And I must say, Lindsy, your attitude suggests that women only make it anywhere in politics because of the fact that they are woman. I've not seen such assertion of merit based on biology since Himmler and the SS.
We've already had a woman leader and she stole milk from schoolchildren - quite literally.
And then there's Merkel in Germany and France with Marine Le Pen and her good chance of taking the helm one day. The question that stands out to me is why is the Left so lacking in female political talent when that position includes so much Feminism, gender-bendery and emotional irrationality? Are all of Left wing politics only filled with women who only get the job because they are women and not because they're talented? That's what it look likes to any onlooker.
You know your anger is out of hand by the shame you feel afterwards.
Personally I prefer getting even to getting angry although recently I've been trying to read up on forgiveness and mercy a lot more. I'm possibly mellower than I was and less likely to escalate things, I definitely don't hold on to my anger for as long.
And I find that anger, rather the ability to get angry, is important for garnering respect(especially amongst "earthier" types of people). Anger is good for lifting weights and winning fights and anything you need brute strength for. It's amazing what the body can do when you're angry enough. Anger also can be fun in bed.
My trust is on loan until it is earned. My gut feeling decides how much trust I'm prepared to lend a person. I'm not paranoid, I don't assume all people are bad or invent doubts that shouldn't be - I'm British, there isn't a people more trusting, open and helpful than ourselves.
Anyway, once a person earns my trust by behaving honourably then they own my trust on a whole different level. I will give them the benefit of real doubts if they've earned enough trust.
Older women are far more threatened by younger women than younger women are by older women. The jealousy of older women makes perfect sense - doubly so when she's with a younger man who could get younger women if he wanted to.
There's one important caveat to the older woman's jealousy - They're better at disguising it. It's a skill which develops through experience. Younger girls are harder to make jealous, but they're more of an open book when they are. The youth are more honest as well as naive - you can tell what they actually think and feel far easier.
To a woman "the one" is merely the one highest status man she can find.
And rarely will "the one" be a "prince" or "white knight". On balance he'll be less noble than most of the men she rejects. However, the essence of the fairytale is true - she is seeking that special one - but the details are mostly false. Fairytale love does exist, the men from fairytales do not.
Of course it's an advantage. A beautiful woman can spend her whole life(pre-wall)living against reality and still come out of it well. No other person can do this in quite the way she can.
Frightening stuff. Not only do we face the prospect of total annihilation but we've also lost the opportunity for cleansing war. How are we to clean up the gene pool and reduce societal decadence without a good war here and there?
The people of the future will be the worst Human Beings there ever was, they will make even us today look like Socrates and Mother Teresa.
That quiz is an American frame of reference that's so transparent about the desired outcome.
Anyway, I came in at slighty-left and slightly-statist by this American measure. In Britain I'd come it at further to the Right and less statist as the fundamental principle of our Right is order and not liberty. For instance here Libertarianism is regarded as an anarchic joke and the only ideology less likely to work in practice than Communism.
In Britain it is our gimmedats that are most ethically Libertarian whereas the Right believes in authority, order and paternalism. Our Right is robust and traditionally masculine whereas the American/Libertarian are so often nothing more than Right-wing hippies.
Some wise man said that technology advances in tandem with mental disorder, and I couldn't disagree with these wise words.
Scientific studies have shown that the more diverse the community the less cohesive it becomes, and it would be impossible for me or anyone to disagree with this as it is scientific fact.
So an increasingly high-tech and integrated globe creates weak communities and individuals of decreasing sanity. Isn't the surveillance state an inevitable conclusion of this?
I look for people who strike that balance between being self-conscious and having self-esteem. You don't want the kind of person who is paralysed by what others might think, but you also don't want a person who sees themself as so infallible that they lose all sense of dignity and shame, or, who are underachievers and proud of it
A healthy, stable and moderate sense of self esteem is the best, and it's also the only one that I believe to be genuine in a person.
Spirituality = mysticism without rules. It's the making it up as you go along of mysticism with no check against this. Spirituality without a shadow of a doubt is the most chaotic of things.
Religion = mysticism with rules. Religion has discipline and structure which are a check against making it up as you go along.
Rationality = no mysticism. Rationality has reason and reality to check against making it up as you go along.
Women are choosier, but are also more likely to fall in love with a shady character - this seems like a paradox at first glance.
Anyway, now that women don't so much need a man for his money and security her safe bet is not to "settle" with a boring nice guy, but to stay single. After getting burned a woman will often prefer not to take any more chances. Men don't give up as easily.
We're not the top 2-3% of the world as about 20-25% of the world's population live in the developed world(or have a lifestyle equivalent: Chinese middle class 300 million strong)and of course the cost of staying alive is far greater in the developed world. The same money buys less in the West.
We are of course much better off, but not to the extent some would wish to make out for political reasons. Be it the right-wing trying to deny the existence of our own poor to lower wages, or, the left-wing trying to encourage telescopic philanthropy(ignoring the problems at home).
I often think that if voting was a privilege then more people would value the vote and take a proper interest in politics. Sure, many people say politics is a sham and therefore don't take an interest, but imo this is taking the effect and making it the cause.
Well said, Teena. You're a good example of why India is going up in the world whilst the White lands go to the dogs.
40+ years since women's lib and in that time we(the West)has gone from being proud lands of plenty to debt-ridden surveillance states almost entirely reliant upon imports and immigrants for our own survival. We have become a people that cannot fend for themselves - although this is not entirely the fault of our women but of a native decadency which Western feminism is but one example of.
Although I would say that Hillary Clinton may be in charge of the US soon and this really will be the final nail in the coffin. Not to say women can't be great leaders - Queen Victoria was the best monarch Britain ever had - but our women born after WWII really are the worst and most entitled Human Beings in the whole of Human history. In general they really do not have a clue how an economy or society should work, and in place of this they think they can grasp, manipulate and whinge their way into power(and sink us all in the process).
Windows 15 that can do the job of an accountant, graphic designer, marketeer etc will arrive before a robot that can clean your windows or unblock your toilet.
There will be jobs for handymen and plumbers for longer than there will be jobs for accountants and customer service reps.
Although, once we develop a robot that can logically infer then 99.9% of the Human race will simply not be needed. We will all be as dependents as the welfarites - a horrifying prospect of a degenerate future.
It won't be long until cubicle farms are completely automated. For example, only a few years from the entirety of marketing will be replaced by sophisticated computer algorithms.
The irony is that it was blue collar work that was abandoned and seemed to be replaced by technology with the increasing development of assembly lines. But this will not hold true for the future. It is white collar work that is mostly in line for the chop as offices becomes automated process, manual work will still require people.
That is to say that computers that can think like Humans - at least thinking at the level of the cubicle farmer - will arise en masse before robots that can move like Humans. The algorithms to replace white collar work is a question of software and once developed can be easily and cheaply replicated, whereas fully-moving robots will cost businesses uch more money and thus their will still be work for the blue collar... at least for a time.
Age isn't the problem. I started my business really young, which some people frowned upon, but things are going well for me. Anyway, I'd be concerned about what your business intends to do in an economy turning leaner and meaner. A pet-grooming service is not exactly recession proof.
And when you say you need support and positive comments - I hope this not another way of saying you only wish to hear what you want to hear? Your customers won't indulge you in this.
My first advice is learn to drive. My second advice is to setup in a place where people have money to waste. My final advice is be prepared to take and respond to criticism and ignore feelgood waffle which will sink your business.
Afraid not Lindsy, engineer by profession and small businessman; politics is a side interest for me that my family has been involved in in one way or another for about 150 years. Must be a blood-calling.
You need to protest and oppose(not impeach)the president because as a nation this means you can do anything you want, but at the same time act like you didn't want to. So long as many oppose whatever the president does, then the country will be forever blameless.
It's like having your cake and eating it, too. An entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another. And they call this great nation the United States of America.
A not-so-good friend of mine killed another friend of mine, the passenger in the car at the time, in a drink driving accident. The judge gave him the lesser sentence of 5 years because the passenger knew before getting in the car that the driver was drunk. I thought this was fair.
But 2.5 years for killing someone completely blameless and then lying through your teeth about it? That's sick. She should get at least 10 years and the initial judge should be made to serve 2.5 years.
They're just cheap fodder for the wheels of economy to ensure that no average person can ever organise against the uber rich. Pulling in hordes of desperados is the ultimate way to ensure that the poor not only stay poor, but actually get poorer.
And this is why big business on the Left or the Right - be it Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch - is pro-amnesty, pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism.
Maya in the late-stage of that culture meant illusion, deception and fraud. When the people are an aged, senile and spent force they come to regard Maya in this way because the people instinctively harbour a will-to-death. Most thinking people in the West today carry this death instinct of negation and skepticism shared by the Buddha and Socrates because they all live(d)in an age of decline.
But in the early and virile days Maya meant mythic wisdom and extraordinary power. When that culture is young and energetic then it harbours a will-to-life, and as such Maya is regarded as a positive and not a negative. Maya meant the opposite thing in an age of ascension.
I believe that pantheism is true but I reject the implications that Eastern philosophy draws.
Death is the ultimate truth. And as such knowledge of truth equates to death of man and regression into the eternal state of things - Reflected in mankind in what I call the peasant state. Buddhism is for peasants in my opinion. And not just the Buddha, but Socrates and Rousseau also represent this nihilistic will of the peasant that negates the worth of their own life.
I think it was Byron who said that the tree of knowledge is not that of life, and from this thinking I consider that our delusions and the myths we hold dear are what make us aspire to be above the rest of creation. And I would rather wrongly aspire to be something, than correctly aspire to be nothing.
Obstinance_Works Blog Comments (200)
RE: Are We Ready For a Woman Leader?
And to be honest I find master race theories far more persuasive than master gender theory.