Re: OT Men and Women

[Guest guest]

[HJ] I think guys ARE built more for things that require less empathy

and more willingness to take risks ... killing large animals for

instance. Which doesn't mean they have " less emotion " ... just that

their " emotion " tends to be anger or aggression rather than empathy or fear.

[DMW] Huh. Compare what you say above to predators and prey in

nonhuman animals. Men would resemble predators by their emotional

tendencies, women (and children maybe as well) prey. Vedy vedy interesting.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Comes now the man-bashing.

B.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:14:54 -0600, Deanna <hl@...> wrote:

>

> [HJ] I think guys ARE built more for things that require less empathy

> and more willingness to take risks ... killing large animals for

> instance. Which doesn't mean they have " less emotion " ... just that

> their " emotion " tends to be anger or aggression rather than empathy or fear.

>

> [DMW] Huh. Compare what you say above to predators and prey in

> nonhuman animals. Men would resemble predators by their emotional

> tendencies, women (and children maybe as well) prey. Vedy vedy interesting.

>

> Deanna

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Comes now the man-bashing.

> B.

Hey Girl,

Haven't I been good about keeping *them* out of it? LOL. Honestly, I

think our Heidi brings this up on her own with all of her creative

subtlety. That's why SHE is a Goddess. And I think the comparison is

valid. Oh, yes I do. Just look at trying to devour our Suze by

sheer aggression. I think I'd better go back through those posts and

see what I can do to support her, as this ine doctrine rears its

head from time to time. Not that she can't defend herself. She has

done a fine, formal job of responding in fairness to his personal attacks.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>[DMW] Huh. Compare what you say above to predators and prey in

>nonhuman animals. Men would resemble predators by their emotional

>tendencies, women (and children maybe as well) prey. Vedy vedy interesting.

[HJ] I don't think it is man bashing ... you don't see " Rabbits " being used as

a name for a football team, people in general LIKE aggression! And

they get really angry at those they see as weak and ineffective.

In the history of this ecosystem, human males HAVE BEEN predators by

nature. They hunted animals. Women were mainly harvesters

(and maybe trapped small game and fish). So your analogy is very apt.

But I think it does explain why women end up often being victimized in

relationships, sometimes for a very long time, and often they don't even

see that as a problem, just the way things are in the world. Like rabbits

get eaten by wolves, it's the nature of things.

But if the rabbit stops

acting so much like a rabbit, the wolf often becomes less wolflike.

Around here we have cougars ... cougars will eat you if you run from

them. However, they will run if you whack them on the nose!

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

" Cheer up....Things could get worse "

So I cheered up.....and sure enough, things got worse

[Guest guest]

> >[DMW] Huh. Compare what you say above to predators and prey in

> >nonhuman animals. Men would resemble predators by their emotional

> >tendencies, women (and children maybe as well) prey. Vedy vedy interesting.

>

> [HJ] I don't think it is man bashing ... you don't see " Rabbits " being used as

> a name for a football team, people in general LIKE aggression! And

> they get really angry at those they see as weak and ineffective.

>

> In the history of this ecosystem, human males HAVE BEEN predators by

> nature. They hunted animals. Women were mainly harvesters

> (and maybe trapped small game and fish). So your analogy is very apt.

It seemed to me there was a value being placed there as in:

men = predator = bad

women = prey = helpless

..

Perhaps I was imagining it.

I reject this women = prey argument. It's a myth IMO this notion of

women as soft weaklings, rabbits, if you will. A female cougar is

every bit a predator to the prey. What is more powerful, aggressive,

ferocious than a mother bear who thinks her cubs are being threatened?

This is also the female nature--powerful and fearsome--hardly a meek

victim.

I, for one, prefer my men to have some aggression in them (along with

healthy and socially appropriate ways to channel it.)

And who would hire a rabbit--male or female--to lead a company or a

household, either?

B.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:08:50 -0800, Heidi Schuppenhauer

<heidis@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> But I think it does explain why women end up often being victimized in

> relationships, sometimes for a very long time, and often they don't even

> see that as a problem, just the way things are in the world. Like rabbits

> get eaten by wolves, it's the nature of things.

>

> But if the rabbit stops

> acting so much like a rabbit, the wolf often becomes less wolflike.

> Around here we have cougars ... cougars will eat you if you run from

> them. However, they will run if you whack them on the nose!

>

> Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

>

> " Cheer up....Things could get worse "

> So I cheered up.....and sure enough, things got worse

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

>[Theresa] It seemed to me there was a value being placed there as in:

>men = predator = bad

>women = prey = helpless

>.

>Perhaps I was imagining it.

>

>I reject this women = prey argument. It's a myth IMO this notion of

>women as soft weaklings, rabbits, if you will. A female cougar is

>every bit a predator to the prey. What is more powerful, aggressive,

>ferocious than a mother bear who thinks her cubs are being threatened?

> This is also the female nature--powerful and fearsome--hardly a meek

>victim.

[HJ] There is a very subtle argument there ... in fact one of the bigger

issues is that someone who is NOT aggressive is often labelled " helpless "

when in fact they are not, which some writers have written about

extensively. Women do not, as a habit, extend their territory into

other's, and have social senses such that they want everyone to

be happy and tend to give as much as they can. Men tend to extend

into other's territory, until they are stopped. The combination can

be deadly ... the man takes over more and more, the woman gives

more and more, until the relationship breaks. That is why I said if

the rabbit acts less like a rabbit, the wolf acts less like a wolf.

Another woman, with the same guy, simply puts on the brakes, her

" mama bear " comes out, and the guy backs down. I learned this at

work, when my boss gave me more and more to do, and I did it,

even though I was working overtime. My boyfriend of the time said,

" So tell him you have too much to do! OF COURSE he is going to give

you more, that's his job: to keep piling it on until you are full up " . He

was right! The book " Women's Reality " lays it all out rather nicely ...

women and men work on different paradigms.

Anyway, that is one of the reasons I reject the " man should be

the head of the woman " argument. It feeds too much into the

natural inclinations of both. I have found that since I started saying

" no " and laying out my own territory clearly, my relationships are

a whole lot better. Some women do this automatically, esp. the

younger generation!

Personally I have no problem with the males being more aggressive ...

I was purposefully trying to be as non-judgemental as possible. In

our house, the aggressive work tends to be performed by the male!

We do discuss it in those terms! Stuff that takes a

strong stomach (being there when a cow is butchered, much

of the medical stuff, the worm bin, deboning a goose) is my job.

Confronting a hypothetical burglar (strange noise in the night) ...

or weird person coming up the driveway ... or telling another male

to back down ... or a coyote ... that's his job. If there is one thing

that is obvious in humans, it is that we are " sex linked " ... each sex

is optimized for a job. I just retain the right to do the other job

as needed, as does he ... and with our complicated brains, it's

not as simple as it is with chickens. Though I must admit, even with

chickens it's not simple. We have one hen who thinks it's a rooster,

and a rooster who loves nothing more than being carried around

being petted.

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

" Cheer up....Things could get worse "

So I cheered up.....and sure enough, things got worse

[Guest guest]

At 09:08 PM 12/7/04 -0800, you wrote:

>But if the rabbit stops

>acting so much like a rabbit, the wolf often becomes less wolflike.

>Around here we have cougars ... cougars will eat you if you run from

>them. However, they will run if you whack them on the nose!

So now do we call you the Official Whacker of Noses as well?

(which provides its own amusing acronym in light of the original topic)

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

" Sometimes I wish I was Heidi... "

Your #1 fan,

B.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 23:29:30 -0800, Heidi Schuppenhauer

<heidis@...> wrote:

>

> :

> >[Theresa] It seemed to me there was a value being placed there as in:

>

>

> >men = predator = bad

> >women = prey = helpless

> >.

> >Perhaps I was imagining it.

> >

> >I reject this women = prey argument. It's a myth IMO this notion of

> >women as soft weaklings, rabbits, if you will. A female cougar is

> >every bit a predator to the prey. What is more powerful, aggressive,

> >ferocious than a mother bear who thinks her cubs are being threatened?

> > This is also the female nature--powerful and fearsome--hardly a meek

> >victim.

>

> [HJ] There is a very subtle argument there ... in fact one of the bigger

> issues is that someone who is NOT aggressive is often labelled " helpless "

> when in fact they are not, which some writers have written about

> extensively. Women do not, as a habit, extend their territory into

> other's, and have social senses such that they want everyone to

> be happy and tend to give as much as they can. Men tend to extend

> into other's territory, until they are stopped. The combination can

> be deadly ... the man takes over more and more, the woman gives

> more and more, until the relationship breaks. That is why I said if

> the rabbit acts less like a rabbit, the wolf acts less like a wolf.

>

> Another woman, with the same guy, simply puts on the brakes, her

> " mama bear " comes out, and the guy backs down. I learned this at

> work, when my boss gave me more and more to do, and I did it,

> even though I was working overtime. My boyfriend of the time said,

> " So tell him you have too much to do! OF COURSE he is going to give

> you more, that's his job: to keep piling it on until you are full up " . He

> was right! The book " Women's Reality " lays it all out rather nicely ...

> women and men work on different paradigms.

>

> Anyway, that is one of the reasons I reject the " man should be

> the head of the woman " argument. It feeds too much into the

> natural inclinations of both. I have found that since I started saying

> " no " and laying out my own territory clearly, my relationships are

> a whole lot better. Some women do this automatically, esp. the

> younger generation!

>

> Personally I have no problem with the males being more aggressive ...

> I was purposefully trying to be as non-judgemental as possible. In

> our house, the aggressive work tends to be performed by the male!

> We do discuss it in those terms! Stuff that takes a

> strong stomach (being there when a cow is butchered, much

> of the medical stuff, the worm bin, deboning a goose) is my job.

> Confronting a hypothetical burglar (strange noise in the night) ...

> or weird person coming up the driveway ... or telling another male

> to back down ... or a coyote ... that's his job. If there is one thing

> that is obvious in humans, it is that we are " sex linked " ... each sex

> is optimized for a job. I just retain the right to do the other job

> as needed, as does he ... and with our complicated brains, it's

> not as simple as it is with chickens. Though I must admit, even with

> chickens it's not simple. We have one hen who thinks it's a rooster,

> and a rooster who loves nothing more than being carried around

> being petted.

>

>

> Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

>

> " Cheer up....Things could get worse "

> So I cheered up.....and sure enough, things got worse

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>But if the rabbit stops

>>acting so much like a rabbit, the wolf often becomes less wolflike.

>>Around here we have cougars ... cougars will eat you if you run from

>>them. However, they will run if you whack them on the nose!

>

>So now do we call you the Official Whacker of Noses as well?

>

>(which provides its own amusing acronym in light of the original topic)

>

>

>MFJ

>Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

Ooooh, I'd guess that goes with " Glutenatrix " ... sheesh, and I

thought " Helga " was warlike enough! In real life I keep getting

accused of being a pushover and a teddy bear ... I guess my

inner Sparticus comes out when I type ... !

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

" Cheer up....Things could get worse "

So I cheered up.....and sure enough, things got worse

[Guest guest]

> Re: OT Men and Women

>

>

>

> " Sometimes I wish I was Heidi... "

>Your #1 fan,

> B.

>

>

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 23:29:30 -0800, Heidi Schuppenhauer

><heidis@...> wrote:

>>

>> :

>> >[Theresa] It seemed to me there was a value being placed there as in:

>>

>>

>> >men = predator = bad

>> >women = prey = helpless

>> >.

>> >Perhaps I was imagining it.

>> >

>> >I reject this women = prey argument. It's a myth IMO this notion of

>> >women as soft weaklings, rabbits, if you will. A female cougar is

>> >every bit a predator to the prey.

Based on what I've read of wild animals I tend to agree, at least in terms

of male and female mammals in general (not necessary just humans). Female

wolves, for example, are just as much a part of the hunting party as are

males. They don't sit around the den and collect roots while the menfolk go

hunting. I'm not sure WHY that is different with humans - WHY

hunter/gatherers tended to separate themselves into sex roles. (I think I

understand the Christian religous explanation, though, but I'd be interested

in a scientific explanation, if there is one.) DO any other mammals do this?

Other primates, for example?

What is more powerful, aggressive,

>> >ferocious than a mother bear who thinks her cubs are being threatened?

>> > This is also the female nature--powerful and fearsome--hardly a meek

>> >victim.

I *think* that this might suggest socialization as one reason why some would

think of women as helpless victims. I DO think it's part of the modern

American notions of womanhood - feminitity, but I always wonder how our

notion of feminity and masculinity compare to hunter/gatherer groups - they

often seem to be a bit different, IMO.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>I'm not sure WHY that is different with humans - WHY

>hunter/gatherers tended to separate themselves into sex roles. (I think I

>understand the Christian religous explanation, though, but I'd be interested

>in a scientific explanation, if there is one.) DO any other mammals do this?

>Other primates, for example?

In a lot of different animals, the males are bigger and stronger. Below

is a comparison between different types of primates, and which are dimorphic.

It's not that the females don't hunt food .. they do, and they do in human

societies too. But the " safer " jobs, the ones that can be done while

nursing a baby, were typically done by women in human societies. One

anthropologist wrote extensively about this, esp. about the fiber arts.

Wolves are an interesting counter-example in that not all female wolves

have babies, only the high-status ones. Cougars and

coyotes leave the pups in the den while they hunt.

Human babies CAN'T be left behind, they need nursing and warmth.

Primate babies can't be left behind either, but primates don't hunt

large animals. When the primates have larger males, it may be to

fight off other males ... seems the " large male " is mainly in the polygamous

harem types of primates. Probably the same thing in grazers ... the large

males fight to keep their harems. But whether it is for fighting off

rivals or hunting, the large male needs to be more aggressive and

willing to fight.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/primates/or\

ganization.html

Several trends can be noted if we look at these possible ways to group primate

societies. First, monogamous groups are small, normally containing only one

fully adult female and one fully adult male and their offspring. Gibbons fit

this model well. Second, a system of multiple matings by both females and males

or multi-females are usually the largest of primate societies. Some groups can

reach 300 individuals in these cases. Third, polygynous groups contain one adult

male and several adult females and off-spring and are moderate in size. Gorilla

troops fit this profile. Keep in mind that polygynous groups such as this, also

called harems, maximize reproduction by keeping a pool of receptive females

available. It is also true that the greatest sexual dimorphism - difference in

size between males and females - occur in polygynous societies.

Primates that live in monogamous societies exhibit the following features: a

lack of sexual dimorphism in size and coloration; a lack of specialized defense

roles against predators by adult males; highly developed territoriality in both

sexes; extensive care of young by the adult male; and closely fashioned

activities by adult female and male.

Primates that live in polygymous groups typically show the following

characteristics: closely bonded adult females, somewhat peripheral or socially

aloof reproductive male; strong intolerance by the reproductive males of other,

potentially reproductive males; leadership shown by at least some females in

many aspects of group life, while the adult male shows an outward-from-the-group

orientation; some turnover in reproductive males.

>

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

[Guest guest]

> Re: OT Men and Women

>

>

>Anyway, that is one of the reasons I reject the " man should be

>the head of the woman " argument. It feeds too much into the

>natural inclinations of both.

Just playing devil's advocate here, since I don't think I really agree with

the premise, but what's wrong with people playing out their " natural

inclinations " ?

" Life in its fullness is nature obeyed. " - Weston A. Price

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>[HJ]>Anyway, that is one of the reasons I reject the " man should be

>>the head of the woman " argument. It feeds too much into the

>>natural inclinations of both.

>

>[suze] Just playing devil's advocate here, since I don't think I really agree

with

>the premise, but what's wrong with people playing out their " natural

>inclinations " ?

>

> " Life in its fullness is nature obeyed. " - Weston A. Price

>

>[HJ]

Well ... actually you got me there. Around our house I do most of the

cooking because " it's just too hard to fight a million years of adapatation " .

There IS the issue of " what most people do " vs " what one person wants

to do " (the statistical average only rarely exactly fits an individual).

However, when you have a woman who is " naturally " rather submissive

and willing to please, and a guy who is " naturally " rather domineering,

it can easily get totally out of hand and you get these really mousy

wives and mean guys. I think in the past, most households had more

than one female ... outright polygamy seems to have been the norm

and there were all these widowed relatives floating around ... and I think

that made things more " equal " power wise. Having seen SO MUCH spousal

abuse, I'd be the last person to tell a woman to be submissive. Most

women need to be told the opposite .. how to stand up for themselves

in a good way.

Interestingly, in primates the males are often rather violent, when

the male is the owner of a harem. But the females work together

to " calm the guy down " ... grooming him, etc. In that one writup,

the males who were bigger and more aggressive were more commonly

the polygamous primates, which makes you wonder about our past!

Maybe guys are bigger because they kept harems. In ducks and

geese, which commonly mate for life, there isn't much difference

between males and females, size wise or aggression wise. Ditto for

primates: in species that pair off, they tend to be closer in size. I find

this interesting. When we have a rooster, they are really, really aggressive,

big, and loud. But I got some ducks, and the male just kind of follows the

female around, though she won't leave him either (sometimes he falls

in love with a chicken and won't leave the chicken either). But he is decidedly

not aggressive, except when pursuing sex.

So when you have a big aggressive male, the " normal thing " is to have several

females to compensate? In elephants, the males are SO big and

aggressive that zoos don't keep males generally. In elephant herds,

the females drive out the males when they get old enough to be troublesome,

and they live apart ... the females call them at mating time. And even

when a dominant male lives IN a group of primates, he is " socially isolated " ...

he is there defending his turf, but the females interact in a different

way. Certainly not our current ideal of a monagamous, intimate,

socially sharing " man and wife " . Maybe we are growing into a new ideal,

or maybe we can't decide which works better? Are we ducks or elk?

So, ok, if you want to live by " natural inclinations " , find a group

of friends and go live with a big aggressive male. (Assuming all of

the above ... I haven't studied this much and I'm not sure anyone

*knows* anyway ... I think I'd be happy living with 5 females and 1

male though, if we weren't in competition).

>

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

[Guest guest]

> RE: OT Men and Women

>

>

>

>

>>[HJ]>Anyway, that is one of the reasons I reject the " man should be

>>>the head of the woman " argument. It feeds too much into the

>>>natural inclinations of both.

>>

>>[suze] Just playing devil's advocate here, since I don't think I

>really agree with

>>the premise, but what's wrong with people playing out their " natural

>>inclinations " ?

>>

>> " Life in its fullness is nature obeyed. " - Weston A. Price

>>

>>[HJ]

>

>Well ... actually you got me there. Around our house I do most of the

>cooking because " it's just too hard to fight a million years of

>adapatation " .

Or several generations of socialization. LOL

>However, when you have a woman who is " naturally " rather submissive

>and willing to please, and a guy who is " naturally " rather domineering,

>it can easily get totally out of hand and you get these really mousy

>wives and mean guys. I think in the past, most households had more

>than one female ... outright polygamy seems to have been the norm

>and there were all these widowed relatives floating around ... and I think

>that made things more " equal " power wise. Having seen SO MUCH spousal

>abuse, I'd be the last person to tell a woman to be submissive. Most

>women need to be told the opposite .. how to stand up for themselves

>in a good way.

I don't know to what extent this happens, but it seems to me that the

*state* support of uneven marital rights is perhaps more egregious than any

religious doctrine that is used to sustain inequality, (sometimes through

inaccurate interpretation). There WERE laws on the books of several states

in the US, I believe, that allowed a husband to beat his wife on Sundays, or

some such nonesense like that. I think I'd heard about other archaic laws

like that, which I think were some sort of bastardizations of Christianity.

Also, from what has told me, historically, when the state merges with

religion, women's rights tend to decrease. He gave some specific examples of

inheritance rights from the Middle Ages in Christian England, that he'd be

better at explaining than I. I don't know what the history of property

rights or inheritance rights laws have been in the US historically though,

and I'm don't know how much women's power in their marriages has to do with

natural inclinations of submissiveness. I think there are both natural

inclinations and socialization at work in all of this, and some folks tend

to lean more toward a paradigm of natural order, others lean toward

socialization and then there are all the shades in between. So you've got

natural inclinations, socialization, religion and the state all mixed in,

which is why I find it rather difficult to sort out what's what, why people

do what they do or think what they think when it comes to gender relations.

LOL

>So when you have a big aggressive male, the " normal thing " is to

>have several

>females to compensate? In elephants, the males are SO big and

>aggressive that zoos don't keep males generally. In elephant herds,

>the females drive out the males when they get old enough to be troublesome,

>and they live apart ... the females call them at mating time. And even

>when a dominant male lives IN a group of primates, he is " socially

>isolated " ...

>he is there defending his turf, but the females interact in a different

>way. Certainly not our current ideal of a monagamous, intimate,

>socially sharing " man and wife " . Maybe we are growing into a new ideal,

>or maybe we can't decide which works better? Are we ducks or elk?

I wonder if one model works equally well for ALL humans. I tend to think

not. I like to think people can decide for themselves what model works best

for them in their own lives. When all is said and done, and anthropologists,

sociologists and religions tell us what we're supposed to be like, we have

to live our own lives and be true to who we are even if we don't fit the

typical pattern or the " ideal " .

>

>So, ok, if you want to live by " natural inclinations " , find a group

>of friends and go live with a big aggressive male. (Assuming all of

>the above ... I haven't studied this much and I'm not sure anyone

>*knows* anyway ... I think I'd be happy living with 5 females and 1

>male though, if we weren't in competition).

I guess I'm an one-on-one kinda gal. I like having close female friends, but

I think I lean more towards the " two become one flesh " (one spiritual

entity) viewpoint. I see it as a sacred union. Not that they aren't still

two distinct human beings after marriage, but on a spiritual level, I like

the idea of becoming one. There's just something about the depth of

connection there that draws me, both to my life's partner and to my God -

the marital trinity with its distinct hypostases but one essence, I guess

:-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>Or several generations of socialization. LOL

Yeah, all you Moms: teach your boys to cook! Have them

watch all those guy-chefs on TV! Cooking is NOT an all-female

activity!

> I don't know to what extent this happens, but it seems to me that the

>*state* support of uneven marital rights is perhaps more egregious than any

>religious doctrine that is used to sustain inequality, (sometimes through

>inaccurate interpretation). There WERE laws on the books of several states

>in the US, I believe, that allowed a husband to beat his wife on Sundays, or

>some such nonesense like that. I think I'd heard about other archaic laws

>like that, which I think were some sort of bastardizations of Christianity.

Yeah, I agree and don't get me started on the separation of Church and State.

For most of history the two were the same thing. Shoot, the King was God. Then

it became the King was selected by God. But in the US, there are a whole

slew of laws that are there basically out of religious belief, which is fine,

I guess, if the whole society is truly all of one religion. Anyway, wife beating

was not only legal, it was considered a man's duty to keep his wife and children

in line, just like he'd keep his horses, dogs, and slaves in line, and that

generally

included beating. Beating was also the norm on navy ships, because without

the cat 'o nine tails, it was argued, there was no way to maintain order.

But it was only with Women's Lib, that nasty liberal stuff, that wife beating

really became a no-no. Before than, even though wife beating was considered

technically illegal, the cops would not generally intervene. I don't think that

the beating originated with Christianity, but it was certainly defended with

Bible passages a lot, and esp. by the more conservative folks.

So you've got

>natural inclinations, socialization, religion and the state all mixed in,

>which is why I find it rather difficult to sort out what's what, why people

>do what they do or think what they think when it comes to gender relations.

>LOL

Yep. I agree with all of that.

>I wonder if one model works equally well for ALL humans. I tend to think

>not. I like to think people can decide for themselves what model works best

>for them in their own lives. When all is said and done, and anthropologists,

>sociologists and religions tell us what we're supposed to be like, we have

>to live our own lives and be true to who we are even if we don't fit the

>typical pattern or the " ideal " .

Yeah, and actually, we ARE making the future. I remember one show

about sea lions. In sea lions, the males are aggressive and the male

dominates the harem, and other males come challenge him. The

biggest, nastiest guy tends to get the gals ... and he does stuff like

roll over on the babies. Not nice.

But there was this one couple the scientists saw, who moved onto

their own island. Just one, not very aggressive male and his one cow.

And they seemed to be living a far " happier " and more peaceful

life. So the scientists speculated that if more females chose that

kind of mate (vs the large aggressor) then the future of the species

might change.

I tend to relate to that pair ... so WHAT if the rest of everyone

does things one way? If that way doesn't WORK, why not try

something different? I don't see science as telling me how *I* should

be, just giving data about what exists and has existed in human

history. It's up to me what I want to do with that info, and there are

no " science police " making sure I live up to current " science doctrine " .

The government and churches (if you are in one) do tend to be

coercive in some areas though.

> I guess I'm an one-on-one kinda gal. I like having close female friends, but

>I think I lean more towards the " two become one flesh " (one spiritual

>entity) viewpoint. I see it as a sacred union. Not that they aren't still

>two distinct human beings after marriage, but on a spiritual level, I like

>the idea of becoming one. There's just something about the depth of

>connection there that draws me, both to my life's partner and to my God -

>the marital trinity with its distinct hypostases but one essence, I guess

>:-)

Actually without even getting metaphysical about it, I think women

tend to bond strongly to whoever they are with. Which is really

dangerous ... folks who moved in together " as roomates " tend to

be together 12 years later, often unhappily because no one bothered

to figure out if they were really compatible in some basic ways.

A book I read when I was out looking for a hubby, " How to be

married one year from today " said the limit is about 5 months ...

if you " date " longer than that, you may as well be married because

one gets so bonded and intertwined it's hard to separate, wedding

ring or otherwise. She recommended a " put up or shut up " kind

of approach, to avoid getting " stuck " . Having seen that happen

over and over, I used her methodology: don't date, long term,

anyone you aren't seriously thinking is a good match. But that

isn't a religious stance, just a purely practical one.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

My 2 year old loves to mix eggs and chop onions (with a butter knife of

course).

Irene

At 09:59 AM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>Yeah, all you Moms: teach your boys to cook! Have them

>watch all those guy-chefs on TV! Cooking is NOT an all-female

>activity!

[Guest guest]

At 11:28 AM 12/15/04 -0800, you wrote:

>

>My 2 year old loves to mix eggs and chop onions (with a butter knife of

>course).

>Irene

When he's old enough to drive, send him over to make my omelettes for me.

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

LOL! He THINKS he is old enough to drive! Last week, when I unbuckled him

from his car seat, instead of getting out of the car he got behind the

steering wheel and demanded my keys! When I wouldn't give him the keys he

tried to fish them out of my pocket! I told him potty training first,

driver's ed later.

Irene

At 11:30 AM 12/15/2004, you wrote:

>At 11:28 AM 12/15/04 -0800, you wrote:

> >

> >My 2 year old loves to mix eggs and chop onions (with a butter knife of

> >course).

> >Irene

>

>

>When he's old enough to drive, send him over to make my omelettes for me.

>

>

>

>

>MFJ

>Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group

> < /join>SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 12:17 PM 12/15/04 -0800, you wrote:

>

>LOL! He THINKS he is old enough to drive! Last week, when I unbuckled him

>from his car seat, instead of getting out of the car he got behind the

>steering wheel and demanded my keys! When I wouldn't give him the keys he

>tried to fish them out of my pocket! I told him potty training first,

>driver's ed later.

>Irene

LOL. Ahhh, a wise mother. Besides, it'd be annoying for me to have to

change diapers in between omelettes, so, well, ya know, keep doin' what

you're doin'!

MFJ

Putting it in our hands gives us so much hope. ~C. Masterjohn

[Guest guest]

> >Yeah, all you Moms: teach your boys to cook! Have them

> >watch all those guy-chefs on TV! Cooking is NOT an all-female

> >activity!

[Aven] My nephews always want to help cook and wash dishes.

My daughter is not interested.

[Guest guest]

> RE: OT Men and Women

>

>

>

>>I wonder if one model works equally well for ALL humans. I tend to think

>>not. I like to think people can decide for themselves what model

>works best

>>for them in their own lives. When all is said and done, and

>anthropologists,

>>sociologists and religions tell us what we're supposed to be like, we have

>>to live our own lives and be true to who we are even if we don't fit the

>>typical pattern or the " ideal " .

>

>Yeah, and actually, we ARE making the future. I remember one show

>about sea lions. In sea lions, the males are aggressive and the male

>dominates the harem, and other males come challenge him. The

>biggest, nastiest guy tends to get the gals ... and he does stuff like

>roll over on the babies. Not nice.

>

>But there was this one couple the scientists saw, who moved onto

>their own island. Just one, not very aggressive male and his one cow.

>And they seemed to be living a far " happier " and more peaceful

>life. So the scientists speculated that if more females chose that

>kind of mate (vs the large aggressor) then the future of the species

>might change.

That's pretty wild. I wonder if " exceptions to the rule " exist so that one

day " the rule " can change if the environment, or some other factor dictates.

I mean, if we were all completely fulfilling a prescribed pattern and our

environment changed in a way that would result in our pattern wiping us out,

we'd at least have some exceptions to the rule who have their own pattern

that does not cause them to be wiped out by the new environmental factor.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense!

>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>

[Guest guest]

>That's pretty wild. I wonder if " exceptions to the rule " exist so that one

>day " the rule " can change if the environment, or some other factor dictates.

>I mean, if we were all completely fulfilling a prescribed pattern and our

>environment changed in a way that would result in our pattern wiping us out,

>we'd at least have some exceptions to the rule who have their own pattern

>that does not cause them to be wiped out by the new environmental factor.

>I'm not sure if I'm making any sense!

>

>Suze Fisher

That's pretty much how I heard it (more scientifically described, maybe!). The

whole point of diversity and " outlyers " is that if something weird happens,

somone will survive. Sometimes the outlyers become " infectious " in some

sense though, and everyone wants to copy them, and then you have a

" paradigm shift " .

Having been one of the " outlyers " most of my life, and seeing that 10 years

later other folks came to the same point, it makes sense. One simple example:

working at home. When I first did it, it was so weird that everyone freaked.

Now,

for consultants, no one thinks about it, it's become the norm.

Basically I've stopped worrying about " what most people do " and I try to

focus on " What works? " . " What works? " is generally the right answer, the other

folks will come around eventually.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/04 11:14:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> There WERE laws on the books of several states

> in the US, I believe, that allowed a husband to beat his wife on Sundays,

or

> some such nonesense like that. I think I'd heard about other archaic laws

> like that, which I think were some sort of bastardizations of Christianity.

_____

Just a piece of history to share:

The expression " rule of thumb " has its origin thus:

A judge in England in the n era ruled that what distinguishes " abuse "

from the proper and healthy beating a woman must endure by her husband to

preserve the proper order in the marriage and discipline of the wife was whether

the stick was thicker or thinner than this particular judge's thumb. If the

stick was thinner than this judge's thumb, the beating was not considered

abuse, but if the stick, or other instrument, was thicker than his thumb, it

constituted abuse.

That's the " rule of thumb. "

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian