Feminism: the Stalk

[Guest]

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to such opportunities for men.Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[3]

Source

~~~

Gender is greater than sex.  You are born with sex, but you choose your gender.  Treating people based on sex is stupid; something beyond control of the self.  Treating people based on being pussies, well, that's an entirely different concept.  Some helpful questions to determine where your boundaries stand are:

-Are you threatened by empowered women?  
-Are you threatened by empowered men?
-Are you threatened by differences of opinion?

My responses are below:
-Yes.
-Yes.
-Yes.

In response to my threatened perception, I've become a master cult leader and have been spreading the gospel of the Cosmic V for as long as I can remember (which really, isn't all that long at all).  I'm recapping a fair extent so I'm sure at some point, I'll find the eagle and eat from the Cosmic -- uh, wait, I think I already did that.  Can someone please call Carlos and ask him what comes after the eagle?  I need to know where I'm going next.

[rosygyro]

Systemic sexism is a byproduct of the known.the tantric descriptions of lingham and yoni
have the male as a stone pillar and the woman as the milk that is poured apon it.
this historic and perpetuated idea that the male sex should be unchanging
is a sad testament to the KNOWN on our world
which has over time become a carbuncle on all our lives.

we are born into a system of knowledge accumulation
known accumulation
and the phallus over time as a symbol of mankind
becomes steadily more ignorant.

one of the most destructive parts of the feminism movement
is women who emulate men in the wrong way.

we are all created through both sexes
and because of this women even though able to avoid the known
completley, have been forced through survival to mimic and proagate
aspects of male awarness which are sytemicly disempowering/

female prisons and women in isolation of men such as sororities
are not places that are free of abuse.

[rosygyro]

[rosygyro]

[rosygyro]

because we live in a systemic known there is a large quarter of power to be gainedby choosing to occupy the systemic known and accumulate forebearance.

the systemic known is responsible for all rape and abuse on our world
and is the part of the habitual assemblage point that desires to feel another awareness impaled apon it.

Both men and women are a part of this awarness and it is only through the mapping
out of matter energy space and time and the use of the totality in the sorcerers world that the human tonal maybe changed.

we all know what a drunk person who wants a *** looks like
they are utterly out of touch with their tantra and it has become a part of the collective habitual.

[Guest]

rosygyro wrote:
we all know what a drunk person who wants a *** looks like
they are utterly out of touch with their tantra and it has become a part of the collective habitual.
I see what you see.  However, instead of thinking of the chaos and destruction brought to the doorsteps of Freedom--why not find a drunkard, toss him a whore, and wait for the madness to pass?  Yes, we are all out of touch--and the natural response to being out of touch is to dogpile onto the person who has fallen out of touch.  Right?  Or am I doing this backwards?

[rosygyro]

because whores and drunkards are victims of the HAP.We are talking about men who lack sobriety (drunkards) who cannot differentiate their own
sexual awareness within tantric recapitulation. Men who seek virgins for fear of what the trench of the unknown
reflects of them from within its connectivity. Drunkards who can only tread fearlessly once they have clubbed everything living in their path to oblivion.enise their 
who homogenise their previous partners because they themselves cannot discern.
We are talking about whores(women) who upon meeting a man who is drunk , who has no tantric understanding..
who simply knows his previous partners as notches on the 1 bedpost and types of mutations of the 1 perfection, who refers to her
as probably number 83, had large labia, smelt like vegemite... decides to be all 83 to escape and ends up connected to the mother of all whores
as well as smeared across the known like a bug on a windshield.

victims of the HAP.
yes whores and drunkards are symptoms and not causes of the HAP

[rosygyro]

tantra

[Guest]

That's a good story, Rosy. It is. There's a manner to spin every kernel of truth to fit a portrait. I think you're right. I also believe you're wrong. Then again, if I know nothing who am I to tell you what is real or unreal. What you say is your truth. I believe there is a manner of twisting an article of clothing until it no longer resembles clothing. Those scraps certainly can be discarded and called trash. In the same way dandelions are considered weeds. I prefer to call them flowers and leave it at that. Yes, they're weeds, but they are flowers too. I wouldn't want to live in a world without dandelions; nor would I envision the world without drunkards and whores. That's my naive truth.

[rosygyro]

I am sure there are plenty of egos out there who want to proclaim dominion or expertise in Tantra.I am really not in their leaugue.

The universe has three great bands.
the subjective
the objective and 
the corporeal.

I work within the corporeal.
I am born, i age and i die..
in between i go from being the youngest person alive
to gradually proceededing in the direction of old
along the way families all around me perpetually flourish generation after generation
and i as a "corporeal" warrior.. simply try to find an assemblage shift that fits the pattern
without protruding any known energy of HAP assemblage dementia.

There are massive problems in the sexual subconsious to do with the simple passage of time.
I myself have sworn to never sleep with a woman who was herself concieved after the date i lost my virginity..
(the cut off point is around 24 years old at the moment and rising each year).

Having studied my habitual assemblage position and its relative componants across the corporeal
it has become apparent that in order to practice sexual forebearance or to give proper kuedos to a female younger than 24
(or concieved after the day i first penetrated a woman with my penis)
That that female would be al lot more difficult to contain- as nagual contains nagual woman)
in fact i would have to hold in an entire section of my sexual energy within the sorcerers world
at a tangent to personal sexual time.

I would not face the problem had i stayed with and married my initial partner..

...............................

however time and time again men who lost their virginity before their younger partners conception
still fail to recapitulate and organise their sexual energy effectivly enough
the protect the subconsious and contain the female.
worse still some are fucked up enough to try to channel long dead indians as well as fail
to resolve this lifes tonal tantra.

...................probably racist too.

[Guest]

What's fucked up about trying to channel the dead? Are we not all dead? I may sit here and type, share my consciousness, but what if we are mere after-thoughts of what is now a dead body? How do we not know that the dead thing we are channeling, is ourselves . . .

What if we (humanity) are already dead and we are the past energetic residue left over by our future bodies. We have the now, to change the course of what will be. If this fucked up channeling into our past, to alter our future, is truly fucked. . . I would make the attempt anyway. What's left to lose if we've already lost?

[rosygyro]

converselyhad i first slept with a virgin being a virgin myself
and stayed together for 24 years
i would be on a different problem of the known.

In this case the systemic known would have become objective to the corporeal
and the sexual tantra, although in isolation physicly of other humans
would have become subject to the greater conundrum and the HAP.

Those who practice polygamy have a horrible perceptual advantage over the
well meant monogamist single life partners.

[rosygyro]

Kao13 wrote:What's fucked up about trying to channel the dead? Are we not all dead? I may sit here and type, share my consciousness, but what if we are mere after-thoughts of what is now a dead body? How do we not know that the dead thing we are channeling, is ourselves . . .

What if we (humanity) are already dead and we are the past energetic residue left over by our future bodies. We have the now, to change the course of what will be. If this fucked up channeling into our past, to alter our future, is truly fucked. . . I would make the attempt anyway. What's left to lose if we've already lost?recapitulation is a cleansing of the channels in your body that will be burned through by wasted energy at your death
if you do not resolve them in life.
by resolving them you have enough energy to slip past the consuming force of inertia/the eagle.

there is some philosophical debate as to the universes own recapitulation when it too one day meets its end.

as such.. just as you drill deeper into your innocent consiousness as you recapitulate
so to does the universe scour its depths.. (which is where we live)
looking for genuine roots to its existence.

The future i hope will be radicly differnt sexually to our current time
and so i do not fear people from the future channelling my dead self ..
although if i want to leap to infinity and not become an underworld slave
i should really escape and future attempts to nail me to present day earth.

equally too.. out of respect for the dead.. who i so admire..
i really should not drag them through the corporeal
and should let them rest at internment.. and reincarnate today.

channelling the dead is so f---kin dumb..
and if you live in that world and end up
being eaten up by it , it is your own fault.

[Guest]

rosygyro wrote:
Those who practice polygamy have a horrible perceptual advantage over the
well meant monogamist single life partners.
Does the polygamist have an advantage?  I don't know if I'd call it horrible to have a greater field of vision over a playing field.

The monogamist also has an advnatage over the polygamist: while the poly is looking in different directions, he can't look as deeply as if he only had to look at one target.  

There are advantages to each side.  Just depends on what the objective is and then it's best to use the method most suited to meeting it.

[Guest]

rosygyro wrote:
Kao13 wrote:What's fucked up about trying to channel the dead? Are we not all dead? I may sit here and type, share my consciousness, but what if we are mere after-thoughts of what is now a dead body? How do we not know that the dead thing we are channeling, is ourselves . . .


What if we (humanity) are already dead and we are the past energetic residue left over by our future bodies. We have the now, to change the course of what will be. If this fucked up channeling into our past, to alter our future, is truly fucked. . . I would make the attempt anyway. What's left to lose if we've already lost?
channelling the dead is so f---kin dumb..
and if you live in that world and end up
being eaten up by it , it is your own fault.
Would you still be so heartless if I died while channeling the dead to save your life?  If you would pity me then assume I would never do you any such favors.  If you would appreciate the help, then the reciprocal nature of assistance is typically returned in kind.  

But what do I know, I live under the sea.

[rosygyro]

Kao13 wrote:rosygyro wrote:Kao13 wrote:What's fucked up about trying to channel the dead? Are we not all dead? I may sit here and type, share my consciousness, but what if we are mere after-thoughts of what is now a dead body? How do we not know that the dead thing we are channeling, is ourselves . . .

What if we (humanity) are already dead and we are the past energetic residue left over by our future bodies. We have the now, to change the course of what will be. If this fucked up channeling into our past, to alter our future, is truly fucked. . . I would make the attempt anyway. What's left to lose if we've already lost?
channelling the dead is so f---kin dumb..
and if you live in that world and end up
being eaten up by it , it is your own fault.Would you still be so heartless if I died while channeling the dead to save your life?  If you would pity me then assume I would never do you any such favors.  If you would appreciate the help, then the reciprocal nature of assistance is typically returned in kind.  

But what do I know, I live under the sea.
human death is a part of the HAP. the swathes of already dead only exist because of the course of the HAP.
if we are to change the course of the HAP
it is necissay to cut the ties to the underworld and take major power import
from potential energy of the future.

Those who are drilling the sub corporeal for power of the dead
are doing so from within the corporeal
and in so doing reaffirming and reinforcing the direction of the HAP.

you do realise that patriarchy exists/perpetuates because of the attatchemnt to
the dead subcorporeal portion of a families male line?
just i thought this was about feminism.

(conversely the female (if your even interested)
can access aspects of the subcorporeal without using the dead
as her ovaries contained all the eggs she can ever gestate at birth
her mother were in her body before she was born
her grand mothers before she was et..
meaning the maternal line can be tracked internally
without any need for the family being attatched to the sub corporeal.

but you go ahead and argue.

[rosygyro]

Kao13 wrote:rosygyro wrote:
Those who practice polygamy have a horrible perceptual advantage over the
well meant monogamist single life partners.Does the polygamist have an advantage?  I don't know if I'd call it horrible to have a greater field of vision over a playing field.

The monogamist also has an advnatage over the polygamist: while the poly is looking in different directions, he can't look as deeply as if he only had to look at one target.  

There are advantages to each side.  Just depends on what the objective is and then it's best to use the method most suited to meeting it.
The reason its a horrible advantage. is because its an easy advantage much like sobriety it offers an ease of perception, under which the harder tantric work is innaccessible.

two monogmomous life partners are doing a fairly noble thing
but the direction of the HAP means that over time they grow together
still within the faults and problems of the HAP.

The polygamist.. on an island with four partners in isolation
would eventually begin to form a multi directioned representation of the HAP
and real learning as to the four directions could be harnessed.

however polygamists tend to have neighbours who are not
or tend to go to the city to go shopping
or use the subway, freeway, bussus..

and in so doing their perception become
easily objective to monogamists..

and rather than being able to see the steady growth of resistence as reflected in their polygamist
life and the work it entails
they will easily and alsmost unstppably become objective to the debilitating problems of monogamy
and cease to study the HAP, instead simply being in a status quo where they are the freer than the monos.

The three bands of man
objective, subjectice, corporeal
are supposed to be resolved by individuals and balanced by individuals in order
for individuals to find freedom.

the easy fall into sexual objectivity by a polygamist over a monogamist
as a crossing..
the polygamist can use their tonal to gain objectivity over the sexual power of the monogamist
far easier than  can use own objective to see own own corporeal.
and so it turns into an alpha polygamist thing.

effectivly for a polygamist to be able to do the RIGHT thing
they will have to consiously engage in a warriors work
and not simply be 
more fucky than monogamists.

as very few choose warriorship
it tends to turn into a kind of alpha dominance abuse thing
but because that abuse is happening out of avoidance of the four directions, warriorship and sexual reflection
it is also abuse by the stupid.

K?

[rosygyro]

It would be ignorance , bordering on extreme
to believe a leap past the eagle is possible
for those who cannot act under their own power beyond the HAP.
immortal soul is easy the pledge while in ignorance of its purpose.
there are no awakened slaves or servants.
unless that position serves the total move of the HAP.

[Guest]

rosygyro wrote:Would you still be so heartless if I died while channeling the dead to save your life?  If you would pity me then assume I would never do you any such favors.  If you would appreciate the help, then the reciprocal nature of assistance is typically returned in kind.  

Those who are drilling the sub corporeal for power of the dead
are doing so from within the corporeal
and in so doing reaffirming and reinforcing the direction of the HAP.
Is it not sometimes necessary to turn to the past to reinforce the future?

you do realise that patriarchy exists/perpetuates because of the attatchemnt to
the dead subcorporeal portion of a families male line?
just i thought this was about feminism.
Both patriarchy and matriarchy are perpetuated due to the dead and the living . . . the thread began with a feminist focus, all sons have a mother, sons represent patriarchy--and so patriarchy is directly connected to matriarchy.  

(conversely the female (if your even interested)
I'm always interested.
can access aspects of the subcorporeal without using the dead
as her ovaries contained all the eggs she can ever gestate at birth
her mother were in her body before she was born
her grand mothers before she was et..
meaning the maternal line can be tracked internally
without any need for the family being attatched to the sub corporeal.
This is true, but the greater truth is that not only can we connect to the matriarch line, but we can also access the patriarch line.  It is two, not one.

but you go ahead and argue.
I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing and disagreeing with you.  I'm saying, you are right.  Yet, what I'm also saying is there is more than just what you are saying.  I'm not arguing, I'm just insulting your idea by implying that it's primitive.

[Guest]

rosygyro wrote:
two monogmomous life partners are doing a fairly noble thing
but the direction of the HAP means that over time they grow together
still within the faults and problems of the HAP.
Sure, I follow: this is why pet owners begin to look like their pets over time.

The polygamist.. on an island with four partners in isolation
would eventually begin to form a multi directioned representation of the HAP
and real learning as to the four directions could be harnessed.
Yes.

effectivly for a polygamist to be able to do the RIGHT thing
they will have to consiously engage in a warriors work
and not simply be 
more fucky than monogamists.
For anyone to engage in warriors work, doesn't everyone need to be less fucky?

as very few choose warriorship
it tends to turn into a kind of alpha dominance abuse thing
but because that abuse is happening out of avoidance of the four directions, warriorship and sexual reflection
it is also abuse by the stupid.
But doesn't everyone carry some for of ignorance?  No one can expand to engage all four directions 100% of the time.  We are all eventually found lacking in some area.  Hence, we are all stupid at some time and we will abuse others from such stance.  If we engaged all four directions with 100% efficiency, we would be incapable of engaging the stupid.  If we can't engage to stupid, we become obsolete.  It works to our advantage to carry some degree of stupidity; for surivival of the species.  


K?
O

[Julio Juliopolis]

Kao13 wrote:Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to such opportunities for men.Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women's rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.[3]
SourceThat's the definition of feminism according to feminists themselves, specifically a group that calls itself the wiki-feminists. I ran into them around 14 years ago when I tried editing the wikipedia entry for feminism by adding a bunch of qualifiers to their declarative statements. For example, I changed things like "Feminism promotes equality between the sexes" to "Feminism claims to promote equality between the sexes". I made probably 20 changes like that and within a few days all of those changes were removed. I read the change-log for the page and saw that a sizable group of people who call themselves wiki-feminists and state their purpose is to actively edit wikipedia pages to reflect a feminist viewpoint had been editing the page back, removing all the qualifiers. Oddly they did it a few at a time and claimed different reasons for all of their changes. I guess they didn't want to be as obvious as to just say "we can't include the possibility of doubt of feminist views so we must remove all qualifiers from all our claims", because it would make it harder for them to deceive themselves.
rosygyro wrote:

you do realise that patriarchy exists


You seem to have taken that as true without question. I certainly don't realize patriarchy exists. I've seen practically no evidence for the existence of any actual patriarchy ever. What we live in is closest to an oligarchy. Just because most of the visible 1% of the 1% in charge on this planet happen to be men doesn't mean they do things to benefit any other men. You have to look at what they actually do to see who benefits from their actions, such as the laws they pass, not just look at what sex they happen to be. And where there is a disparity in how well us non 1% of the top 1%ers are being treated, that disparity favors women by far. It certainly doesn't meet the definition of a patriarchy.

[Guest]

JJ, with regard to your failed attempt to manifest change in wiki: why would you bother? I don't go to the Freemason page and say, "We accept women in our meetings!" I create a sister page and gather a group of powerful women who flirt with the Masons. What **** would try to change anything directly? You did it for the lolz didn't you

Your thoughts on patriarchy are interesting. We only see what we're capable of perceiving: if you can't see patriarchy, how does this reflect your internal vision? Whereas I see patriarchs, matriarchs, and unicorns--and you know who I am.

[rosygyro]

Kao13 wrote:

effectivly for a polygamist to be able to do the RIGHT thing
they will have to consiously engage in a warriors work
and not simply be 
more fucky than monogamists.For anyone to engage in warriors work, doesn't everyone need to be less fucky?

  
Or STOP the world even. thats not fucky in the slightest.

[Julio Juliopolis]

Kao13 wrote:JJ, with regard to your failed attempt to manifest change in wiki: why would you bother? I don't go to the Freemason page and say, "We accept women in our meetings!" I create a sister page and gather a group of powerful women who flirt with the Masons. What **** would try to change anything directly? You did it for the lolz didn't you Well, no. When I made the changes there I didn't know about the wiki-feminists. I did suspect that some, probably most, and perhaps all of the qualifiers I added would be removed eventually. Still I wanted to watch it happen and see what reasons were put forth for doing so as a social experiment. 
Your thoughts on patriarchy are interesting. We only see what we're capable of perceiving: if you can't see patriarchy, how does this reflect your internal vision? Whereas I see patriarchs, matriarchs, and unicorns--and you know who I am.This seems to be leading to the question of is there an objective reality? I suppose I could imagine patriarchy. And perhaps I could project that imagination onto the world I see around me. Maybe I could do it well enough to even see it with my eyes. But would that make it real? The world seems to me to have a strong degree of consistency. I've never mentioned trees to someone and heard a reply like "Trees? WTF are those?!" The "gurus" I've read have talked about a consensus reality, which implies that there is an objective reality to a degree, even if it isn't fully objective. In Jed McKenna's movie-theater based version of Plato's cave we may all be watching just a movie but it is the same movie, at least for the most part. I find it doubtful that the world is so subjective that I'm likely to meet another person my age who watched a movie called "Star Wars" as a child, in which... 1. all the stormtroopers were female, as was Vader and everyone else on the death star2. they all died almost completely silently with the movie making sure not to show any of their pain, or that of anyone else who loved them and lost them just like the movie I saw did with it's male villains when they were killed3. a few woman risked their lives to save the beautiful prince, who flirted back and forth with both of them while protesting the one's desire to get paid for the job as if by virtue of being born female she didn't naturally have an obligation to risk her life to protect his.4. together they killed many more stormtroopers, (again all of which were female) until they finally managed to blow up the whole death star full of them before being decorated as heroes.5. what was considered a reasonable argument against sexism in that movie was that there weren't enough male heroes helping kill all those women and that the male prince had to be rescued, was left out of the final battle, and didn't get an award at the end. That all the villains were female and thus the movie was one of many that was teaching society to be desensitized towards men's pain, deaths, etc. was meanwhile considered such a ridiculous and man-hating argument most wouldn't risk stating it, if they even could think it. Likewise, I think most other things about the world around me are part of the consensus world, and thus as objective as objectivity gets. So generally, I take the world for objective. Similarly, I find it doubtful that other things related to the question of patriarchy are subjective. I exaggerated slightly when I said I'd seen no evidence for patriarchy. After all, what about the fact that in some Muslim countries women are beheaded for adultery? This is evidence, but when you take ALL the evidence of whose been beheaded for adultery in Muslim countries, (in an average year 6-12 women are beheaded for it, in an average year 1,100 - 1,400 men are beheaded for it), a different story emerges. Really, this happens anytime you look into a common feminist claim. Look closely and you'll see either there is no sexism or the sexism is worse against males. But modern day feminists want to create things to benefit females only. They don't want males benefiting from their "charitable work" in any way, (though they'll certainly take money from males for it). They'll go into a Muslim country where nobody is getting an education and say "Girls aren't getting an education here!", ignoring that neither are boys. That way, when Oprah's leadership charity goes in and sets up girls-only schools it can be seen as a good thing, and not the blatant bigotry that it is. I could go on for weeks with more examples, but suffice to say this is what I've found everytime I've heard a claim of patriarchy. Thus, for patriarchy to actually exist, the world must be much more subjective than it seems to me.

[Guest]

Rosy, a person cannot stop the world. People stop the world. The world stopping is the symptom. Much had to occur for the disease to take hold. The blame goes to the idiots who cause idiots to do fucky things. The **** is not the issue. The creation of the **** should be the concern.

JJ the issue isn't about gender. The issue is unfair treatment, regardless of gender, income, or belief. If you want to whine, add in other issues to strengthen your argument. As it stands you sound like a misinformed dude angry at vaginas. Yes, be angry at vaginas but be angry about equally related issues. Be a man! Take a stand!