Whenever I've had to choose a favorite color I've chosen pink. Others look at me strange when I tell them. I chose the color not because of any identity, but because when I look at colors, pink has the softest and most interesting feel to it. Now, I don't wear any pink, I mostly wear dark colors (blue and black). I think many men would simply say black is their favorite color because it's easiest to identify with and not because of how it appears.

I've done some study of feminism, mainly Friedan. And I've also done some study of misogyny, Weininger, Quinn, Solway, Paglia, etc... Misogyny in this sense, often goes by the name "Wise Misogyny". Or that is the banner Kelly Jones uses. At least two of the names Jones and Paglia are women, so this kind of "Misogyny" is a bit unusual.

What it boils down to is a distinction between the archetypal male and archetypal female. Where the male or masculine is active, aggressive, stern, authoritative and thoughtful. The feminine is passive, easy-going, soft, submissive and emotional. The distinction is done abstractly and isn't immediately applied to men and women. The purpose is to abstract opposing human traits onto archetypes. From there they argue that society is degrading the masculine and propping up the feminine as something much more divine. But as a matter of fact, both are necessary for the survival of the species. The misogynists tend to down-play the importance of the feminine and assert that there aren't any famous female serial killers (like Jack the Ripper) for the same reason there are no famous female composers (like Mozart). The reason they assert; women are far too easy-going, not single-minded enough, not aggressive enough. But this is a gross generality which the misogynists do not deny. They simply assert that the majority of actual women conform to the archetypal feminine and the majority of men ought to lean toward the archetypal masculine, but argue that in modern times more men are becoming feminine.

This is particularly important distinction to their work which focuses on a mystic detachment from the affective qualities of ourselves. They are gearing up to a major insight into the operation of the mind which often goes under the banner of ego. They state that the archetypal feminine is too reactionary, too emotional, and too egocentric to become enlightened. So whether male or female it is imperative that we cultivate some masculinity into our spiritual pursuits. To earn the strength and determination to overthrow our own minds.

If the misogynists are onto something, which I'm quite sure they might be, then perhaps painting this boys toenails sets him up on the wrong path to enlightenment. Not because of any shoulds or coulds, but because of ares and ises. Because painting your toenails is, according to the archetypes, distinctively feminine, it is egocentricity and fashion, things masculinity has nothing to do with.

But are the feminists really all that different? No, I don't think so. I think feminism asserted much the same thinking about human identity and the character traits that accompany the ascent to feminine and masculine archetypes. The feminists wanted to abolish the archetypes as they were manifest into stereotypes, and asserted that men and women could be any combination of masculine and feminine. They also rightly asserted that the feminine has some positive traits, which the misogynists do not deny either. Both camps come down to selecting the best traits from either. As a spiritual seeker, a certain amount of femininity is beneficial to accepting the reality.

But I think the crux of the issue is the egocentricity that accompanies much femininity. Ego is definitely a problem for men as well, but we see with the feminine which is mostly manifest in women, a certain preoccupation with fashion, painting nails, doing oneself up, and for some, like the Greek myth of Narcissus, can barely pull themselves away from the mirror. The degree of self-centeredness is expected by the misogynists to be so extreme that any criticism of the feminine is met with tears, pouting, and a victim mentality. "Why are you picking on me?" "You don't love me!" these are the cries of the feminine when criticized. These misogynists are big on criticism! I once read a letter between two of them that was full of criticism from both sides, and they remained life-long friends. This is not expected in feminine circles where congeniality, and good feelings are king.

I think both the feminists and misogynists have interesting points. I'll leave you all with a few references:

Otto Weininger; Sex & Character
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html

Women: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Exposition.html

Youtube channel of Kelly Jones
http://www.youtube.com/user/KellyJones00

Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.
Camille Paglia

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/camille_paglia.html#ixzz1JQmLBu5f

@Scott-O

There is, as I said, the fact that your labor-force are also consumers. But if one needs more egotistically gratifying reasons; the cost to re-train new employees three months later up to past levels of efficiency probably outweighs the savings of laying employees off. This thinking was limited by the belief "we don't know when it (recession) will end". By being able to predict a return to normal rates in 3 months, the decision to maintain staff is obvious.

@hmm...

I don't think you can prove abstract principles like utilitarianism. It's one of those things a person has to see the value in. John Stuart Mills had some great ideas, some highly influential. The problem with utilitarianism is largely in the interpretation. Mills also suggests that what is ultimately best for one person is best for all people, so that pushes utilitarianism out of the domain of egotistical motives, and subjects egotistical motives to consideration that if they contradict collectivist welfare, then they also contradict egotistical welfare, no matter how obscure the relation.

My immediate reaction to utilitarianism was one of acceptance, then rejection, and finally appreciation. It took some time to see how exactly it all relates. The "proof" to me was not in the pudding, it was in how I ate the pudding.

Consequentialism is the domain of morality to which I generally ascend.

“ Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think...
”
— Jeremy Bentham , The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Ch I, p 1

My first thought was to jump on and turn it off, but the thought of getting crushed makes that hazardous. Then I thought a spike strip could take it out, or even a sticky bomb. Electromagnetic Pulse would probably destroy the electronic components which regulate fuel-intake and that would likely bring it to a halt.

Interesting. I recently dug-up collectibles I amassed when I was a youngster back in the early 90s. I collected Hockey, Baseball, Magic: The Gathering, Disney Collectors and Impel Star Trek trading cards. I also have two model Aqua Velva race cars, a first issue of the Dragonball Z comic series and a Jonny Lightning NCC-1701 Red Alert! action figure. Being that 20 years has passed since acquiring some of these objects, I thought I'd assess their value.

I remember at the time a big push from my parents to hang onto rare cards that I was lucky enough to find in unopened packages. I could have sole my 90-91 Upper Deck Jaromir Jagr rookie card for $20 when I first got it, but I kept it in a card-protector for 20 years and now the thing is valued at about $1. To drive the point further, Grant Fuhr, Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Theoron Fleury, these cards were worth about $0.05 and a slew of people are trying to sell them for about $1/ea. on ebay. I went through my other collectibles and discovered the same gross depreciaton in value.

The only exception was the Magic cards, some of which are now worth $60-80. I also noticed that Hockey cards distributed in 2007 have a lot more market value than those from the 90s. My suspicion is that marketters made a big push for "collectibles" through 90-95 and anything anyone collected during that time is worthless because so many others have them. You can purchase the complete 90-91 Upper Deck hockey set in near-mint condition for $10 on ebay.

Which brings me to my girlfriends World Stamp Collection with stamps dated 1948-1955. I thought for sure there would be some value in this, but a similar thing must have happened with stamp collecting in the 1950s. Older stamps are worth thousands of dollards, but stamps (from all over the world) between 1950 and 1955 are basically worthless.

Econimcally speaking, now, with 32,000 workers laid off we should expect retail sales to go down. Even if only 5% would have made purchases that's 1600 units sold that won't be when workers are destitute.

Karl Marx made the point clearly, I believe. capitalists must continue the life-cycle of surplus capital. IF they hoard the money, then consumers will not be buying their products and the whole system collapses. This was just one company, but if component manufacturers world-wide laid off workers when threats of recession hit the news, then we'd risk total economic collapse. They have to keep the money flowing back into the pockets of workers-consumers or we all lose.

I'm not sure if I shared this before or not, but I named my feline companion "Lila" after part of the Hindu triune God-head. Lila is sanskrit for "play" and refers to the act of creation by The One (Brahman). Who could not attain perfection without manifesting an imperfect existence from which it could recognize itself as existing in the individual and seemingly independent forms. The conscious delusion of self-hood, is ironically, that whih consecrates the appearance of anything existing, it is the cap-stone that holds existence in tune. It is the invisible piper intonating in the distance. And it is the sole delusion which causes most human suffering.

When we think "locally" we think in terms of ourselves. We think about the locality that gravitates around our own pull. In mystical traditions this is egotistical habit. The Yogi who said "All is one" in the video shared the deepest truth. Through causation, we are all one, all part of the universal with no independent existence. However, our conscious mind center around our own existence. Our mental lives consist of a world in relation to our egos, our sense of being some one apart from others. This is Maya, the Devil, delusion from which religion is supposed to free us. We are to recognize our own interdependence and phenomenal indendence and to become individuals-for-the-whole. Or as the old traditions said; you must give up your life for God (The One). Terms like "The One" and "God" refer to this underlying unity of all relative existence. This may be easy to grasp intellectually, but to actually accomplish any change of ego or intention is harder than anything one could do for egotistical reasons. It is easy as pie to obey the tendencies of the mind, and, like a passive joy-rider, never make the attempt to face the strain (to steal a phrase from David Bowie's Changes).

"So I turned myself to face me,
But I've never caught a glimpse,
Of how others must see the faker,
I'm much too fast to take that test.

I watch the ripples change their size,
but never leave the stream,
of warm impermanence."

- David Bowie, Changes

This is why pride is so fallacious and dangerous, because it is unreal. There is no one to be proud over and above anyone else, since in reality there is only one, the One.

First thought: Oh! Cool, it's a brain, you love brains, you should try to get one.

Second thought: That is just because of your ego identifying the phenomena of the brain, you don't actually need one.

I urge anyone interested in free-thinking, patriotism, progress and inherent value to check into the writings of Thomas Paine. The man was good friends with George Washington before he started to comment on slavery and the oppression of women in American culture. At that point he became a target for ridicule and Washington ex-communicated him. Upon his death, only three people attended his funeral, and they were either black, slaves or women. The people whom he saw as oppressed in early American culture. The very people he sacrificed his reputaton to support. Sure, Thomas Paine is a hero by today's standards, but I assure you, today's heroes are dying much the same way Thomas Paine did, alone.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, feared, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. - Mark Twain

@Jesss

Please allow some room for error as I'm not a practicing developmentalist. I am familiar with most of the major works including Jean Piaget. I guess my thoughts were a little archaic, harkening back to Piaget's developmental stages which I knew to be obsolete. To me, it's a bit like referencing the triune brain-model, it's considered obsolete, but it is still extremely useful. I'm of the opinion that there are no "stages" that aren't arbitrary.

With that said, I think my point remains that, as Diana Baumrind might agree, authoritative parenting, that focuses on the child's growth into adult-hood is paramount to any other form of parenting that is geared toward pleasing the child or controlling the child.

Thanks for the update, I'm going to look into the experiment you mentioned ASAP.

Since when is a person's life measured by how many millions they rake in? Oh I know, since the industrial revolution, Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays and the individualist-consumer-driven marketting mess we now live in. I think it used to be, your value was an inherent part of being human, and progress meant overcoming yourself for the collective welfare. What made men like Thomas Paine, George Washington and John Adams particularly respectable, influential and note-worthy was the major sacrifices to their own persons carried out for the sake of humanity. Anyone can do anything for themselves given the opportunity and resources. To do things for others completely alien to yourself, that is the real measure of strength.

You know, it reminds me too of that sad fact of non-conformity that non-conformists often fail to realize. They are happy to be a non-conformist so long as there are other non-conformists to conform to. And they will not be satisfied with non-conformists who don't conform to their prevailing ideal of non-conformity. Similarly, we all seem to think "free-thinking" means agreeing with us. If we were truly free to think whatever... then we wouldn't be seeking retribution from controversy the way we do. Recently, a Cop, a Politician, and a Judge, were demoted, fired and publically berated (by the public) for making the following controversial statements:

"sex was in the air" (when judging a rape case) (judge)

"for your protection, and I probably shouldn't say this, don't dress like 'sluts'" (cop giving rape-prevention lecture at York University)

"there is sexual offense, and there is 'sexual offense'. Recently a 15 year old boy... used an object... on a girl who was passed out from partying. We shouldn't send him to jail for 3 years." (paraphrased, Politician)

All of these me were either demoted and/or berated publically. In-fact, they kick-started Slutwalk which infected Toronto and London, Ontario and plans to spring up elsewhere. In retaliation to Slutwalk another feminist group organized the Anti-slutwalk. Everyone over-lookng the fact that criminology reports indicate a strong correlation between a woman's attire and misperception of sexual intent which has been demonstrated to be a predictor of rape. The cop knows it, the judge knows it, and the politician suspects it, but society won't have it. Free-thinkers we are not.

As a matter of fact, human 'intelligence' is adopted largely from an evolving culture. Culture evolves much the same way species do. You may be familiar with Memetics which attempts to explain cultural evolution in terms paralleling genetic evolution. This is very similar to the old theory of engrams. Either way, they illustrate the point that we are not that smart. We learn from those who have learned before us. We are just instances of a long evolutionary process, and always finding ourselves on the horizon, we think we are smarter than we actually are. As a consequence we look to our past, often with disdain for our past selves. Thinking, erroneously, that we are smarter than they were.

Personally, I think human intelligence is overblown. Upon studying the functional structure of the human brain, and seeing it demonstrated that our mental lives are dependent on our physical brains, I learned what 'intelligence' is. Intelligence is the natural order, it is cause and effect woven together into one massive fabric of occurances. The natural order determines the order of my brain, which in-turn passes itself of as 'intelligent' over and against the natural. It's quite the facade.