Death, my Beloved Betrothed

In terms of education, simply the tools required to maintain socially and personally, regardless of style.
Could a person provide food for themselves and perhaps another, either on the land or in the Ford plant. While our current form of education seems to be far greater than perhaps an old verbal tradition, I don't think so. Each form being at least equal to the particular environment.

307.65 billion in internal charitable donation in the US in 2008.

http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf

wow!

philantropy, here, is still in its infancy, and public discussion, recently started by philosophers, extremely controversial.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4491835,00.html

you need to take the european unification in its very slow progress into consideration, too.
much of the spending gets stuck in the bureaucratic monster created in the process.

besides, all of us, from education to marketing and back, have been thrown into the total brutal global competition, each against all others: that's hardly exaggerated!

We should do both Germany and Canada statistics next.

Prettybirds wrote:

We should do both Germany and Canada statistics next.

Pretty, are we doing some sort of 0-levels here, or what?
please remember, flower is most interested in the psychological impact of all this upheaval.

That's the whole point of the statistics, first, to de-monsterize the size of the problem, then to identify the source of the problem, identify resources to rectify the problem, then create a plan to fix the problem.

The psychological benefit of doing this is extremely satisfying.

To me, the only problem is resource allocation. A many layered problem.

Prettybirds wrote:

That's the whole point of the statistics, first, to de-monsterize the size of the problem, then to identify the source of the problem, identify resources to rectify the problem, then create a plan to fix the problem.

The psychological benefit of doing this is extremely satisfying.

To me, the only problem is resource allocation. A many layered problem.

yup. thanks.

http://www.istr.org/conferences/geneva/confpapers/marita.haibach.html

for demonsterization!

The psychological upheaval...for a particular country? Regarding what sweetie?

The EU kind of fascinates me. I would love to go country by country and gathers stats to really see whats going on regarding the people. I'd like to know who's really in that bed politically, what color the sheets are. It is a bit of study to really get that picture, political text being so dry usually, and so full of BS too. Where to look for facts, how to make myself read the dry text...

Yes, politically, economically, religiously, we are in flight or fight mode with each other. I do however think it a conditioned response to purposely created terror and grandstanded atrocity.
But you know, everywhere I look, there is more and more acceptance of racial and cultural difference. It is getting better, it is just still horrific.

23-4 million needing food.
9 266 409 households.
$22 239 381 600.00 yearly to give 50 dollars a week per household for food aid.

PS will add stats and definitions regarding homeless versus poor family which will likely alter the numbers as we go, as I find them...
It is good to define a problem, especially one so vital. As reasonable as it looks in the US, I think when its Africa's turn for scrutiny, the horror will be really hard to bear. I fear that in some of the countries in the EU too. It will be good to know though, faceless fear is worse than knowing the enemy.

Prettybirds wrote:

How many people now, with today's populations, are living hungry as compared with 100 and 200 years ago. Not just world wide, because not all countries are equal in social standing, I would want it country by country, around the world.

I would want graphs of a definable poverty line over the last 200 years.

Graphs that display financial contributions to the poor for 200 years.

Statistics that show how many people now receive education compared over the 200 years.

Honestly, we should have stats like this before we get to far into this discussion and I don't know where to get them. Do you?

Dealing with statistics can be squirrelly. If the surveys were not measuring the same things in the same way among the same or similar populations, comparisons can quickly become meaningless. I would not trust most statistics collected before the 20th century, and I would be skeptical about a good number of those, especially from some parts of the world.

Also, is going back 200 years enough? If one wants statistics, one would be lucky to go back that far. Two centuries, however, is a drop in the bucket compared with the longevity of the human race. We have mentioned social trends evolving since pre-Judaeo-Christian times when both genders were acknowledged in the divine, and societies may even have been matriarchal. This is the time scale on which any true progress of humanity must be measured.

Prettybirds wrote:

I feel it is not just a mans problem but woman's as well. I have to wonder how much of a woman's natural tendency to be bossy is at the root of this. I've met women who are considered crones/wise old women. Not many of them are kind and most of them power trip quite well. I think that old beliefs mistakenly put women on a pedestal and that fact has cause massive amounts of insecurity within men. When a man feels insecure, whether he knows it for what it is or not, you get anger.

I honestly believe that at matriarchal times, it went to woman's head, ego kicked in, and here we are. If matriarchal times were as balanced as a lot of people wish to perceive it, well, we would still be living it. You should see her bristle when I say this... . I think we have been locked in this stalemate for too long.

Whatever the origin, it certainly now is women's problem as well as men's. We all must play the cards we are dealt. As for balance, I am not aware of any cultures which venerated goddesses, but not gods as well. We, however, have spent the last few millennia under the often oppressive influence of religious traditions that see only the male in deity, with a few limited exceptions like the Virgin Mary (who the Catholic Church insists was human, not divine), and the Jewish Shekhina principle.

Prettybirds wrote:

I try to look at men as father's when I am looking for deeper understanding. Not just fathers of children, but fathers of their ideals, dreams, and creations. Men had to cope with not being able to love a child like a mother could. 1000 of years a man wasn't able to do that...repression of a highest order, man, even 20 years ago the child would end up with a heroine addict mother over the stable father. Do you see how many good single father's there are out there now? I know of many. Man's oppression is just as great as ours, just, with men, predominantly you get anger, with women you get sadness. Although those feelings are interchangeable between the sexes...after all, we really aren't that different contrary to this current trend of thought.

One can equally say that a mother is not able to love a child as a father could. Mothers and fathers are different, first and foremost because they are different individuals. Mothers have the advantage of the biological involvement of pregnancy and nursing, but it is more one of quality (i.e. particular characteristics) than quantity or value.

Father and mother are also archetypes, and both men and women can exhibit the qualities of each. The very social mores you mention, those that repress or punish outward demonstrations of fatherly love in some situations, channel both genders into prescribed roles, regardless of their suitability to the individual. We can combat sexism, racism, ageism, discrimination based on handicap, religion, sexual orientation . . . the list goes on. Or, we can simply work on seeing each person as the individual they are, and kill all prejudicial birds with one stone.

Prettybirds wrote:

The competition is over who is more important to life on earth. The problem can be seen through 1000s of years of creating Gods and Goddess to battle our self imposed inequality.
We are not so different, this social need to have a huge chasm between the sexes is a response to an age old feeling of inferiority, on both parts. You can see the truth in this by watching, good single fathers.

From one extreme in matriarchal times to the other extreme in patriarchal times. You can see it plain as day in religion as it evolved over the centuries. The types and gender's of the many Gods and Goddess created over the years, in my opinion, mostly to allow an appeasing of a human feeling of insecurity, fear. About the opposite sex, the weather, animals, water....

Who is more important to life on earth? If we go by science fiction, the species can get by with only women and a decent sperm bank; or only men if they can come up with an artificial womb. All this misses the point, however. The human species has developed in such a way that a child has two parents, This has obvious benefits, genetic and otherwise, for the survival of the child and the species as a whole. This duality has also been reflected in our images of the divine, at least historically. Influenced by our humanity, these images can reflect our own foibles and shortcomings. The religious believer, however, can usually see beyond these to the divine they are meant to mirror.

Prettybirds wrote:

I have never viewed a woman's ability to bear children as a superior anything above man's ability to create with his hands. They are equal, beautiful and ultimately our balance if we would allow it.

Women's ability to bear children may not be superior to men's ability to create with their hands, but it is fundamentally different due to the prolonged, all-encompassing, and sometimes dangerous physical investment. Women can create with their hands, too, and this is what should be compared with men's similar creativity.

Romana wrote:

Prettybirds wrote:

How many people now, with today's populations, are living hungry as compared with 100 and 200 years ago. Not just world wide, because not all countries are equal in social standing, I would want it country by country, around the world.

I would want graphs of a definable poverty line over the last 200 years.

Graphs that display financial contributions to the poor for 200 years.

Statistics that show how many people now receive education compared over the 200 years.

Honestly, we should have stats like this before we get to far into this discussion and I don't know where to get them. Do you?

Dealing with statistics can be squirrelly. If the surveys were not measuring the same things in the same way among the same or similar populations, comparisons can quickly become meaningless. I would not trust most statistics collected before the 20th century, and I would be skeptical about a good number of those, especially from some parts of the world.

Also, is going back 200 years enough? If one wants statistics, one would be lucky to go back that far. Two centuries, however, is a drop in the bucket compared with the longevity of the human race. We have mentioned social trends evolving since pre-Judaeo-Christian times when both genders were acknowledged in the divine, and societies may even have been matriarchal. This is the time scale on which any true progress of humanity must be measured.

Hi Romana, yes statistics are squirrely, but they fascinate me anyway, always have. Yes, I am skeptical too, but at the same time they can still help to define at first a course of action, as long as a person is prepared to change the numbers or reasoning's as they go. They are not so far off in left field that they can't be called on ever to play center.

I would of loved it, to have had a unbiased, statistic minded compilation of continually evolving human behavior and mentality stretching over a couple 1000 years. But we don't, just little snippets here and
there.

Romana wrote:

Prettybirds wrote:

I feel it is not just a mans problem but woman's as well. I have to wonder how much of a woman's natural tendency to be bossy is at the root of this. I've met women who are considered crones/wise old women. Not many of them are kind and most of them power trip quite well. I think that old beliefs mistakenly put women on a pedestal and that fact has cause massive amounts of insecurity within men. When a man feels insecure, whether he knows it for what it is or not, you get anger.

I honestly believe that at matriarchal times, it went to woman's head, ego kicked in, and here we are. If matriarchal times were as balanced as a lot of people wish to perceive it, well, we would still be living it. You should see her bristle when I say this... . I think we have been locked in this stalemate for too long.

Whatever the origin, it certainly now is women's problem as well as men's. We all must play the cards we are dealt. As for balance, I am not aware of any cultures which venerated goddesses, but not gods as well. We, however, have spent the last few millennia under the often oppressive influence of religious traditions that see only the male in deity, with a few limited exceptions like the Virgin Mary (who the Catholic Church insists was human, not divine), and the Jewish Shekhina principle.

Yes, we have lived under this biased, politically motivated creation for a long time, the declining numbers of church patrons and labeled Christians shows how ready we are for something different.
And, regardless of origin, it is our problem now. It just freaks me out how many women are happy to regain some power at the expense of men. Have we not learned the lesson yet? So what, that men have done so themselves for a long time. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Prettybirds wrote:

I try to look at men as father's when I am looking for deeper understanding. Not just fathers of children, but fathers of their ideals, dreams, and creations. Men had to cope with not being able to love a child like a mother could. 1000 of years a man wasn't able to do that...repression of a highest order, man, even 20 years ago the child would end up with a heroine addict mother over the stable father. Do you see how many good single father's there are out there now? I know of many. Man's oppression is just as great as ours, just, with men, predominantly you get anger, with women you get sadness. Although those feelings are interchangeable between the sexes...after all, we really aren't that different contrary to this current trend of thought.

One can equally say that a mother is not able to love a child as a father could. Mothers and fathers are different, first and foremost because they are different individuals. Mothers have the advantage of the biological involvement of pregnancy and nursing, but it is more one of quality (i.e. particular characteristics) than quantity or value.

Father and mother are also archetypes, and both men and women can exhibit the qualities of each. The very social mores you mention, those that repress or punish outward demonstrations of fatherly love in some situations, channel both genders into prescribed roles, regardless of their suitability to the individual.

Ahhh, gender rolls, a topic for good debate. Where's the jam? I like strawberry...teehee.

We can combat sexism, racism, ageism, discrimination based on handicap, religion, sexual orientation . . . the list goes on. Or, we can simply work on seeing each person as the individual they are, and kill all prejudicial birds with one stone.

Prettybirds wrote:

The competition is over who is more important to life on earth. The problem can be seen through 1000s of years of creating Gods and Goddess to battle our self imposed inequality.
We are not so different, this social need to have a huge chasm between the sexes is a response to an age old feeling of inferiority, on both parts. You can see the truth in this by watching, good single fathers.

From one extreme in matriarchal times to the other extreme in patriarchal times. You can see it plain as day in religion as it evolved over the centuries. The types and gender's of the many Gods and Goddess created over the years, in my opinion, mostly to allow an appeasing of a human feeling of insecurity, fear. About the opposite sex, the weather, animals, water....

Who is more important to life on earth? If we go by science fiction, the species can get by with only women and a decent sperm bank; or only men if they can come up with an artificial womb. All this misses the point, however. The human species has developed in such a way that a child has two parents, This has obvious benefits, genetic and otherwise, for the survival of the child and the species as a whole. This duality has also been reflected in our images of the divine, at least historically. Influenced by our humanity, these images can reflect our own foibles and shortcomings. The religious believer, however, can usually see beyond these to the divine they are meant to mirror.

Well worded. Have you ever read the book " A Gate to Women's Country" ? I can't remember the author and I lent the book out and didn't get it back. I found it to be a good representation of what might happen if men and women continue to separate themselves socially and religiously. A good read all around.

Prettybirds wrote:

I have never viewed a woman's ability to bear children as a superior anything above man's ability to create with his hands. They are equal, beautiful and ultimately our balance if we would allow it.

Women's ability to bear children may not be superior to men's ability to create with their hands, but it is fundamentally different due to the prolonged, all-encompassing, and sometimes dangerous physical investment. Women can create with their hands, too, and this is what should be compared with men's similar creativity.

OK, I can deal with this. But, lets find something that we can both consider equal regarding a woman's child birthing and a man's capability.


Birds

Prettybirds wrote:

OK, I can deal with this. But, lets find something that we can both consider equal regarding a woman's child birthing and a man's capability.

Why? Because we want to find it? What if there is no direct analog? This is anathema to any kind of scientific inquiry process. We try to be objective and open-minded so we see what is really there, not what we would like to see.

Prettybirds wrote:

And, regardless of origin, it is our problem now. It just freaks me out how many women are happy to regain some power at the expense of men. Have we not learned the lesson yet? So what, that men have done so themselves for a long time. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Men are just as guilty as women in regarding power distribution as a zero-sum game. They are often ready to consider themselves "beaten" despite a woman's best attempts to engineer a win-win situation. They will play the sore loser while refusing to see that they really have not lost and may even have gained. The idea that if I win, you must lose (or the reverse) is much more a part of male culture (war, sports, even business) than female, at least nowadays.

Hi Romana, I guess I was just trying to rewrite a conversation I have had many times regarding the equality of men and women. I actually don't enjoy talks about this stuff so much. I am more interested in the charity and hunger problem in the world.
I do think there would be an analog to find. If I were going to really partake in a conversation about men and women, it would have to be very neutral and inspiring. The kind of conversation that is very hard to find.
Why is it anathema to a scientific process, you lost me here.

http://worldreports.org/news/262_clintbush_were_stealing_haitis_katrina_cash


I actually have personal experience with charity development and deconstruction. In my early 20's a small group of us developed a project called Feedback Canada. Very good concept, very successful in it's first year. The director decided that we needed to grow much faster than we were, signed up with Feed The Children in the US, for funding the reins were handed over, a board of directors formed with us at the head, then 6 months later fired us and buried the project. I should say, fired the director.

Birds

Prettybirds wrote:

lets find something that we can both consider equal regarding a woman's child birthing and a man's capability.

This is what you wrote in your earlier message. It assumes that there is a capability of men that is equivalent to women's capability to bear children. Can we assume this? What if there is no equivalent male capability? Will we create one to make it so? Will we deem as equivalent something that is fundamentally different? It is this idea of looking for what we want to find rather than looking for what is really there that is anathema to science.

Occasionally scientists do it, but then their credibility will suffer. The Soviet era biologist Trofim Lysenko was such a "scientist". He made assertions like: when several seeds are planted together, they will help each other grow. He wanted this to be so, in keeping with Soviet communist doctrine, but it is not so. He gained and kept status largely for political reasons, because he retained the good opinion of Stalin. After Stalin's death, he was finally discredited. All that is another soap opera, though.

Prettybirds wrote:

Hi Romana, I guess I was just trying to rewrite a conversation I have had many times regarding the equality of men and women. I actually don't enjoy talks about this stuff so much. I am more interested in the charity and hunger problem in the world. I do think there would be an analog to find. If I were going to really partake in a conversation about men and women, it would have to be very neutral and inspiring.

I am not sure such a discussion would ever truly be neutral, but it can certainly be rational and objective. Much counterproductive argument has been fueled by alarmist emotionalism. Much of my own opinion is based upon readings in subjects like archaeology, anthropology, and history of religion. One of my favorite books for background on this is Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade. Have you heard of it?

I agree that charity and hunger, as well as medical services and literacy are immediate and pressing problems that transcend such discussions. But they are related in the end as well. Many factors that make up quality of life are improved in situations where the education, social status, and economic independence of women is improved.

If all else fails Romana, we can always put sperm on the table.

I've been pulling stats that break down the 36 million struggling people in the US...homeless, poor wage, medical...

Way more productive

Yes, way more pressing. I took a precursery look at developing nations...thinking this is where the real trouble is, it is overwhelming. Also, thinking hard and heavy about a housing concept I saw tabled recently. I'll look for a link so you can see too.

Anyway, it is really stormy here and internet sucks lemons tonight. I'll try again tomorrow.

Thank-you for everything we talk about.

Feeling a little thick tonight

No I haven't heard of the book, I'll go looking and read it. Then we can talk about it. I wonder if it's at the library?

Hi Romana, ok so the penis comment wasn't relevant. I was heavy into another topic at the time I wrote it.

I am an evolutionist at heart. To me, it could of just as easily been the men giving birth instead of the women. It is who cares and protects the child that counts. On that front we are equal as far as I am concerned. I usually get rejected and or not asked back to conversations of this nature. I do not see history the way so many people wrote about it. I do not see the point in contemplating who is the more important, or special sex. I do not see the point in going back through history just to prove that penises are the cause of the woes of a ruined world.

If I were to spend any time contemplating the sexes it would be to spend time gathering all the good and great that both men and women have accomplished through the millennium. If simply just to have comments to defend myself against, mostly women, regarding the evils of men.

I hope we can get past this. I respect you and want to wraps heads with you around topics we both want to talk about. This is not one.

Naturally, instinctively, while women where nursing the baby, the man was out battling the elements, animals, other men, to protect us. Equal in value if you ask me, nothing sexist or wrong, in fact, I think quite right. As to the rest, the past is past. When I look out my door, I see a whole world of changing men and women, all trying to get out from under these antiquated structures created and upheld by both, silly old school men and subservient women. A system sadly out of date, and certainly created at a time in human evolution far enough along to probably be a reaction versus and base action. A reaction to what? I don't really care. I am more concerned with our future...

Birds

hi there, good morning to you when you wake up.

when i look at the sky it looks like we are one month back in a normal year's cycle.
like the earth has indeed tilted.

wow, Birds, you certainly know faith and how to maintain it in friends. even in very dark hours of despair i want you to know how grateful this keeps me, gratefulness as such not becoming an instrument of prostitution, as it seems to have been "organized" and instituted over time and in all cultures (those we "know").

Prettybirds wrote:

I am an evolutionist at heart. To me, it could of just as easily been the men giving birth instead of the women. It is who cares and protects the child that counts. On that front we are equal as far as I am concerned.

Well, if men gave birth, then they would be women. I am using the definition that whoever gives birth is called "woman". You are right about care and protection, though. Humanity has developed such that a child does best with the care and protection of both father and mother. Both are certainly equivalent in this respect.

Prettybirds wrote:

Naturally, instinctively, while women where nursing the baby, the man was out battling the elements, animals, other men, to protect us. Equal in value if you ask me, nothing sexist or wrong, in fact, I think quite right.

This is probably the closest equivalent to childbirth there is: the willingness of the father to protect mother and child with his very life. This is no longer as necessary in most parts of the world, but then again, maternal mortality rates are substantially improved as well. Our history, but not necessarily our future. I do not think our opinions are that far apart, We are perhaps simply viewing things from different perspectives.

lavender orchid wrote:

Romana wrote:

This is probably the closest equivalent to childbirth there is: the willingness of the father to protect mother and child with his very life.

Romana: do you think everyone can automatically read this correctly, or should i ask you to be more specific, if only giving a clue to your individual perspective here?
what are we? middle class? average?

In the context of the last few messages from Prettybirds and myself, I would expect my meaning to be clear. If it is not, it would help to know exactly what about it seems ambiguous or confusing. My individual perspective is to consider whether this particular capacity of men over historical time scales might be what Prettybirds was looking for in seeking an analog to childbirth.

lavender orchid wrote:

This is no longer as necessary in most parts of the world, but then again, maternal mortality rates are substantially improved as well.

again: kindly name the substance(s)!

There is no literal substance. "Substantially" is equivalent to "significantly".

lavender orchid wrote:

Our history, but not necessarily our future.

???? that we may know, but what about the scope of meaning?

Your question here escapes me. What may we know, and what meaning are you questioning the scope of?