may not have noticed this thread is under the Tickle Me section and was written by a woman. You CAN laugh at stereotyping.

No offense was intended.

It's not about offense. Is stereotyping accurate? Apparently not because you are meant to laugh at it. So we're meant to laugh at bunch of lies? Does laughing at lies, finding them funny, potentially seat those lies as 'true' in some part of the adaptive unconscious? Isn't it better to find something that is funny and true?

 

[cassandra]

I had some beautiful experiences when I was pregnant. Once, when the baby was kicking me pretty hard, I stroked my stomach
to relieve the discomfort. I found it calmed my baby too. Her head molded itself in my hand, I spoke to her and we both felt tremendous peace. A feeling of wonderful bonding and love descended on us both ; our first cuddle, absolutely amazing.

 

[daco]

This is only just my opinion, and by that it is subjective, dont take it too serious.

Pathocracy is better. When the 'pillars of society' are male psychopaths, instead of wise and compassionate women and men, it's easy to encourage violence, bigotry, cruelty, etc.

I agree in some degree but my point is simple.
Individuals like "all" important philosophy authors or religion authors share negative view on women. Comparing some of them to psychopaths is not soo smart because we have writings by them and by that we can see the differences and not only by that, we can see their autobiographies which is not writen by psychopaths.

We dont have religion women author not because of patochracy or because they was suppressed in history by psychopaths like everyone will think, it is because of nature of women; they cant be religion authors because of they nature, in some sense women must become man. For example: in the Buddhist scriptures it is taught that a woman must be "reborn" as a man in order to attain higher levels of wisdom, but that this rebirth can be achieved in this life, here-and-now. In the gospel of Thomas Jesus said that he would make Mary male, so that she could be of spirit. It is the same principle. That is not writen by psychopaths.

Pillars of society indeed can be "full" of psychopaths but there is a lot, a lot normal scholars (normal human beings with conscience) and by ignoring that and pointing with finger on the main problem here, that is pathocracy and saying that pathocracy MADE negative view on women is not true. It is made by normal human beings with conscience.
Pathocracy just use that views of women, they not invented it.

ps. Patohracy is a dangerous word because that can be used by psychopaths and then psychopaths can used that to talk about normal human beings and calling normal human beings psychopaths.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

This is only just my opinion, and by that it is subjective, dont take it too serious.

Pathocracy is better. When the 'pillars of society' are male psychopaths, instead of wise and compassionate women and men, it's easy to encourage violence, bigotry, cruelty, etc.

I agree in some degree but my point is simple.
Individuals like "all" important philosophy authors or religion authors share negative view on women. Comparing some of them to psychopaths is not soo smart because we have writings by them and by that we can see the differences and not only by that, we can see their autobiographies which is not writen by psychopaths.

Perhaps you missed the first part of my reply:

And system 2 thinking is a janus-faced creature. It can function with a conscience, or without one. And it can run on auto-pilot, with many unspoken assumptions, and still give 'logical' results. Sometimes this gives similar results as functioning without conscience.

We dont have religion women author not because of patochracy or because they was suppressed in history by psychopaths like everyone will think, it is because of nature of women; they cant be religion authors because of they nature, in some sense women must become man. For example: in the Buddhist scriptures it is taught that a woman must be "reborn" as a man in order to attain higher levels of wisdom, but that this rebirth can be achieved in this life, here-and-now. In the gospel of Thomas Jesus said that he would make Mary male, so that she could be of spirit. It is the same principle. That is not writen by psychopaths.

There's a difference between women not having the ability to write religious texts and start religious movements, and the fact that the major established religious texts and movements were created by men. Can you think of any reasons for why this might be, besides sex differences? As a hint, take for a start that women HAVE written such texts and started some movements and go from there.

Pillars of society indeed can be "full" of psychopaths but there is a lot, a lot normal scholars (normal human beings with conscience) and by ignoring that and pointing with finger on the main problem here, that is pathocracy and saying that pathocracy MADE negative view on women is not true. It is made by normal human beings with conscience.
Pathocracy just use that views of women, they not invented it.

How do you know? Because so-called 'non-psychopathic' scholars wrote down these views? Where did THEY get them? And can you be sure of their mental health? You might want to re-read what Lobaczewski had to say about schizoids, and also Cleckley's book Caricature of Love.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yeah, unless you read (and really digest) Lobaczewski and Cleckey, you're not really going to get at the crux of the matter.

 

[daco]

Yeah, unless you read (and really digest) Lobaczewski and Cleckey, you're not really going to get at the crux of the matter.

I know that I cant, my thoughts operate in different language. But I try to write from which point of view I look at women.

@Approaching Infinity
You want to add pathocracy on that subject. This can be wrong and you will see why.
It is not about sex difference at all like you mention in your post, it is two completly different worlds male-women.
Women issue mainly from philosophical point of view (metaphysical) should be better answer from me. It is all about that (differences).
Why here pathocracy is not a problem. Mainly because negative view of women comes from philosophers and they (expect Any Rand, she is a psychopath there is no doubt for that, and she is not even a philosopher, she is a joke) are not psychopaths and others too. I know it because of their life. Their life tells me everything I want to know, they was human beings; they suffer (a lot), they laugh, they got bad and good moments in life, they was human beings with all that what make us humans etc. Calling them misogynist or even psychopaths is completly missing the point.

There's a difference between women not having the ability to write religious texts and start religious movements, and the fact that the major established religious texts and movements were created by men. Can you think of any reasons for why this might be, besides sex differences? As a hint, take for a start that women HAVE written such texts and started some movements and go from there.

That is it; not able to write religious text because of they nature, they just cant do it like man cant bring a child in world (be mother).
I agree that all major religion is created by man, but not because of pathocracy. Religion was an idea, good idea, but then later when psychopaths sees what they can do with that new religion that was forming, then they start to do damage, and then religion goes really big (dogmas, patriarchy, women inferiority etc).
My point is that patochracy was involved in religion and make damage to it but not in beginning.

In beginning there was ordinary normal people which was involved in religion and then later patohracy comes in.
But in beginning women knows their function and male to, male was not inferior, women too, but male was more able to develop because of hes nature, for women it was more difficult, she is a mother, she brings life.
But "all that lives must die".

Women is bringing life, birth, her nature is about bringing life and life as we know it is all about craving for physicality.

You might want to re-read what Lobaczewski had to say about schizoids, and also Cleckley's book Caricature of Love.

I know, but like I said this is not the point at all.
How I look at it "Women issue mainly from philosophical point of view (metaphysical) should be better answer from me".
And Lobaczewski and Cleckley cant answer that.

Sorry my english is pretty bad that is the reason I am not writing on this forum like I want to.
I cannot express myself like I do on my own language (it is like I use 1% and other 99% is on my language which I do understand) that is rly bad.

 

[ana]

We dont have religion women author not because of patochracy or because they was suppressed in history by psychopaths like everyone will think, it is because of nature of women; they cant be religion authors because of they nature, in some sense women must become man. For example: in the Buddhist scriptures it is taught that a woman must be "reborn" as a man in order to attain higher levels of wisdom, but that this rebirth can be achieved in this life, here-and-now. In the gospel of Thomas Jesus said that he would make Mary male, so that she could be of spirit. It is the same principle. That is not writen by psychopaths.

Besides reading Lobaczewski and Cleckey as suggested by Approaching Infinity and SeekinTruth, you may want to read this article in its whole:

Witches, Comets and Planetary Cataclysms

The religion of the Ice Age was so satisfying to all the peoples of the Earth that it was stable for over 25,000 years, as is evidenced by the archaeological and historical data. There were shamans, women, who engaged in ecstatic ascents which brought benefits to the tribe and, later, defended the tribe against negative influences. In short, it seems that Paganism, even Druidism, was the original Christianity, and the original 'Christed Ones' were women. Many researchers repeatedly point out that Christianity has pagan roots. Well, yeah; more than anybody suspects. And if the lines of research I have presented in my book, The Secret History of the World, are anything to go by, then the original 'witches' were Christs.

This, of course, leads us to wonder how can things get so turned around that we actually end up believing the opposite of the truth in almost every field of endeavor? We may turn away from mainstream religions that we can see are false and contradictory, only to fall into the arms of New Age religions that are not any better, being just another variation on a control system designed to prevent us from accessing what is real.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

You want to add pathocracy on that subject. This can be wrong and you will see why.

I don't want to add it. Looking at a subject like this without taking pathocracy into account is like trying to study marine life without taking into account the water.

It is not about sex difference at all like you mention in your post, it is two completly different worlds male-women.

That is the definition of a sex difference.

Why here pathocracy is not a problem. Mainly because negative view of women comes from philosophers and they (expect Any Rand, she is a psychopath there is no doubt for that, and she is not even a philosopher, she is a joke) are not psychopaths and others too. I know it because of their life. Their life tells me everything I want to know, they was human beings; they suffer (a lot), they laugh, they got bad and good moments in life, they was human beings with all that what make us humans etc. Calling them misogynist or even psychopaths is completly missing the point.

Daco, until you read the two books mentioned, I don't think there's any point continuing this discussion. You're simply repeating yourself and not seeing the point of anything that has been said or suggested to you.

There's a difference between women not having the ability to write religious texts and start religious movements, and the fact that the major established religious texts and movements were created by men. Can you think of any reasons for why this might be, besides sex differences? As a hint, take for a start that women HAVE written such texts and started some movements and go from there.

That is it; not able to write religious text because of they nature, they just cant do it like man cant bring a child in world (be mother).

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the meaning of my post got lost in translation. Daco, can you even consider the possibility that you are seeing this issue wrongly? Just for the sake of exercise, ASSUME that women CAN write religious texts. You don't have to believe it. Just do it. Then, try to come up with a reason for why all the texts we have are written by men (have no proof of that, as the vast majority of religious texts are anonymous). Then, to get empirical, try looking for some religious texts that ARE written by women. Trust me, you will find some. And then, ask the same question. Why are the ones that have become major religions the ones (allegedly) written by men? Try it as an experiment and see what you find.

You might want to re-read what Lobaczewski had to say about schizoids, and also Cleckley's book Caricature of Love.

I know, but like I said this is not the point at all.
How I look at it "Women issue mainly from philosophical point of view (metaphysical) should be better answer from me".
And Lobaczewski and Cleckley cant answer that.

How can you possibly know that if you have not read them? Maybe you'll find out that your original assumption is not even wrong?

 

[Palinurus]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the meaning of my post got lost in translation. Daco, can you even consider the possibility that you are seeing this issue wrongly? Just for the sake of exercise, ASSUME that women CAN write religious texts. You don't have to believe it. Just do it.

There's no need to assume. A quick search gave me this page, displaying a plethora of women, some of them writers, throughout the ages - and those are only the christian ones: _http://www.localhistories.org/christwomen.html

 

[ana]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the meaning of my post got lost in translation. Daco, can you even consider the possibility that you are seeing this issue wrongly? Just for the sake of exercise, ASSUME that women CAN write religious texts. You don't have to believe it. Just do it.

There's no need to assume. A quick search gave me this page, displaying a plethora of women, some of them writers, throughout the ages - and those are only the christian ones: _http://www.localhistories.org/christwomen.html

Besides the fact that one of the owners of this forum and writer of the most compelling and comprehensive books about science/religion/esotericism is a woman.

But maybe Daco has a special taste regarding religion and he prefers commandments and instructions instead of knowledge?

 

[Hesper]

You want to add pathocracy on that subject. This can be wrong and you will see why.
...
Women is bringing life, birth, her nature is about bringing life and life as we know it is all about craving for physicality.

I wonder if woman has any accomplices in this despicable act!

 

[Don Genaro]

You want to add pathocracy on that subject. This can be wrong and you will see why.
...
Women is bringing life, birth, her nature is about bringing life and life as we know it is all about craving for physicality.

I wonder if woman has any accomplices in this despicable act!

That is a very good point Hesper. Daco are you saying that men "crave physicality less"?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the meaning of my post got lost in translation. Daco, can you even consider the possibility that you are seeing this issue wrongly? Just for the sake of exercise, ASSUME that women CAN write religious texts. You don't have to believe it. Just do it.

There's no need to assume. A quick search gave me this page, displaying a plethora of women, some of them writers, throughout the ages - and those are only the christian ones: _http://www.localhistories.org/christwomen.html

Yes, I was hoping Daco would do a search for himself. There's also this: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_theological_figures

 

[Palinurus]

Yes, I was hoping Daco would do a search for himself. There's also this: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_theological_figures

Thanks for the wiki reference, AI. It took me quite a while to only skim the info and the adjacent links. I was aware of some of those women, but the wealth of facts displayed is utterly convincing that Daco has it totally wrong. It's no daily experience though to see such overwhelming amount of facts when you really want to know them. Hope Daco will take the trouble studying them.

 

[Iron]

That is it; not able to write religious text because of they nature, they just cant do it like man cant bring a child in world (be mother).
I agree that all major religion is created by man, but not because of pathocracy. Religion was an idea, good idea, but then later when psychopaths sees what they can do with that new religion that was forming, then they start to do damage, and then religion goes really big (dogmas, patriarchy, women inferiority etc).
My point is that patochracy was involved in religion and make damage to it but not in beginning.

In beginning there was ordinary normal people which was involved in religion and then later patohracy comes in.
But in beginning women knows their function and male to, male was not inferior, women too, but male was more able to develop because of hes nature, for women it was more difficult, she is a mother, she brings life.
But "all that lives must die".

Women is bringing life, birth, her nature is about bringing life and life as we know it is all about craving for physicality.

You might want to re-read what Lobaczewski had to say about schizoids, and also Cleckley's book Caricature of Love.

I know, but like I said this is not the point at all.
How I look at it "Women issue mainly from philosophical point of view (metaphysical) should be better answer from me".
And Lobaczewski and Cleckley cant answer that.

Sorry my english is pretty bad that is the reason I am not writing on this forum like I want to.
I cannot express myself like I do on my own language (it is like I use 1% and other 99% is on my language which I do understand) that is rly bad.

Well. It seems to me that you feel somewhat threatned by the possibility of women being spiritual anchors/guides/masters. Kinda like "they already can bring life, if they also can be evolved spiritually like a master, what will be of me?"
This is the vibe I got from your posts.
Second, from where you got the idea that its easier for men to develop or do anything spiritualy related? It can be a good exercise to retrace from where you got such Ideas. If you read "Caricature of Love" and digest it, I think you will marvel at the answer. No excuses from barrier language, Im not a native English speaker and I read it. You can do it too, just take your time.

Third if there is a objective truth, there are multiple components to it, since reality is a complex system.
So, sorry to burst your bubble, but you cannot possibly comprehend what happened to women through history if you just sit, "philosophing" and theorizing. How can you infer if you are correct? You need more points of view. You need to study the human mind, to understand why people did and do what they do. You need to study the deviant mind, to understand why they corrupt everything, why they are so insane after power to the point of destroying everything. You need to study History, to understand who was interacting with whom at the point the texts were written. You need to study everything you can, and correlate everything, see the matches and mismatches. Laura, and others provided an excelent framework of how to do this, just read the wave, and Adventures, and see how she researchs and connect the dots from seemingly "unrelated" disciplines.

In other words, you need to put some brakes, assume that you know nothing, and read everything you can.
You are not in a position to select a field of knowledge, and exclude sources much more knowledgeable than you.