The difference between men and women

poyi

Premium Member
I am certain that there is an element of lack of power when women in general being treated less than the male gender from child birth in certain society. Often girls don't think they have the power to protect themselves at time. A group of 93 schools girls with 3 female teachers were molested and harrassed by a few men on a district train for 4 hrs, (they haven't released all the details, only happened earlier today in Indian time on 25th November.

I had interacted and working with many India/Sari Lanka/Middle born nurses/doctors/patients. They told me little stories that some of them had to speak in very quite volume with a fear in their tone of even speaking about it sometime and none of them wanted to go back and none of time feeling save to have their daughters growing up in India. If I was on the train, I would work out a plan to fight back cause I believe that I have the power to. I don't blindly encourage Feminism but I do truly value their help over the decades of cultural revolution.

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/BI...-more-than-four-hours-on-gan-4444585-PHO.html
 

poyi

Premium Member
Equality in education for women and men can change a lot. In some societies, are still on working progress. A good example of Rebellion non-traditionalist. It all started when defied her father. Interesting life indeed. Again I am not into feminism but truly believed in equality between genders particularly both education opportunity and career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini

1457747_651704854852754_1303141431_n.jpg
 

rahu

Banned
my comment is not astrological, but anthropological. as the thread is asking about the difference between men and women, women are 600,000 years more advance evolutionary than men as is shown by their high foreheads, less body hair and more evolved immune systems .
i always wondered what woment did for 600,000 years with out men:biggrin:
maybe women were parthenogenic at one time:biggrin:

rahu
 

poyi

Premium Member
my comment is not astrological, but anthropological. as the thread is asking about the difference between men and women, women are 600,000 years more advance evolutionary than men as is shown by their high foreheads, less body hair and more evolved immune systems .
i always wondered what woment did for 600,000 years with out men:biggrin:
maybe women were parthenogenic at one time:biggrin:

rahu

You are very funny on this one. But the body hair bit is not true ahahahahhahaahahahaha I have seen a lot of African women and Indian women with lot of body hairs some are on the chest, yep no joke, on the chest....
 

rahu

Banned
yes specific exceptions actually prove the rule. overall women have less body hair. the higher forehead is a signature indice of evolutionary advancement among hominids.

rahu
 

poyi

Premium Member
Agreed.

The occult world is definitely better now that women are free to study these things as well. In general women tend to be more talented with most forms of divination (including astrology) and magic as well.

Maybe is the Yin or Moon energy? Not sure. Most psychic are female that is true so as the Witches ahahahhaa:w00t:
 

poyi

Premium Member
yes specific exceptions actually prove the rule. overall women have less body hair. the higher forehead is a signature indice of evolutionary advancement among hominids.

rahu

I have always find my large/high forehead making me not as cute/girly. I always have fringe to cover it up partially. Forehead strangely even as the same in medical astrology both in Eastern and Western occult/astrology as well as in medicine, your forehead is your Jupiter, your high mind, moral and cognitive functions.
 

poyi

Premium Member
I have the typical Aries large forehead.

And yeah its the lunar influence and venus to a lesser extent as well. Generally makes women better able to recieve info and energies from outside forces.

Hmmm. I have Mars in Virgo 1st house, Virgo is also co-ruler of Live with Jupiter. Aries is always about the head. My boyfriend is Aries Sun 1st house and Aries ascendant, yes very beautiful forehand but he also have Jupiter in Cancer trine ascendant and Mars and Mercury at Ascendant.

Good I have Moon trine Venus.
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
Oh for Heaven's Sake! How ridiculous!

I just think some very inferior types of men just want any excuse to control and dominate again and do their best to find plausible reasons.

Families remain, mothers and fathers still love their children, its just that women now are able to think for themselves and point out all the miseries and cruelties they have gone through for eons because they had no freedom or personal power and are making sure this kind of behaviour changes.

If this kind of society is now unstable - hooray! It is time we made a world where all children are accepted, not just those who are born inside a marriage or those who are rich or white ..etc. A world where women have autonomy, dignity, health, are able to accept their bodies without shame and are able to use their own intelligence ... and above all, are able to protect themselves from the violence of men.

These videos and the appalling ones that are also available through that link just show the desire to imprison and control is still rife and any excuse will do.

Alice
 
Last edited:

junoisuppose

Well-known member
I'm getting quite confused reading this thread what it is exactly that people are fighting about (aside from the fact that it's hard to hear tone of voice on the internet and people have to make their replies more brief than they would face to face, and if someone disagrees with your comment then there is a tendency to take it as a personal attack).

I think it might help to clarify what people actually mean by 'feminism'. Perhaps you don't really disagree all that much. I took 1 term of feminist theory in university (not enough to make me an expert I know) and we covered 3 approaches - 1. treat everyone the same, 2. men and women are different so they should be treated differently, 3. men and women have some incontrovertible differences so they should be treated the same generally but treated differently in respect to the ways in which they are different. Since treating everyone the same in all ways did lead to unfairness in some cases where the differences between the genders were relevant the third approach seemed to be the most sensible.

The first post in this thread seemed to be saying that there are differences between men and women.

Almost nobody disputes that fact, but when you confuse that with the general term 'feminism' which can mean so many different things to different people then we might have unnecessary arguments.

By the way I generally tend towards socialism in moderation, so don't have anything against it on those grounds, although I am grateful that I was brought up in a family where my mother stayed at home to look after me. However it did create difficulties for my mum in that my dad thought that because he earned the money he had the right to make all the decisions and although my mum wasn't happy with that she didn't have enough money to leave him, at least not until she inherited money. And, if it's relevant, I have Pallas in Gemini too, conjunct the MC. If the MC is the mother as some people believe maybe it is referring to the fact that my mum worked and had a career before she got married.

Also regarding the earlier comment about women not being feminine and wearing baggy clothing, and also Poyi"s experiences in the UK - I live in the UK & I deliberately wear trousers and loose fitting clothes precisely because of the harassment I got on the streets when wearing skirts (knee length, with tights, part of a suit, nothing too revealing, & that was harassment from young british men, not arabs) and it's a lot less hassle not to be overtly identified as 'female'. Just my current opinion, I might change it one day or I might not be so concerned when I get older, but then again I quite like the comfort of not having cold legs.
 

junoisuppose

Well-known member
I also was not impressed by the comments & attitude on that youtube video.

Also one vaguely relevant astrological point. In Liz Greene's book 'Saturn, A New Look At An Old Devil' she suggests that both militant feminists and chauvinists have saturn conjunct or in hard aspect to venus, and that they deny the natural expression of venus because it is painful for them.

I'm not sure I altogether agree with her assessment, for me feminism is more about women being treated as being of equal worth, more of an 11th house/uranus issue, but I do have venus conjunct saturn and venus square uranus...
 

Jesse Booth

Well-known member
I like the way you think about this issue, junoisuppose. However, far too many of the feminists I have met are more obsessed with revenge. I sometimes get tired of having "NO MEANS NO!" shouted at me. It doesn't matter how many times I try to tell this kind of feminist that I not only am not a rapist, but have no intention of being one. That is a minor detail to them and their corrupt cacophony of what used to be an ideology. They have created an impenetrable wall of outrage around themselves, and are now immune to my reason and logic. Sometimes it gets hard for me to tell the difference between them and the chauvinists. Like most great political/social movements, the filth of intolerance has slowly wormed its way into the core of modern feminism. I'm not saying that all feminists are militant; I actually think the opposite of that. I just think that a few shrill lunatics have started to shriek louder than all the reasonable people.
 

LeoJeo

Well-known member
In regards to economic and social systems communism beats out capitalism by miles. But 95% of the people on this forum are ignorant as to what communism actually means and entails and will thus spout whatever it is they were taught by their parents/government/teachers/etc.

It really is a shame how ignorant most people are when it comes to these things just as most people in the world are ignorant to astrology. And make no mistake, most of what people say about communism is ignorance and nothing more. You can tie yourself to your opinion all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it is a classless, moneyless, stateless society in which the means of production are commonly owned with distribution based on need and social relations based on free association. That is what it is. It is not the evil boogeyman ignorant folk would have you believe, but then again most of your opinions are not yours anyways. They were put upon you by others. Do your own research about what it is and what it entails. Ignorance can only be truly defeated by the self, if the self is willing and able to do so.

But Capitalism is here to stay until the massive inequality reaches a boiling point so in the mean time I'm going to keep busy trying to get rich so I can live a good life and help others live one as well xD

In regards to men and women however, I do agree that they are different and that their differences should be celebrated more than hated. There are two sexes for biological reasons as well as spiritual. Equal does not have to mean the same, and as was already pointed out in this thread, both sexes have different strengths and weaknesses. Again, this should be celebrated.
 
Last edited:

junoisuppose

Well-known member
In principle I agree with it, I think women should have the right to vote, to work, equal rights, right to choose, etc. My biggest issue with it is why it was introduced. It was introduced so the government could tax twice as many ppl and so wages could be dropped, forcing both parents to work. This has destroyed the modern family, as now children are raised by the media and the government institutions.

I'm not altogether convinced by the idea that women in the workforce means lower wages, and after a brief search of google I can't find any evidence that anyone has published about this. It's a question of supply and demand, and I'm not an economist so I'm not certain how this issue has worked itself out, initially it might seem that since there are now more workers employers can attract people with lower salaries, but the fact that women are working creates a demand for other things - office clothing for example, or childcare, or things to do with transporting children to childcare, creating new industries in which people can be employed. Also if wages are going down then even if twice as many people are subject to tax the overall amount that the government will be able to take will not be very much greater, they might be able to jiggle the figures a bit, with graded tax bands rather than a flat rate, but I doubt if it would make much difference. I only know about UK tax laws, but in fact taking those as an example the overall tax revenue is lower than it would be if people only had well paid jobs since we have a minimum amount that people can earn without being taxed, you are only taxed on the portion of your income that exceeds that threshold, if wages were higher a greater proportion would be taken in tax.

It is possible that by encouraging women to work employers can pay their male employees less since men with partners are more willing to take lower paid jobs knowing that their partner will be able to find a job and help out financially. But again it's supply and demand, if women refuse to go out to work, and choose to stay at home to look after children rather than pay for childcare then ultimately employers will be forced to pay more in order to attract the partnered male workers. But I haven't seen any concrete evidence regarding this and until I do I'm going to be suspecting that it is scaremongering.

Personally I wouldn't say that families have been 'destroyed' by women's liberation. It's true that there are more divorced or unmarried families, and more women contemplating leaving their men now that they can work and support themselves, perhaps also more men leaving now it is more acceptable to do so, whereas in the past women would have been forced to stay in unhappy and abusive marriages, but I'm not really sure that the previous situation was 'better'.

I understand your skepticism about children being raised by government institutions, there is the potential for government control there, but the people working in those institutions are individuals, most of whom are trying to do the best they can for the children in their care, not just brainwash them. Government control in itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, there is the potential for raising educational standards, to a much higher level than they might be if children were only looked after by their immediate family, there is greater transparency about what goes on than there is in families, and there is just as much potential for people to be brainwashed into crazy ideologies by their families whereas they are exposed to a much greater cross-section of society in schools and clubs. & the media can be manipulative and skewed, but it can also be educational, teaching us about things beyond our immediate horizons and children's TV can be innovative utilising the latest educational practices from all around the world. Plus when the mothers are working they are in contact with a greater number of people and ideas, broadening their horizons and what they can teach their children. Of course there are the downsides such as not being there for their children as much and not being there to look after them when they are sick, but having mothers that work does bring benefits aside from extra money. Both ways of raising a family have their advantages and disadvantages, and people's circumstances will vary, but perhaps it is a question of which people prefer and which suits their own temperament better. To bring it back to astrology, perhaps people with a lot of air in their chart will prefer to be out in the world mixing with people and learning new ideas and people with a lot of water will prefer a more nurturing style, people with a lot of fire would prefer to be active, and people with a lot of earth would like there to be a focus on stability and finances, and people who live in countries where all those different choices are possible are very fortunate.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Ram, my better judgment says not to engage in these silly debates, but sometimes my poor judgment takes over.

1. Women comprise around 51% of the world's population. We cannot expect all of them to think alike merely because they are women, any more then you expect all men to think alike. Sarah Palin is not Gloria Steinem so far as their beliefs are concerned.

2. How many people here lived through the "second wave" of feminism in the 1970s? I came of age during this period, and find some of the misrepresentations of that period to betray the truth. It was not introduced so that "the government could tax more people." It was introduced because smart women were sick and tired of the legalized discrimination they faced in education, careers, banking, and family law. In my home state, I recall highly resistant legislators arguing that "women's place was in the kitchen", that it was fine for married women to be unable to get credit in their own names, that the only grounds for divorce were abandonment or adultery (never mind if the alcoholic husband routinely beat the tar out of his wife,) and that government jobs themselves could be closed to women due to the Old Boys' network.

3. There was a huge debate ca. 1970 over whether women entering the workforce in larger numbers would take jobs away from men. This didn't happen. The economy is not a finite pie: expand the economy and you need more workers. Real simple. Women with more disposable income than they had as financial dependents contributed to this overall growth. Trace the unemployment percentages in the US over time to get the picture. Back in 1970, Sarah Palin would have been told to stay home and raise her kids. Palin's unwed teen daughter would have had to give her baby up for adoption, not be celebrated in the national spotlight.

Until the Great Recession instigated by the Bush administration, wages were rising in the US; which does not necessarily mean they have kept pace with costs of living (for which feminists are not responsible: think health care or energy.)

3. I have never met a child raised "by a government institution" in North America, unless you mean public schools and programs like Head Start. I suppose teaching kids to read is a bad thing, by this calculus.....

4. How many feminists do you know personally??? I don't think, very many. Feminists do not want more rights than men: they want parity. The reason why more women then men get custody is because (a) oftentimes Dad does not want to raise the children, or (b) very young children generally do better with their mothers, according to child psychology.
 
K

Katydidit

... And although it's true that technically, women can do anything men can (except father children), such as work, make decisions, be fearless, etc., women are disconnected from the way men operate when they work, make decisions, be fearless, etc. Admitting that women have limitations compared to men is not chauvinistic, it's just how it is.

I agree. Women are nesters and rarely disconnect from their nest. To work, make decisions, and be fearless outside that nest requires an evolution of purpose for women - a sense of survival for all, the greater nest.

Is that on our horizon?
 

waybread

Well-known member
Which women do you mean? Hillary Clinton, Marie Curie, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sally Ride, Diane Feinstein, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep, Sandra Day O'Connor, Janet Yellen, Condoleeza Rice, Malinda Gates? The women in science and engineering in various walks of life? Female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or of their local businesses? Female doctors, professors, pastors, truck drivers, and lawyers?

Katydidit, with all due respect, your speaking about women as though we were female birds comes about 50 years too late.

I worked in a very male-oriented field for over 30 years, while simultaneously having a family. Maybe some women are more home-restricted and work in pink-collar jobs. But not all of us. At some level, people are people. And we all get along better when we treat one another as such.
 

LeoJeo

Well-known member
Which women do you mean? Hillary Clinton, Marie Curie, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Sally Ride, Diane Feinstein, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep, Sandra Day O'Connor, Janet Yellen, Condoleeza Rice, Malinda Gates? The women in science and engineering in various walks of life? Female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or of their local businesses? Female doctors, professors, pastors, truck drivers, and lawyers?

Katydidit, with all due respect, your speaking about women as though we were female birds comes about 50 years too late.

I worked in a very male-oriented field for over 30 years, while simultaneously having a family. Maybe some women are more home-restricted and work in pink-collar jobs. But not all of us. At some level, people are people. And we all get along better when we treat one another as such.

I literally hate half of those women you named off there. Clinton, Palin, Bachman, Feinstein, Thatcher, and Rice should never have ever gotten involved in politics. They're all horrible at it and have horrible politics. I actually wouldn't mind if all of them popped off the face of the earth. Those are examples of women who should have never joined the industry they're involved in. This is not sexist in any way either as there are plenty of male politicians who I despise as well but there's something about women taking on too many masculine traits and abusing those traits when in a position of power. If women are to do great things in politics they have to bring feminine traits to the scene that gives a fresh perspective on an already overly masculine environment. Women should be bringing compassion, creativity, and sensitivity in that realm where none of that resides. To become like the overly analytical, heartless men of politics only defeats the purpose. I hate to say it, but that's why The United States is so utterly F***ed up. There is no balance between masculine and feminine that would create ideal solutions. Combining the analytical and logical with the feeling and emotional would produce both efficient and fair outcomes. There needs to be balance between the energies, not a disproportionate amount of one.
 
Last edited:
Top