Why is creativity considered a feminine trait when women don't create anything except babies?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

From an energetic perspective, the gender issue is balanced.. the majority of this thread is based on preference, perjudice, and emotion..

 

Be well..

[Gerard]

[HelloThar]

Agape,

 

I used to feel like this a lot until I realized that it's not women in particular it's stupidity and that applies as much to women as to men. You figure the average I.Q. is a base 100, then at least 50% must be stupider than that. Very few people in general are creative or passionate about life, they have no dreams or ambitions and are just barely above the level of a functional retard. Intelligence, passion, creativity, hard work, dedication, vision, I agree those are traits usually men have more so than than women, but not many men have them.

 

The majority of women are as you describe, boring, dull leaches just acting as parasites to men and popping out babies for 18 years of payments, but I've met some pretty retarded men also. We as men are just as bad in our own right, we foolishly and intentionally put ourselves in situations to have our blood sucked by women, and enjoy every minute of it. We give them 1/2 our wealth when we marry them, and pledge our support for at least 18 years financially with each child. That's just a given, you play with fire you get burned, and we are pyromaniac moth's drawn to women flame.

 

The problem isn't women, its stupidity and lack of passion. The ignorant masses of our population could vanish overnight and we wouldn't be missing anything. Women in my opinion are not lesser than men on average, it's that we have too many stupid people on this earth. There is a movie called idiocracy, watch it.

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't my intention to be sexist or whatnot. It is easy to see though that there are differences between males and females and I am just pointing out that this assumption of creativity being a feminine trait seems to be an incorrect one from my experience. I don't dispute that women have their own complementary traits to men's just that creativity I cannot see as being anything other than a male trait.

 

This has been niggling me for a few days. In all the yin yang and other spiritual bent texts they always talk about the 'feminine polarity' being creative. If that is so, females themselves should have the highest abundance of feminine energy. As such they should be the MOST creative. I see people trying to defend this position by saying that it's just a feminine trait which males poses and use but as I just stated women themselves would obviously have more of this being FEMALE and thus by analogy would be more creative but this is, from my experience, categorically incorrect.

 

Yet again this has caused me to be more skeptical to the pie in the sky theorizing of most 'spiritual teachings'.

 

Sometimes this spiritual stuff has good insights but often I find it is inaccurate even seemingly arbitrary in its speculation.

 

My first hand experience with the real world indicates that this claim is 100% inaccurate as the hotter the women ie the more feminine her energy is the LESS creative she will be. Anyone who has not lived in total isolation from the opposite sex their whole lives (I guess this might explain why the people making these claims do so as most of the 'spiritual gurus' do indeed live in total isolation from society their whole lives and come up with their elabourate theories while high on gamma waves or whatever whilst living in a cave and most are celibate, many probably never even having had sex at all) will know the hotter the girl the less she has to do to get by. Conversely nearly all creative pursuits have been done so by males either directly or indirectly to either attain the favour of women or as an outlet to distract/circumvent love lost etc/as a cathartic outlet to their pent up libido.

 

Men create and women just enjoy the fruits of men's labour. Everything you see in sight was created by men, not women. I don;t deny women are nurturers and all that but they are doing so from the safe nest that males create. Women are the most conservative creatures you can imagine and never dare taking risks instead just huddling within the confines of conformity. These are broad generalizations I know but that is all I wish to scrutinise- the general distribution of a given sample, not an exception such as a masculine lesbian. I really don't see how it could realistically be interpreted any other way.

Edited December 7, 2009 by HelloThar

[doc benway]

"Why is creativity considered a feminine trait when women don't create anything except babies?"

 

Maybe because women create life and men create bone-headed threads like this one?

[C T]

"Why is creativity considered a feminine trait when women don't create anything except babies?"

 

Maybe because women create life and men create bone-headed threads like this one?

Classic one-liner!

[Apech]

 

The majority of women are as you describe, boring, dull leaches just acting as parasites to men and popping out babies for 18 years of payments, but I've met some pretty retarded men also. We as men are just as bad in our own right, we foolishly and intentionally put ourselves in situations to have our blood sucked by women, and enjoy every minute of it. We give them 1/2 our wealth when we marry them, and pledge our support for at least 18 years financially with each child. That's just a given, you play with fire you get burned, and we are pyromaniac moth's drawn to women flame.

 

 

HelloThar,

 

Hmmm you sound a little bitter if I may say.

 

It is odd I have to say that in divorce court proceedings women are treated as helpless dependents while actually in society they have most of not all of earning potential of men. Women who campaign for equal pay should also campaign for equality in settlements.

 

"The majority of women are as you describe, boring, dull leaches ..." do you really go around thinking this way? Is it healthy? Don't get me wrong I see stupid people everyday as well but I could equally well say that everyone is potentially enlightened. Thinking this way at least makes me feel a little happier.

 

I suppose what I want to suggest is a distinction between male/female archetypes (or polarity or whatever) and actual people. By labeling I think there is a risk that we deny individuals the possibility of rising above the base level function (men and women). Maybe the creative ones are the ones that do this - again male or female. Few and far between and quite often shunned and mocked by people generally. True creativity as a rare commodity (?).

 

A7.

[doc benway]

 

I suppose what I want to suggest is a distinction between male/female archetypes (or polarity or whatever) and actual people. By labeling I think there is a risk that we deny individuals the possibility of rising above the base level function (men and women).

So true - and we always label. It is extremely difficult not to. It's how our brain works.

 

We can't possibly know everything there is to know about anything around us so we make a very quick observation and create an image of everything and everyone we meet. We also have an image of ourselves which is a consequence of our conditioning and memory.

 

So all of our relationships with people are really our image of ourselves interacting with our images of the other person. This is the illusion we all live in. The work we can do is to see through this. Look at everyone as if you are seeing them for the first time. Really look at them, really listen to them, let go of all assumptions and preconceptions to whatever extent you are able - it is an entirely different experience when you can do this and it is a skill that develops with practice. That is meaningful living, otherwise living is just being a robot created by conditioning.

 

One of my favorite saying goes something like this -

It's the people who don't know how to live that are constantly concerned with dying and what comes in the afterlife. Live fully now and all concern with what comes later simply falls away.

[C T]

So true - and we always label. It is extremely difficult not to. It's how our brain works.

 

We can't possibly know everything there is to know about anything around us so we make a very quick observation and create an image of everything and everyone we meet. We also have an image of ourselves which is a consequence of our conditioning and memory.

 

So all of our relationships with people are really our image of ourselves interacting with our images of the other person. This is the illusion we all live in. The work we can do is to see through this. Look at everyone as if you are seeing them for the first time. Really look at them, really listen to them, let go of all assumptions and preconceptions to whatever extent you are able - it is an entirely different experience when you can do this and it is a skill that develops with practice. That is meaningful living, otherwise living is just being a robot created by conditioning.

 

One of my favorite saying goes something like this -

It's the people who don't know how to live that are constantly concerned with dying and what comes in the afterlife. Live fully now and all concern with what comes later simply falls away.

Well said Steve. Cheers!

 

What you said about letting go assumptions and preconceptions is so true. Reminds me of Krishnamurti's teachings. I believe he calls the inability to function without preconceptions "fragmentation".

 

Thanks again. Always appreciate your views.

[Agape]

Thar I think you nailed it.

 

I'll repost what I just posted on another forum in reply to a similar comment:

 

"I went to a women's surrealist art exhibition the other day and thought it some of the best art I've ever seen. It wasn't specifically feminine though. so ye I'd say creativity is neither masculine or feminine but there are still trends, like I know the average party chick is not gonna be creating anything like those women did. At the same time though, now I think of it, I know the average club chode won't either.

 

I think my realisation therewith is that 95% of the population male or female are chodes who won't create anything amazing."

 

So I'd still hold that creativity isn't masculine or feminine, it is possible for either gender to develop it equally. I guess the bleak fact is that most people are useless bottom feeders who never will create anything of grandeur. I don't mean that everyone should create something great to be a worthwhile human being but, rather, everyone should have a modicum of common sense and moral decency which the average populace seem to lack. I speak of the pathetic wastefulness of consumerism with no regard of the repercussions and all that type of ignorance.

 

Don't get me wrong I think males are as useless as women on the whole it is just torturous to me that a hot dumb women still pulls my gonads such that I will want something from them even though I am fully aware of their otherwise cretinous existence. People then always say 'then don;t let them' I don't think it;s as easy to just switch off that flagpole in the pants- it's HARDWIRED. So I mostly feel a slave to my desires in that respect.

 

Again people will say 'don't be so shallow' but evolutionary biology dictates that men go for reproductive value and women go for survival value. Any man who hasn't had a lobotomy/lost his sex drive through age or other reasons who claims he isn't turned on by a SMOKINGHOT body is lying. Women on the other hand don't seem to be controlled by the gonads but rather by emotions.

 

This is the ultimate paradox for me cos at once I want to be true to myself but at the same time my STRONG natural inclinations are telling me to compromise my rationality to want to fornicate with some trashy slut. C'est la vie.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Agape

[witch]

So this thread was created because of your irritation with your gonads.

 

Frankly I consider men's vulnerability to young women's beauty one of their nicest features. Otherwise men would be completely insufferable.

 

When my brain is working in its normal way, I am equally vulnerable to men--not to the sight of their bodies or faces, but simply to the sight of erect cocks. It brings me to my knees.

 

I think having that vulnerability is a sign of a healthy body. What you do with that vulnerability, on the other hand, is up to you. If you use that desire without acting on it and then send it up and circulate, you can profoundly benefit. So you have come to the right spot!

Edited December 7, 2009 by witch

[doc benway]

Well said Steve. Cheers!

 

What you said about letting go assumptions and preconceptions is so true. Reminds me of Krishnamurti's teachings. I believe he calls the inability to function without preconceptions "fragmentation".

 

Thanks again. Always appreciate your views.

Thanks - I'm a big fan of Krishnamurti.

Compare his teachings about labels and images with the first chapter of Dao De Jing.

He tells us to drop our labels and images and experience the world directly.

Dao De Jing tells us that everything we think we understand by naming it is not the truth.

Reality cannot be substituted with concepts and ideas and names, it must be experienced.

JK was a Daoist of the first order.

 

So this thread was created because of your irritation with your gonads.

 

Frankly I consider men's vulnerability to young women's beauty one of their nicest features. Otherwise men would be completely insufferable.

 

When my brain is working in its normal way, I am equally vulnerable to men--not to the sight of their bodies or faces, but simply to the sight of erect cocks. It brings me to my knees.

 

I think having that vulnerability is a sign of a healthy body. What you do with that vulnerability, on the other hand, is up to you. If you use that desire without acting on it and then send it up and circulate, you can profoundly benefit. So you have come to the right spot!

_/\_

[Ohm-Nei]

sweaters, sandwiches, clean surfaces, reasons to fight, women make plenty of things

 

Only joking

[witch]

 

_/\_

 

 

Clearly I am getting back to normal, when a smiley tentpole catches my eye!

[lino]

Wow, this has been quite a popular thread hmmm? If nothing I can be controversial!

 

Vortex I like what you have to say, I see it is grounded in good evolutionary psych.

 

You guys who say 'women haven't had a chance cos society has kept em down' I'm not being deliberately biased but I take my perspectives from the whole existence of the human race...or at least what we known from the study of it. This is my problm with the ;society has kept women down' position. Women were living in their 'natural environment' back in caveman days wouldn't you agree? All of these 'puacentric' theoryies of attraction are based on evolutionary psychology. The presmise is that women (and men) act the same now as that did back in caveman days.

 

I don't recall any data of women being the innovators and creators back then either. There is the usual dichotomy of males being the hunter gatherers and writing on walls and women gathering fruit (also gatherers within the society) and gossiping with the rest of their girls.

 

If you read the Red Queen (hardcore evolutionary biology, only one perspective but it gives alot of good study into this area from that particular perspective) he states that women are gossipers cos it allows them to root out potential beta males, they are more intuitive just so they can see whether a man will be a cheater or if he is not really an alpha- all domestics related.

 

At the same time men are more spatial and logical cos it allows them to catch the more dangerous prey with their comrades as they would form plans and remember good hunting grounds all that logical type stuff.

 

Some may think I remain 'dogged' in my views. That isn't to say I am dogmatic. My intention was to open a discussion to see what others thought of the situation and we certainly have created a good discussion here. The whole idea of a discussion is that each respective party presents their arguments to the table. Like a dual where the best argument wins (not in terms of a battle for battle's sake but just to perhaps gain new perspectives, at worst each respective party remains within their own reality tunnel).

 

Now if I totally IGNORED other's perspectives I'd accept that it would be reasonable for you to not want to discuss it as it would not be worth it on your part. As I say I remain open to changing my views given sufficient evidence to persuade me so however so far nothing offered has provided me with anything but mere exceptions so the defender's arguments remain poultry at best, imo, but again, of course that is my opinion, which I do not deny.

 

The opposers of my position will end up saying-you are just jaded and sex starved and I am right cos I have the PROPER female perspective, I will say ummm, look at the MASSIVE BODY of evidence to the contrary...but when we reach that point without providing new data for or against is when I would say there is no need to continue and the thread will have run it's course but for now we are still getting interesting debate going here. We have formed a good discussion here and it is good to have seen other's views, including a few women's and women sympathiser's, viewpoints on this to get different perspectives.

 

I rather intuit something in a second then have to arrive at the same conclusion (with my limited amount of brain power and reasoning) in two years or maybe over 700 years.

 

Try reading in "between the lines" and "thinking outside the box" rather than taking all of that "evidence" at face value. It's like taking what a pharma company puts on paper at face value, when the pharma company has done nothing but fake and slant data. The slanted data is meant to install illusions and prejudices. The people pushing the slanted data realize that most people are too stupid to investigate further into the slanted data.

[Non]

man I still dont get how people can continue categorizing things as male and female when male and female genders are not universal! yin and yang is though, I think its still more like 1/1=1

Edited December 7, 2009 by Non

[lino]

man I still dont get how people can continue categorizing things as male and female when male and female genders are not universal! yin and yang is though, I think its still more like 1/1=1

 

or 1+1=3 <--- that's with no birth control involved.

[Taomeow]

Thanks, Witch, I'll check out the movie!

 

I think we are facing a coin with two sides when we encounter thinking along the lines of what's been exhibited here by a few but is shared in our sick society by many. One, they don't teach history where these guys went to school in any life-relevant shape or form. They were taught that creativity is about machines, concrete and steel structures, and weapons, that whoever makes these is a "creator." They were taught the political, religious, and scientific machines are run by men; concrete and steel structures designed by men are wonderful and their absence, awful; and weapons, ever more deadly, ever creatively improved on, add to our overall creative glory.

 

The other side of the coin is the absence of understanding of the present based on a surreal, mutilated picture of the past installed in their heads. The reason they are taught in this manner (side 1) is they are supposed to have exactly such a picture of reality in their heads (side 2). And only men (and women who are considered creative only when they undertake to "create" on men's terms, i.e. male-style female scientists, male-style female artists, male-style female politicians -- women who are really "honorary males," the only women who can sometimes get ahead in society) write those history books driven by the same agenda. So their very definition of "creativity" is full of blind spots -- they were blindfolded to reality in order to put together such a picture.

 

The real picture is much more interesting. In the past two thousand years, men and only men creatively invented and widely used several thousand types of devices for the specific purpose of torture. They invented special wheels with pulleys of many types to pull limb away from limb. They invented impaling and crucifiction. They invented iron boxes with spikes inside to close on a human being. They invented bone-crushing "Spanish Boots." They invented the guillotine and the gallows and on and on -- lots of gimmicks. All of these were first used on women to get the message across.

 

What message? That women don't own property, nor their own bodies. That women shouldn't attempt to enter into any lucrative or educated professions. That women can and should be beaten, raped and even killed if men happen to choose to beat, rape and kill them, and any objections will result in the use of one or a few of those gimmicks. You may have heard of the "witch hunts" in Europe but I actually read the Mallet of Witches, the document that was "created" to justify and guide the process. Well, to qualify as a witch and to qualify for torture and death, you had to meet one requirement only: you had to be a woman whom someone denounces as a witch. That's sufficient proof. You may not have heard of South American tribes that punished refusal of sex by wife to a husband by death -- the method was to place the woman on the ground, put a stick across her throat, and have the husband stand on the stick gradually increasing pressure till her neck snaps. You may not have heard of African tribes that practice genital mutilation of women to this day, all girls are subjected to this rite at about age 6, on the basis of their future fidelity to their husbands since genital-mutilated women are guaranteed to have no sexual feelings. You may have heard of Islamic countries where punishment for a woman who hasn't covered herself head to toe and shows as much as an elbow in public is stoning to death, whereas in other countries this will be done if she is caught wearing lipstick, and still others, she has to go as far as talk to a man who is not her husband. You may have heard of foot binding in China -- this was going on for over a thousand years, and used on hundreds of millions of women who were supposed to be crippled like that or they couldn't marry, and if they couldn't marry they had no way to survive because all ways whereby one could survive were reserved for men. You may have heard of American women activists who won their right to vote (very recently), but you may have heard it wrong -- the first thing that happened to them when they first made a peep and showed up in the streets with slogans and reasoning was, they were all thrown in jail and gang-raped. You may or may not have heard that today, of the 1000 wealthiest people in America, only one (ONE) is a woman (Oprah, incidentally, a honorary male) and 999 are men.

 

You may not have heard that my own IQ is not measurable because it is off the male-created IQ chart (over 185) and so is my mother's who worked all her life as an engineer (an honorary male) and had a few dozen men to report to her who respected her tremendously because she was so competent and knowledgeable in her field no one could touch it -- but the real reason to respect a woman could easily be something entirely else if she were to apply this innate intelligence to making sure every child of hers is created and raised healthy, happy and whole?.. Well, this task is not creative enough... so every child, male or female, is created by a woman who is either nothing or a honorary male in our current set-up. With dire, DIRE consequences for both sexes. Every baby boy born to every mother who is the outcome of this kind of history whether she knows it or not swallows the bitterness of her milk (today, the carcinogenicity of male-created soy formula, more often), with results reverberating through every second of all of his subsequent life -- through centuries and millennia.

 

That's what karma really is...

[Pietro]

I know this article is too long to be read by most of you.

I post this for the others.

 

Is There Anything Good About Men?

by Roy F. Baumeister

 

For me it have reframed the whole problem of gender in a totally different way.

I don't know how many times have I read it.

 

Please, if you like it, share it around.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Pietro

[doc benway]

Clearly I am getting back to normal, when a smiley tentpole catches my eye!

But did it bring you to your knees?

[Apech]

 

 

The real picture is much more interesting. In the past two thousand years, men and only men creatively invented and widely used several thousand types of devices for the specific purpose of torture. They invented special wheels with pulleys of many types to pull limb away from limb. They invented impaling and crucifiction. They invented iron boxes with spikes inside to close on a human being. They invented bone-crushing "Spanish Boots." They invented the guillotine and the gallows and on and on -- lots of gimmicks. All of these were first used on women to get the message across.

 

 

 

Maybe only men - but not all men - only those who signed up to particular ways of enforcing power (aided an abetted by some women who supported them). They persecuted witches (mostly women) but also mystics who dared to think for themselves and they attempted to silence all challenge to their authority. It is they who handed down the male/female labeling through the doctrines of the state and church - the licensing of human relations through marriage and so on - and left us confused about ourselves.

 

In saying men did this - implying all men is to fall straight into their trap (IMO).

[doc benway]

Well said Taomeow -

Human ignorance and insensitivity know no bounds, fortunately that is the case for love as well.

[witch]

But did it bring you to your knees?

 

 

|

|__

|

L

[Taomeow]

Maybe only men - but not all men - only those who signed up to particular ways of enforcing power (aided an abetted by some women who supported them). They persecuted witches (mostly women) but also mystics who dared to think for themselves and they attempted to silence all challenge to their authority. It is they who handed down the male/female labeling through the doctrines of the state and church - the licensing of human relations through marriage and so on - and left us confused about ourselves.

 

In saying men did this - implying all men is to fall straight into their trap (IMO).

oh, I agree. The persecuted ones were all women and all real normal men, the persecutions were creatively installed by the abnormal men, and where these came from I have no idea, for the bulk of our history (till some 8--10 thousand years ago) they never called the shots and chances are didn't even occur. It may have been genetic manipulations by reptilians after all.

[Enishi]

Most women AND men have been mistreated by small groups of elite men throughout history IMO.

 

I also think that many people are ignoring the ways in which men in western societies get mistreated.

 

Men like this guy:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine...ity-t.html?_r=1

 

It has also been my personal observation, without even realizing it, people are usually much quicker to leap to a woman's defense than a man's, irregardless of where the fault might lie...

 

It will admit I do the same thing all to often, without even thinking about it l will ignore illogical, insensitve rude comments which my female friends sometimes make, whereas if a man were to do the same thing it could lead to an angry reprisal...

Edited December 7, 2009 by Enishi

[Taomeow]

Well said Taomeow -

Human ignorance and insensitivity know no bounds, fortunately that is the case for love as well.

true and encouraging.

 

The whole gender opposition thing is unnatural, far as I can tell. I have twins, a boy and a girl. It has been discovered "scientifically" that in these rare (for our species) cases the mother bonds with them one at a time, so interestingly, I "bonded" with my son instantly and with my daughter only a few days later -- and it still shows, I find it much easier to communicate with the male kid of mine... so we aren't designed for a gender-based preference, in my case the kid who was born weaker was instinctively favored until he got stronger... the way it should be regardless of gender.