gendao

Interesting, so steve flat-out says that men are less conscious (not equal) than women...based upon a litany of sexist reasoning that he fearlessly & unabashedly methodically itemizes in all seriousness with complete impunity. In fact, he knows that he will silently be applauded for such "progressive sexism".. Aetherous retorts with one flippant counterpoint intentionally to point out the asymmetrical double-standard in feminism that condones such sexist stereotyping against men, while showing zero-tolerance for any against women. And sure enough, you displayed exactly the reaction that Aetherous was claiming...showing NO offense at steve's sexist laundry list whatsoever while finding Aetherous's lone remark absolutely intolerable. Because if you only condemn sexism against women, but condone it against men...then you're sexist...not "anti-sexist."

There were just a few e-accusations of fraud 5-7 years ago. None seemed to have any actual hard evidence, though. So, I guess these types of tests would help disprove them?

It confuses me too? How do women still have a "loooongg way to go" paywise...when they now get paid more than men before they have children around 30 and start spending more family time at home (thus reducing their job hours/experience)? Well, the irony is that deep down, a lot of feminists are actually resorting to "patriarchal" sexual dimorphic dynamics of playing the victimized (weak) damsels-in-distress to demand heroic (strong) males to save them. And when "empowerment" is found via victimization...then one must remain a victim...which is...*rimshot* what they were trying to avoid in the first place.. Whereas true empowerment would be relinquishing one's victim role and thus the need to even be saved (loved)?

Well, it's hard to make any exact comparisons...but partial comparisons have shown that: So essentially, men are more likely to be workaholics (on-the-job), whereas women seek a healthier work-life balance and work a lot more at home instead (especially to raise & spend time with kids) too. I do think that any work done at home (especially daily tasks) is often underappreciated and undervalued, and that should definitely change. And everyone, including children, should do what they can to contribute to running a household. But, if women want to continue to outearn men past 30, then they can just stay single, don't have kids or have them with a stay-at-home manny and work an extra half-hour a day like men do... Or do you think that women who work less hours with less experience (for whatever reason) should still get paid the same as men with more...regardless? Is that the "equality"" you seek?

Isn't turning violence exclusively into a gender issue a form of stereotyping sexism itself - that excludes both violent women and non-violent men? Which is purportedly what feminism is against (sexism)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcHPFxOS47A And how does feminism cure violence, anyways? I was issued an implicit threat of physical violence for no good reason by the leading male feminist on this site. So, apparently his long indoctrination in feminism...did little to nothing to curb his behavior to utilize violence to deal with conflicts - even as he's railed against violent men himself. (Oh, the irony...) Given that women under 30 now already earn 2%-8% more than men, could you quantify and explain exactly what the "loooong way there still is to go" is based upon, please? Do you mean that more women should also become construction crews, road workers, landscapers, welders, plumbers, AC repairmen, trashmen, butchers, slaughterhouse workers, oil rig workers, car mechanics, fishermen, etc. too to truly "level the playing field" and lower their average life expectancy down to that of men's? Do you TRULY want FULL equality in ALL areas??? Because if you DON'T...then SELECT equality ONLY is INequality on the WHOLE...

Sure, although it doesn't exactly help if you fantasize about the same thing you condemn.. But the real question is does one genuinely want gender equality...if they fantasize about being overpowered due to sexual dimorphism? This leads to the deeper question of if feminists are really upset at sexual dimorphism (and men generally being physically stronger)...or stronger men abusing their greater (physical) power? Or their own inadequacy to effectively fight fire with water?

So, are you saying that young women should get paid less now to even things out? Speaking of, what all do you think of the various progressive, psychological effects of several generations of "feminism" upon young boys & girls today? Pros, cons or mixed reviews? And beyond... Ultimately whenever there is are power inequities, then there is the potential for abuse. But, sexual dimorphism is merely one subset of that. Nature is a giant food chain composed of predators and prey. Just think of how sh*ttily humans treat most other animals and plants on this planet! And think about how they also all prey on each other, themselves.. So, I think it is ultimately "shadow self" projection to simply blame men for sexual dimorphism (biological inequities) and all its dynamic effects in gender relations - when it evolved naturally as a survival mechanism and is still deeply-eroticized by a majority of women themselves, no less! Have any feminists here ever fantasized about being sexually-overpowered by a handsome brute? How many of you have secretly perused Fifty Shades of Grey or found guilty pleasures in other romance novels?

Well, it is some "unintended" downstream fallout from misandry in response to the OT. He was raised by a single, feminist mother who ingrained so much male guilt into him that he had to dissociate from himself and create a bipolar, narcissistic personality. Then, the more he projected all his own onto maleness, the more his public and personal personas diverged. Eventually, this widening split nearly killed him (and one ex), not to mention the carnage of other bodies that he left in his self-destructive wake.. The more depraved his inner Jekyll became, the louder the rhetoric his outer Hyde spewed against it. Self-loathing, in the long run, is simply NEVER healthy or sustainable!! Yet sadly, neither he nor his hordes of complicit feminist admirers saw through his own charade, until the very end. This despite the fact that he was a serial-husband, attempted to murder an ex, slept with his students, possibly cuckolded another man and was a substance abuser... Obviously, his is just one anecdotal, extreme case. But, I think that misandry underlying feminism can have some powerful effects generations down that may not be immediately obvious - especially when people don't want to see it.. This dude's entire life was essentially shaped by his single mother's feminism and latent "misandry." So, instead of teaching and lecturing...HE should have been getting counseling!

Don't forget at home, too! But seriously, logically-speaking, I think anyone physically weaker (could be a woman, child, man, animal, etc.) just won't innately feel as safe as someone physically stronger. That is the "Law of the Jungle." Although, I would agree that people could certainly be counseled/healed to become less violent...(that's what marriage was for). However, people may still continue to fear the powerful potential of even a "tamed" tiger... That all said, ultimately . So, excessively using fear to control women and guilt to control men is thus ultimately disempowering and nonconstructive for them. See forbidden fruits & holy fire & brimstone.. But back to the OT, I think "alpha males" and hustlers are enjoying more empowering ("invulnerable") casual sex with far less ownership ("commitment"), unshackled from the traditional "patriarchal" roles and responsibilities as husbands and fathers now. Both genders have become far more sexually-objectified and the United States now has the highest percentage of 1-person households on the entire planet with 1/3 of its children living in homes without a father.

Allow me to clarify myself. Sexual neglect can be classified as a form of sexual objectification. Whereby, one is also reduced to one's sexual worth to another...but then deemed worthless in that capacity - just to add further insult to injury. That's why I say it is actually an even more painful form of objectification - because it is objectification + rejection, instead of objectification + acceptance. Where rejection is more painful than acceptance. And I was actually referring more to your own "denialist" attitude towards their plight as expressed in your comments. Of course I also condemn his actions, but his underlying pain of teen angst - worrying that one won't be able to attract a sexual mate for love - is pretty universal and very relatable. Almost like a broken record, in fact, lol... I simply asked if your own partner met the "dating" criteria (attractive, sex-supplying, pleasing, yin and gentle, soft and charming) that you had just denounced as so "sexistly oppressive??" In lieu of answering that question...you threw a tantrum with an enraged, false-accusational strawmen rebuttal... Do diversion and bullying tactics really still allow you to dodge any self-awareness or inconvenient truths? If so, your loss... Well, it's pointless to keep complaining about men who abuse & sexually objectify women...if enough women keep choosing to be with such men who abuse & objectify them. That's like complaining about unhealthy food & pesticides...while you keep buying non-organic food. Our own individual choices are what endorse, enable & perpetuate behaviors in our own micro lives and macro society as a whole. So YES, they do make all the difference in our worlds!!! Of course, if you have a vested interest in helping yourself under the guise of helping others...then you would simply keep inflating and reinforcing your existing paradigm and completely ignore that connection of self-accountability. Because empowering others might be the last thing you want. Instead, the more villainous the strawman, the more codependent the damsel in distress and the more heroic and indispensable the rescuer becomes...

If my questions were truly misogynist, then you wouldn't have had to create misogynist strawmen to replace them with. So the fact that you did have to create them means...hmm, who's hiding what? Did your Daddy treat your Mother poorly?

Of course sexual neglect and objectification both suck, I'm just saying that neglect sucks more.. Hence, many people would still prefer negative attention to no attention at all. Or "all PR is good PR." My simple point was that if he had received some empathy, understanding and counseling, then his kamikaze violence could have been prevented. Ironically, he became so despondent because he felt like no one (especially girls) appreciated his value as a "virtuous" gentleman. Instead, he felt judged and devalued by inborn attributes "out of his control." He felt hopelessly worthless simply due to being born by mistake, short, weak-looking and bullied. In short, he felt like a born loser. Teen angst is actually a phase we all suffer through...just usually not to HIS EXTREME.... But again, good counseling/healing the roots of his violence could have helped resolve them in a healthy, peaceful manner. Which is all I was advocating. Another strawman followed by "cavemanly" territorial threat for good measure? Woa, I must have been hitting close to home, there fella! Sorry?

So, standing up for yourself is only manly if it's against male sexism...but not if it's against feminism? And by equating standing up for yourself specifically with "men"...you are also specifically excluding women, boys & girls. Which I thought is exactly what feminism was against? If you had truly meant "mature adult" instead, you could have just said that. But, instead you singled out a specific gender. Is that sexist? Well, you did say that you've noticed that certain genders tend to have certain attributes. I have to, statistically. But, would feminists acknowledge, much less celebrate, any innate (or nurtured) gender differences/expectations/roles? So you speak of sex, but not love. Do you prefer just sex without all the strings attached (the rest of the woman and her life apart from her vjj)? What about love, functional families, committed relationships and healthy households? You know, the whole shebang...not just that...she-bangs.. One actually has to be sexually privileged enough to become upset at becoming sexually-objectified. Because what is even worse than that...is being sexually-neglected. As is the deeply painful plight of "Yin Beta Males," who are becoming epidemic amongst the Millenials. But the more they get ignored, dismissed and even further marginalized, the more they will implode.. But perhaps women and "privileged" men never thought it's really a problem, because it's never been a problem for them? So, your own partner just happens to be very attractive. Is she also pleasing, yin, gentle, soft and charming? Or displeasing, yang, rough, hard and rude?

So, do you mean that with a backbone (like against feminist "attacks") = acting manly? As opposed to what...girly? Isn't attributing certain attributes to certain genders sexism? And if so, does that make it automatically untrue?

Just out of curiosity, what kind of men then did feminists and their mothers cherry-pick when exercising their individual powers of choice (sexual voting) in their own personal lives? And what about the majority of women? The stereotype they are complaining about...or "smart, decent and wonderful ones?"

All grasping of "external" phenomena is ultimately grasping at your own dualistic existence as a separate entity. Are "you" subject or object? Answer without thinking!

Hehe...what if you possibly combined #1 & #6? 1. I'd be curious to know about his personal practice. He is an expert in many disciplines, how does he schedule practicing them to remain proficient in each? Are there some pieces that he does every day? Any general guidelines for learning new skills? If a person only has half an hour to an hour per day to practice your system of Qigong and/or Neigong, what would you recommend they focus on and start with? And then my late entry question could be summarized as: How & why is Taoist "immortality" attained by becoming only "pure Yang"...and not "pure Yin & pure Yang?" (And if so, what exactly is this "pure, true Yang?" And does this same theory apply to men & women alike? So, even women have to become "pure Yang" to become "immortal?") MANY THANKS!!!

Wait...1 more question please! Does JAJ subscribe to the theory that Taoist immortality is based upon transmutation or conversion to "pure Yang" ONLY? And if so, what exactly is this "pure, true Yang"...and how/why does the elimination of all Yin result in "immortality?" And does this same theory apply to men & women alike? So, even women have to become "pure Yang" to become "immortal?" THANK YOU!!!

As explained by Dr. Michael Greger's video, many vegetarians currently cancel out most of their plant-based benefits with a few critical errors. Namely, they eat too many processed/cooked/oxidized Omega 6, and not enough Omega 3, fats and are very deficient in B12. The way to correct these is relatively simple (yet CRUCIAL!!!): 1) Eat more Omega 3 fats and try to limit maximum Omega 6 consumption to 4X that of Omega 3s. Aside from a few oils (camelina, hemp, krill, fish), green leafy vegetables, seaweed and purslane are also very high in Omega 3s! 2) Fats are healthiest unprocessed and unoxidized. Oxidizing or hydrogenating them can create harmful mutagens, carcinogens, etc. In particular, polyunsaturated fats are the most easily oxidized (like when used as cooking oils) - so its best to consume them fresh and raw instead. They should also be stored in the refrigerator to retard oxidation. 3) Take a regular B12 supplement to help metabolize homocysteine, a vasculotoxin/neurotoxin that leads to atherosclerosis.

Interesting theory. One possible substitution though is Camelina or Hemp oil for Flax oil. Because, as she , polyunsaturated fats oxidize and degrade very quickly on their own. Now, some oils come from plants bundled with a lot of antioxidants, that help preserve them and extend their shelf life. But Flax oil contains very little antioxidants and so most of it is already oxidized in their bottles on the shelves.. Not to mention, it contains a lot of phytoestrogens (lignans) - which may have various effects.. Whereas, Camelina oil still has a high Omega 3 content - yet a much longer shelf life... Note: I would only consume polyunsaturated (and maybe even all) fats fresh & raw - NOT use them for cooking. Yes, this is completely contrary to mainstream practice...but that doesn't mean it's healthy or scientifically sound.. If oils start oxidizing merely from exposure to light, air & heat...what do you think happens when you cook with it?

Thank you soooo much, Horus and "Michelangelo." Your words of great insight touched me deeply.. You're right, I've focused on the horse too much, and lost sight of the cart. Not exactly sure why, but perhaps something happened to me or my forefathers that made me fear or fear for the future? If I could see clearly, I wonder what would I see that I'm afraid of?

There is a lot of BS posted on these forums, but you are quite brilliant!!! Thank you sooo much for the very insightful reading!! I followed your excellent guided meditation and basically got that the more I live for tomorrow and the afterlife, the more I may also fear there being none.. And so I became shortsighted to "force" myself to look in the present more and also out of fear of the absence of a future..

1) What are some of my past lives most relevant to this one? 2) Who, how and why did they build the Giza Pyramids and other stone megaliths around the world? 3) Were there lost civilizations such as Atlantis and Lemuria and what happened to them and their peoples? 4) How did humans originate? 5) What are Bigfoots? 6) Is the future predetermined? 7) Can you give some significant personal or global prophecies for this year? 8) How can I cure my eyesight? THANK YOU!!!!!!!

I believe that is Maiherpri, who is variously described as a "Nubian" nobleman, fan bearer, high official and/or warrior buried wearing his wig... He likely served under Thutmose "Thoth bore him" IV, who by contrast looked like this: I think the OP would disagree with you, lol?

Hmm...