But wouldn't that reveal itself differently through different women, where some would have full buy in to a progressive way of living and some being far more conservative? — Hanover

Cultures differ around the world, of course, but I think the feminine instinct, the maternal instinct, is universal.

For example, most mothers in all cultures would never protect a sexual predator. But yet, we see powerful women in the USA who not only excuse Trump’s crude and defiling remarks and behaviors directed at women, but continue to steadfastly support him despite the mention of his name thousands of times in the Epstein files.

Are they following their feminine/maternal instincts? Or are they more concerned with their own power, lining their pockets, and building their brands? What makes them use their platforms to add to the pain of female victims of sexual abuse?

I’m talking about women like Karoline Leavitt, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Megyn Kelly, Tulsi Gabbard, Maria Bartiroomo, Laura Ingraham

He looks worried. — Punshhh

He's not going to be able to outrun the questions forever

The exchange between CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins and Trump (video at the link) illustrates a couple of things about Trump – that he thinks the Epstein files only concern him - and that he’s a misogynist who feels a woman’s place is to just smile and not question him – and he even plays the “shame” card.

What a twisted mind he has

Collins noted that “a lot of women who are survivors of Epstein are unhappy with” the way the justice department redacted the documents, including, “entire witness interviews are totally blacked out”

Trump attempted to end the discussion: “I think it’s really time for the country to get on to something else … nothing came out about me … (there was) “a conspiracy against me”

Collins asked: “But what would you say to people who feel they haven’t gotten justice, Mr President?”

Trump then launched into a personal attack on Collins

“You know, you are the worst reporter,” Trump said. “You know, she’s a young woman,” Trump said to the Republican lawmakers arrayed around his desk. “I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile,” he said, turning back to Collins.

“I’ve known you for ten years. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smile on your face,” Trump said bitterly.

“Well,” Collins interjected, “I’m asking you about survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse, Mr President.”

Ignoring her reply, Trump continued, “You know why you’re not smiling? Because you know you’re not telling the truth. And you’re a very dishonest organization, and they should be ashamed of you.”

“These are survivors of a sexual abuser” Collins replied.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUUKJxejbFq/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

I don't know about you guys, but the more I read the more I realize the US is f*cked.

Now he wants to take over elections? What could go wrong?

In your rush to be domineering, you seem to be rebutting things that I never said, or intended to intimate. I in no way mean to disparage or diminish the role of motherhood. Quite the contrary. I began this thread with how important my mother is to me. What I think you have failed to understand is that one of my main points is that we need more of the feminine, nurturing, maternal instinct in our society. If we want a fair and just society, we need more of that.

There are several misunderstandings in your reply, and I am not inclined to answer each one specifically.

And you continue to post condescending, lecturing attacks.

You remind me of the way MAGA treats Greta Thunberg. They tear her apart. Your reaction to me, and their reaction to her, is telling. In New York in 2019, Greta said -

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

It's not her words, but what they represent - an idealist expressing her truth - that I want to point out.

But MAGAts denigrate and mock her. They follow the lead of Trump – and his condescending, sexist remarks – (There, there, be a good little girl) - like when he posted -

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

Again, it's not the words, but the attitude.

his complaints about the reservation were that the soldiers wouldn't let the Apache men beat their wives or cut off their noses. — Ecurb

Yeah, and a killed woman's murderer in our society is most likely to be her intimate partner. Marital violence was legal up to a generation or two ago. And there's that history of burning witches.

The question becomes - "How does the society treat women as a whole?"

Here's the truth about the Apache nation -

Apache women were the pillars of the tribe. They maintained and passed down the Apache culture, traditions, and history to the next generation and in addition to being the teachers they also built the houses, made the clothing from hides, gathered and stored food for the winter using baskets which they made and raised crops if they had a camp which they were staying in for a long period of time.

They were also the healers who prepared the many herbal treatments and of course bore and raised the children. In Apache culture they also had the choice of becoming a warrior and fighting alongside the men if they chose.

maybe this time there’ll be progress. :cheer: — Mikie

I appreciate the encouragement. Thanks so much. :)

should reeducate those women — AmadeusD

Maybe it is more about re-educating society, especially men.

Women are not monolithic — AmadeusD

No, but they are human with the usual human drives for self-autonomy.

you're trying to enforce a view and set of beliefs about women. — AmadeusD

No, just looking at the history.

The narrative most influencing the bent of the Western world for the last thousand years is tipped toward the masculine, rather than the feminine. The feminine has been suppressed. Reclaiming the balance between the masculine and feminine qualities (that characterizes the ancient wisdom) shifts us out of the patriarchy, to a more truly “free and equal” society.

A just society depends on having the voices of the maternal wisdom heard. This requires that women reclaim their voices, and that men listen.

The Bible (men) rewrote the feminine story. “The Word” cast women as untrustworthy seducers to be ruled. They must be quiet and obedient. All that is instinctual and wild became evil, and must be tamed, cursed and shunned. Guilt, shame and fear became tools of control. The ancient wisdom was lost; the heart of the feminine was lost.

(Side note – MAGA women are starting to realize they are surrounded by misogynists. As Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “They want women just to go along with whatever they’re doing and basically to stand there, smile and clap with approval, whereas they just have their good old boys club.

Republican women are especially aggrieved by Speaker Johnson. Some said he’d failed to listen to them or engage in direct conversations on major political and policy issues - a cultural challenge for Mr. Johnson, an evangelical Christian who has often voiced firm views about the distinct roles men and women should play in society.)

An ancient myth – The Maidens of the Well – (first written in the 13th century, but rooted in ancient Celtic folklore) foretells what happens when the Voices of the Well - representatives of the Goddess of sovereignty – the bearers of the cup of wisdom - are silenced. The Wasteland ensues.

Here’s the story -

The Maidens of the Wells

The kingdom went to ruin,
The land was so dead and desolate
That it wasn’t worth two bits;
They lost the voices of the wells
And the maidens who dwelled in them.
Indeed, the maidens served a very important purpose:
No one who wandered the highways,
Whether at night or in the morning,
Ever needed to alter his route
In order to find food or drink;
He had only go to one of the wells.
He could ask for nothing
In the way of fine and pleasing food
That he would not have forthwith,
Provided he asked reasonably.
At once a damsel would come forth
From the well, as I understand:
Travelers could not have asked for one more beautiful!
In her hand she’d be bearing a golden cup
With bacon, meat pies, and bread.
Another maiden would come carrying
A white towel and a gold and silver
Platter, in which was
The food that had been requested
By the man who’d come to be fed.
He was warmly received at the well;
And if this food did not please him,
She would bring a number of others,
Joyfully and generously,
According to his desires.
One and all, the maidens
Happily and properly served
All those who wandered the highways
And came to the wells for food.

King Amangon was the first to violate their hospitality:
He behaved wickedly and underhandedly;
Afterwards many others did likewise
Because of the example given
By the king who should have protected the maidens
And guarded and kept them safe.
He forced himself upon one of the maidens
And deflowered her against her will
And took the golden bowl from her
And carried it off along with the girl,
Then had her serve him ever afterwards.
Ill luck was to come of it,
For no maiden served again
Or came forth from that well
To help any man who happened by
And requested sustenance there;
And all other [travelers] followed [the king’s example].
God! Why didn’t the other vassals
Act according to their honor?
When they saw that their lord
Was raping the maidens
Because of their beauty,
They likewise raped them
and carried off the golden bowls.
Never afterwards did any maiden serve
Or come forth from any of the wells;
Know that this is the truth.
My lords, in this way
The land went into decline
And the king who had so wronged them
And those who’d followed his example
All met a dreadful end.
The land was so wasted
That no tree ever bloomed there again,
The grasses and flowers withered,
And the streams dried up.
Afterwards no one could locate
The court of the Rich Fisher,
Which had made the land resplendent
With gold and silver, splendid furs,
Precious brocaded silks,
Fine foodstuffs and cloth,
Gerfalcons and merlins,
Goshawks, sparrowhawks, and falcons.
In earlier days, when the court could be found,
There was throughout the land
Such an abundance of riches,
Of all those I’ve named here,
That everyone, rich or poor,
Was awestruck at the wealth.
But now it has lost everything.

We often find that Indigenous cultures retain the ancient wisdom, as exemplified by this quote by Nahko Bear, speaking about Winona LaDuke and Indigenous women leaders at Standing Rock –

“One of the most beautiful things I feel right now, is that you see these amazing, empowered women who are stepping up and really reminding us young men, and men in general, that our role is to let the women lead, and yet, we’re their protectors and we stand side-by-side, but the women are supposed to lead with their hearts.”

Ah okay! Well that’s certainly true as well. — Mikie

Lol, I mean, with reference to my OP

It's no secret that women have been molded for centuries by men, and there is a movement afoot to turn back the clock. My concern is not the men who feel so threatened by this, but the women who will deny their inner knowing to go along with the flow.

Well you’re far more patient than me then. — Mikie

I was referring to women :)

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a firm believer that we have deeper natures that need exploring, and understanding.

I think you may have a very hard time learning things. — AmadeusD

Oh gosh, learning defines me.

I was the one who presented a new perspective to you, and you dismissed it out of hand.

Thanks for your response.

And yes, you do lecture.

Why do some men need to consider themselves as inherently superior?

The way that Christian nationalists attack progressive women is a case in point.

"White liberal women are a cancer on the nation.” - right-wing comedian Vincent Oshana wrote on X.

The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution "has been a moral and political tragedy for America," firebrand pastor Dale Partridge said in a video last month.

"Why? Women were not made to lead, but to follow and to feel."

Straight out of the Bible shit.

And conservative women, wanting to get in good with the guys, join in. Katie Miller - wife of Stephen Miller - posted on X - "Conservative women are just hotter than Liberal women."

If we go back over a thousand years, we’ll find a lot of societies in which women enjoyed independence and self-autonomy. But then, Christianity – and the Bible - forced them into an oppressed role.

Many read the Book of Genesis as the ascension of consciousness. But the thing is, this consciousness was only reserved for men. The Book of Genesis produced different outcomes for men and women. It was read quite literally when it came to the role of women in the fall. Eve led Adam astray. She is the cause of the fall of the human race. She destroyed God’s image.

This fed centuries of misogynistic interpretations. Eve represents the evil that is inherent in all women. This paradigm spread through the western world: subordinate and inferior, women are by nature disobedient, weak-willed, untrustworthy, deceitful, seductive and motivated only by self-interest.

1 Timothy 2:12-14
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

1 Corinthians 11:3 spells out the hierarchy explicitly.
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Thomas Aquinas, influential in the early Christian church, furthered the reduced status of women. In the 13th century, he wrote that women are inferior to men in not just strength but intellect. They are born female because of some defect in the active force or maternal disposition and are important not for any inherent value or virtue, but only for their ability to reproduce.

Women were put into a box as defective adjuncts of men. Their only holy role could be in marriage and reproduction. It formed a culture of oppression. It diminished their contributions. It justified the witch trials, as an instance. The Book of Genesis is a man’s story. It did not serve women well.

We've come a long way, but these ancient tenets of female oppression are not completely erased yet.

We need all women to reclaim their feminine instincts, to find their true home.

Don't approach communities by engaging their critics. That is absurd. Engage communities by engaging its members and its actual activities. — AmadeusD

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you?

I read a variety of things and make up my own mind.

are somehow subverting their rights and what not. — AmadeusD

I didn't mention rights, but rather instincts. I am a typical woman, and I believe the vast majority of women have the same instincts as me. But they may have a different psychology - for example needing the acceptance of a domineering man, or a domineering group - and in acquiescence, they obey.

who are certainly not oppressed in any sensible way - unless, of course, your bent is to assume that any one who submits even a smidgen of anything to anyone else must be a child incapable of taking care of herself against the big bad mean men — AmadeusD

You're twisting things. And showing that you do not understand where I am coming from.

Having said that, I will affirm that in any partnership, there should not be one who dominates, and one who submits. Submission requires a surrender of a part of you.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that the vast majority of mothers dealing with real-world problems have no time for. — AmadeusD

Any woman who has no connection to the knowing of her soul would be a sad, sad creature.

unhelpful rhetorics floating about convincing young women we're living in the middle ages and we can create our living myths around our children. It's self and dumb. — AmadeusD

You totally don't get it.

The OP presents as a severe case of overthinking.

Most people understand the Golden Rule means to treat others well, and fairly.

It presumes that most people want to be treated well, and fairly.

"Treat others as you would want to be treated."

Fueling the idea that House Trump is going to retire to Sochi with an "Adios, suckers": — jorndoe

New reporting from the New Yorker sets the profiteering by Trump and his family at over $4 billion

Have you been leafing through those files? — Punshhh

No, I just Googled images

the hottest First Lady ever — Mikie

I have just now become aware of a book by Elinor Cleghorn -

A Woman's Work: Reclaiming the Radical History of Mothering

Here's the blurb on Amazon -

Mothers make history. But what it has meant for mothers to do the physical and emotional work of mothering has, for centuries, been neglected in the stories of the past. Patriarchal control of motherhood has relegated the acts of growing, birthing, nurturing, and loving to the sidelines, and deemed it unimportant, women's work. Now, through the voices of women themselves, Elinor Cleghorn reclaims and retells the history of motherhood, showcasing the mothers, othermothers, midwives, activists, community leaders, and more who have shaped the course of history.

Beginning in the ancient world, we encounter a figurine made for a childbirth ritual over three thousand years ago. We meet extraordinary writers and poets, like Anne Bradstreet and Elizabeth Jocelin, who were expressing their innermost feelings about motherhood. During the seventeenth century, in the streets of London, we encounter unmarried mothers struggling against stigma and shame, and the women who strove to help them. Later, pioneers like Mary Wollstonecraft laid the intellectual foundation for the liberation of motherhood from male control, and the abhorrent treatment of enslaved mothers was brought to public attention by courageous activists like Sojourner Truth. These and many other brave characters lobbied for mothers of all classes and circumstances to be valued, respected, and supported--not as reproductive vessels, but as people.

Honestly, I can't think there is anything interesting about her that would make me want to watch a movie about her.

AI is excellent for research, but the information should always be verified.

And when we do give over our thinking to AI, yes, thinking atrophies in us

Also, I mentioned those abilities are uniquely human - including creating art. Art by its very definition is a human capacity - it can only be produced by human feeling.

But they will be, for humans in history, sentient because most of us will ignore this deficiency and believe they are sentient. — ENOAH

I'm not sure that believing something makes it true

Don't you think the same can be said of the human creative process? The data has been input and we rewrite it. — ENOAH

No, not exactly. We are able to take unrelated thoughts, bits of knowledge, memories, ideas, sparks of inspiration, and combine them (often with a dash of intuition, and an incubation period) into something new, something original.

Einstein called this "combinatory play" and he said it was the essential feature in productive thought.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/08/14/how-einstein-thought-combinatorial-creativity/

I can't disagree with anything you've so eloquently said. I will add to that, though, that there are a lot of very good people in the US, and the future of the country is going to depend on them to continue to make their voices heard.

Right now, it appears that the leader best poised to steer the US out of the dark time they find themselves in right now is Gavin Newsom

God didn’t save his life so he could make mistakes. He knows what he is doing. — Questioner

“I cannot be mistaken - what I say and do is historical.”

~ Hitler

“Il Duce ha sempre ragione.” (The leader is always right).

~ Mussolini

The key word is 'participates'. It correlates with various functions. — EnPassant

If you do not accept that structure produces function, then please provide an alternative hypothesis

More classic fascism from Trump –

Below is a link to a video Trump posted on his social media a couple of days ago. After a minute or so of propaganda, the main message is spoken – (which seems to be that Trump doesn’t make mistakes, and how dare you question him) –

Word for word from the video -

“This is what you voted for, so why are you questioning every decision he makes? God didn’t save his life so he could make mistakes. He knows what he is doing. Maybe it’s time to shut the fuck up and let him cook.”

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115976094211574919

am saying that science has not shown that emotions originate in the brain. — EnPassant

The text below is copied from Understanding Emotions: Origins and Roles of the Amygdala -

Emotions arise from activations of specialized neuronal populations in several parts of the cerebral cortex, notably the anterior cingulate, insula, ventromedial prefrontal, and subcortical structures, such as the amygdala, ventral striatum, putamen, caudate nucleus, and ventral tegmental area. Feelings are conscious, emotional experiences of these activations that contribute to neuronal networks mediating thoughts, language, and behavior, thus enhancing the ability to predict, learn, and reappraise stimuli and situations in the environment based on previous experiences. Contemporary theories of emotion converge around the key role of the amygdala as the central subcortical emotional brain structure that constantly evaluates and integrates a variety of sensory information from the surroundings and assigns them appropriate values of emotional dimensions, such as valence, intensity, and approachability. The amygdala participates in the regulation of autonomic and endocrine functions, decision-making and adaptations of instinctive and motivational behaviors to changes in the environment through implicit associative learning, changes in short- and long-term synaptic plasticity, and activation of the fight-or-flight response via efferent projections from its central nucleus to cortical and subcortical structures.

Of course it is our brain that makes our decisions.

I really like Jonathan's analogy of the elephant and rider - a way to understand human behavior - our emotional/intuitive side is the elephant, and our rational side is the rider of the elephant - the rider can see the path ahead, and steers - but the elephant is much bigger and sometimes it determines the direction.

if alive today would rightly be accused of speaking in denial. — Alexander Hine

Denial of what? That computers don't ask questions? The fact is that they do have to be given prompts

qualities of creative — Alexander Hine

No, computers do not create in the way human brains do

When it can write lyrics, poetry and prose in an original and compelling style cognisant of all established forms. — Alexander Hine

AI plagiarizes from the expansive data it has been trained on

This is an extremely weird thing to claim. Evolution doesn't have stop-gaps. Organs which develop do so along evolutionary lines, and there isn't a valid way to claim what she is claiming. Its romantic language dressed up to be scientific. — AmadeusD

Are you arguing against genetic variability in humans? There are a lot of adaptations seen in some, but not all, humans. It is not about introducing “stop-gap” measures, but recognizing that evolution is an ongoing process, and humans do not pose the exception. There exist a lot of mutational variants!

The eight billion or so brains on the planet are not genetically identical. They differ most obviously in cognitive style, and also in forming their moral domain. We all believe we are “righteous” – but there exists variation in how we approach questions of care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation – as Jonathan Haidt explores in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Worth noting is that environmental factors also influence brain development -

Under typical conditions, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) connections with the amygdala are immature during childhood and become adult-like during adolescence.

… findings suggest that accelerated amygdala–mPFC development is an ontogenetic adaptation in response to early adversity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3785723/

I think there's a bit of a tendency to romanticize past cultures coming into play here, resulting in ambiguous, scientifically unsound claims being made. But those societies lack in many ways and are not apt comparisons to multicultural, billion-person societies aimed at exploration, scientific understanding and technological advancement. — AmadeusD

I don't think it is romanticizing at all, but an investigation to better understand who we are as a species when the unnatural environment we live in has been peeled away.

This post contains all of the English concepts she's saying we don't have. Weird. — AmadeusD

I probably didn't do a good job of relating her main point of her article - that when answering the question - "What is love for?'"- society is strengthened when we come up with a more communal than individual response.

She has written a few other articles about the amygdala (the region of emotion in the brain), including with reference to its being in a transitory state of evolution - connections between it and the analytical frontal lobes are not at the same stage of evolution in all humans.

Nevertheless - I think it is a valid observation that love is not approached by all cultures/traditions in the same way. For example, indigenous traditions tend to prioritize the communal over the individual.

How do you know love and hate are biological realities? — EnPassant

I proceed from the position that emotions are produced by neurological functions

Because scientists say so? — EnPassant

Scientists don't just "say things." They make conclusions based on experimental results.

I don't think these emotions exist 'in' the brain. — EnPassant

Then what is your alternative hypothesis?

Mob protest is as old as the Republic. USA wouldn't exist as a country without it.

See the Sons of Liberty

What one needs to delineate is this: Who is on the side of respecting human rights?

but like all saints of the Anti-Trump Movement, — NOS4A2

God, you missed the point. I think "willful ignorance" best captures it

an organized and mentally ill cult of goons — NOS4A2

You can't be taken seriously when you post this kind of unfounded slander

In my inbox this morning, an interesting article about love from Elizabeth Halligan -

Halligan observes how in the English language there is only one word for “love” – (she describes it as the “poverty of English”) - but other languages have several words representing different roles for love.

For example, if we look at the Greek tradition –

Érōs — Fiery passion. Romance. Desire.
• Healthy: vitality, creativity, intimacy
• Unhealthy: obsession, possession, addiction
Storgē — Family love. The bond between parent and child. Kinship.
• Healthy: care, belonging, protection
• Unhealthy: clannishness, nepotism, enabling harm to protect “our own”
Philía — Friendship. Loyalty. Brotherhood. The love of shared values and mutual respect.
• Healthy: solidarity, comradeship, the glue that holds communities together
• Unhealthy: tribalism, exclusion, us-versus-them
Agápē — Unconditional love. Universal. The love that extends to all beings simply because they exist.
• Healthy: compassion, altruism, collective care, empathy
• Unhealthy: martyrdom, self-erasure, the inability to set boundaries
Philautía — self-love.
• Healthy: Self-respect, wholeness, the foundation from which we can love others
• Unhealthy: narcissism, ego-inflation, vanity
Xenía — Love of the stranger. The sacred duty of hospitality.
• Healthy: reciprocity, protection, honoring the outsider
• Unhealthy: blind trust without discernment — or its shadow, xenophobia

Halligan goes on to say –

When a culture collapses all love into érōs, it reflects a collective psyche still ruled by fear and possession.

This is the amygdala in charge. Everything reduced to “mine” or “threat”. Love becomes acquisition, care becomes control, and connection is based on transaction…

Without words for these loves, we struggle to practice them.

In conclusion, she states that we need a new world built with love as structure, not just sentiment -

• Philía in teams and organizations, where loyalty is not weakness but the foundation of trust.
• Agápē in policy and governance, where the measure of success is collective flourishing, and not the GDP of “human capital”.
• Xenía in how we treat the displaced, the different, the stranger at the gate, because borders are constructs that only exist in the mind.
• Philautía as the foundational love of self, because we cannot pour from an empty cup, and self-respect is not selfishness.
• Storgē remembered as strength, not softness — the love that gets up in the night, that sacrifices without scorekeeping, that builds the future of human flourishing, because we are one family.

But I could fill a book with cultish behavior of MAGA — Questioner

Just checked - there have been a couple of books written about it -

Cult OF MAGA: How Trump turned apathy into idolatry through white hot populism, tepid placations and stone cold lies.

The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control

Yes. Are you aware that I'm describing you also? — Tzeentch

Don't make the mistake of thinking you know me. You don't know me at all.

But I could fill a book with cultish behavior of MAGA

I don't think MAGA is evil - just manipulated

In your local neighbourhood -

The NYT image below shows federal agents - armed with battlefield technology and weapons – suppressor (silencer), MAWL, M-LOK, Magwell, dump pouch – on a doorstep in Minneapolis.



They entered the house, violating the Fourth Amendment. Her husband was arrested and ordered released four days later

Watch the brief video here for more details

some form of tribal ritual. You shouldn't expect anything constructive from people who are at the height of religious ecstasy. — Tzeentch

You know you're describing MAGA, right?