Right. But go further. We must develop and USE all the different potentials in the service of the ’cause’ if success is to be achieved.

I have always struggled with the ‘urge’ in some MRA’s to make women the enemy instead of Feminism. Man=Good. Women =Bad. A simple reversal of a feminist lie.

EG would be the first – I imagine – to understand the ‘point’ that it is the effects of the concept of Feminism that is the root of the problems we face and not the nature of masculinity and femininity. So why are we getting bogged down?

I am all in favour of understanding and developing the potentials of both masculinity and femininity, and yes, grading them BOTH is an essential component of the plan.

Sure there are many deficit points that will need a lot of work if they are to be reversed or eradicated. But the natures of men and women are complementary and any advance in human society, perhaps even human evolution, requires honouring both the masculine and the feminine. Not imprisoning them.

The constant carping and criticising, marginalising and denying that is going on in this thread and some other one comes across, is destructive.

We men need women. Women need men. I am not anti-MRA when I say that women have a great contribution to make to the MRM. Yet what do we see? Constant tripping up. Constant catching-out.

I am not averse to subjecting people’s motives and actions to scrutiny and even calling them to the drum-head from time to time to explain themselves. But when a good person, one who is effective at highlighting issues fairly – and even with humour – like Joyanna is made to walk the plank I say hold on there. I don’t want EG to walk the plank either. His ability to highlight issues is worthy and valuable.

The issue of ‘invention’ is a furphy. (Oz slang for fake). It is a distraction. EG makes the point, which even I have conceded, that men have been inventive, seemingly mush moreso than women. But it is not shown anywhere that this is a function of masculine/feminine difference. So why labour that point.

I urge EG to stop being a plank, to walk or otherwise, and be a table instead. One we can sit around rather than whack one another with or be made to walk out over the water on.

Where do the inventive ideas that people have, come from? Discovering that is a much more worthwhile pursuit. A pursuit more likely to produce results.

Where does insight arise and how? It seems to me to be an aspect of human mind as opposed to any other animal. Why? Is is due to the architecture of human brains? Or is it confined to only 50% of human brains? That seems to be EG’s thesis but for the life of me I don’t see the evidence and he promoteds a path down which we wander only to get bogged down in demeaning the other 50% of humans.

Just because feminists think that only women have worth and men are worthless, we should not go down the destructive opposite path. We are so busy lauding faux-masculinity that we do not see the point that there are several alternative roads to take. A Squadron of MRA tanks can travel some of them but others will only allow footsore individuals in single file.

KM- Why would any man ever wish to say “I Do..” … in marriage… to you?

You represent every trivially inconsequential female “attribute” that men have rejected, and have realized that they do not need.

Thank you.

I could write more.

But you are the exemplary metaphor for why young men should never marry.

I’m sure you are “an exception to the rule…”

Go girrrrrrllll!!!!!!

Not only that, but how much potential benefit rests within each particular respondant’s approach? Yours, mine, amfortas’, Mike LaSalle, and Elder all have different potentials. And, if you’re serious about the cause, you have to properly grade the potentials.

This one by Joyanna and Elder George’s recent posts are interesting and thought provoking. I am curious to see how they might benefit “the cause”.

“…until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property, (including patents), or entering into legal agreements in their own names.”

women were treated as children during that time period..
A man would go to jail for his wifes crimes in that time period..

You see the problem men are having with this situation is women want it both ways..and in effect want it all!!!

In some ways they want to be treated like children (not held fully accounteable under the law)…. well documented!!!!
and in other ways want to be treated as adults in the work place..(but still want to be treated as children )..
If they would make up their minds society would treat them any way they want…just not both ways at the same time..

By receiveing the rights without the responseability…white middle class women have become the most liberated group in terms of health, wealth, leasure time, and general life options that the world has ever seen!!!

To your #52, yes, I read the thread and my original comment was in response to it and some of the comments. And as mentioned previously, “…until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property, (including patents), or entering into legal agreements in their own names.”

DaPoet,

A woman, not a man as you said in your comment #22, invented the washing machine. (Margaret Colvin in 1871.)

MMX,

Gender score-keeping is significant to the article and thread.

From your comment #33,

“But you’ll be interested to know that, of the inventions attributed to INDIVIDUALS, about 19 were developed by MEN, and only ONE was invented by a woman.

So, there you have it. Before feminism, 95% of inventions were credited to men. Yet after feminism…what’s 19 divided by 20? 95%, of course.”

Please recall your comment #42 as well.

BTW, you did not credit Elder George for use of “PICTURE” and “POINT”.

Elder George,

I “get” your points but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.

Scottkirk,

Both my sisters are stay at home moms. (One of them has a business as well, which she successfully runs from home but her children and family are most certainly her priority.) I respect their choice, actually the choices they each made with their husbands, and think they have made wonderful decisions for their families.

Kate its women like you that are forceing women into roles and expectations that are not their own, and suicide, depression ect. ect. naturally fallow..

Are You the type of women who make other women feel guilty as stay at home moms??

MMX stayed up later than I did but he gave you essentially the same answer that I would have. I hope that you don’t lose the equanimity that you exhibit as things heat up.

Women are designed to bring life into this world and nurture it. Men are designed to provide the environment and means for that function to take place. Our attributes are opposites—that’s why we need each other. Research is not required—understanding is.

Western society is drowning in research but is bereft of understanding. Understanding is conceptual. Get the point?

Think small; get small. If you focus on the PICTURE, at the expense of the POINT, you lose a lot.

Think big; get big. If you focus on the POINT, at the “expense” of the PICTURE, you gain a lot. (”Expense” is in quotes, because the cost of ignoring the PICTURE is offending some small-minded individuals, which, in a grand scale, isn’t much of a cost.)

I promise that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in whatever appraisal you may deliver…

As a faux- “originator of concepts…”

You go grilllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!.

. (period)

If you want to see what this silly debate is about, go to YouTube.com and search Hedy Lamarr.

Try not to weep when you realize what women used to be like…..

Yet we do not know, (see Artfldgr comment above), whether the ideas were the original thoughts of the women with regard to those two patents I sited.

I do understand your point and have been/am considering it. It is an interesting debate whether or not women can be the originator of concepts. From what I read, I think yes but I’m looking for more reference/support of that. I promise to keep you apprised.

http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/booksi.htm

His books show how to develop thinking skills (i.e. habits and practices) that can be used to solve a wide variety of problems in all areas of life: technical, business, social, etc. The ones I like are “Lateral Thinking”, “Simplicity”, “The Book of Wisdom” and “The Six Thinking Hats”.

Best of all, his methods work for both men and women. And even children.

i am right now in a pickle over a search circuit that would really improve search speeds by huge amounts. the circuit is actually quite simple. however, no one is using it, or incorporating it, etc.

here is what a man who helps inventors wrote back to me, when i was worried that what i have will be taken by whom i could show it to (and have shown it to):
People don’t respect ideas until they are patented, and they have a way of
twisting things around until the idea is a minor input, and their
exploitation of the idea is what deserves all of the credit. Intellectual
corruption.

yes several people can have an idea, and there is most assurdly a first person. but its the first person who writes it down, and knows it can work. they do not need to know how to build the circuit, they can describe the principal that would create the specs for that item.

in my case, i cant make a fab, or open a chip factory. i dont have the resources to by the items in flip chip and assemble them into a pseudo asic… nor do i have the talent to create ultra high speed circuits, as microwave and faster acts very different than slower speeds.

however, i can block diagram the solution, and all the functional parts, and work out the timing constraints and such… ALL of which come NATURALLY from that initial spark.

to make it easier to see. the whole nano industry was started by one scientific paper by a physicist who may be one of the greatest unsung heroes of our age. richard feynman. bout the most most people know if they know at all (other than his fans), is that he worked on the manhatten project, got a nobel for feynman diagrams, was the one that figured out the o ring problem of the shuttlecraft, and he wrote a paper that put the world in perspective. the paper was titled “plenty of room at the bottom”, and the whole nano industry and billions and such going into and things coming out started with one idea and one paper. it could have started 10 years earlier… after all, not much in the paper except noticing the scale and proportion of things and of how much room there was to work with.

if one would deny hedy her idea, then one must deny feynmans as well.

after all… feynman died, and never really got to see much of anything towards the idea… so he cant be credited with actually building things towards a solution.

and hedy, she didnt build the final products either. but she not only was a person who thought of it in the company of someone that knew the technology, but a man who was fair and honest and credited her with the germination of a solution that potentially made a large difference in the war effort.

you would also have to deny the honesty of her husband, as well as the fact that he didnt think that “just having an idea” was not important. obviously he thought differently than those here who think that the idea is nothing (individual), in favor of the people who make it work (the group).

the creation of an invention always starts with one person. the reason that many people end up on the list of that invention is that in order to make it work a bevy of other inventions became possible… so often its the first in a string of items that originally were started by that thought.

i like to think that michealangelo thought so too when he painted the sistine chapel.

I agree that the ritalin and prosack craze ia s a disaster.