My father, who had a very shrewd mind, never mentally sounded texts he read. He just skimmed over it, and its content immediately stuck in his head. Never needed to study his education assignments twice.

I am not like that at all. When the prose is good, I enjoy reading aloud. I like to make theater of it. I want to get as rich and colorful an impression of the book as possible, visually and for under the surface events, and to get as deeply into the author's implications as possible. Like to slowly muse over it, and fully paint the canvas. As with poetry, I sometimes re-read sentences until I feel I have fully grasped the relating contents (but usually not when reading aloud, because then everything falls in place, since it is easier to recall something heard in passing from a previous paragraph). I don't let it go until I understand all. Some books I have no intention of re-reading, and therefore want to make the most of it at first reading.

However, great books are not possible to fully grasp at a single reading. Re-readings will further enrich with new discoveries of nuances that previously lay hidden. The book will then grow into an acquaintance and a friend.

Sawfish Wrote (lifted from The Outermost Circle thread):
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > > Sponge Bob
> > >
> > >
> > I watched an episode with a giant anglerfish
> > that baited with a manikin wobbling at the end of
> > the tongue stalk, imitating a perfectly
> > irresistible old lady offering cake. I loved that. I think
> > CAS would have appreciated the humour. It reminded
> > me of some horrifying details in "The Letter from Mohaun Los".
> >
> > And also "The Flower Women", but that was of
> > course an altogether different lure.
>
> Did you like the underlying irony of having the
> siren-ladies as sorta witless beauties, while Mal
> Dweb used them as bait?
>
> All that was missing was having him mansplain the
> situation to them.
>
> No snark from me here, K. I *did* think it an
> ironic commentary on beautiful women who get what
> they want by relying on their sexual wiles.
>
> Maybe that makes me heartlessly insensitive--I don't know.


I am not a feminist. Feminism is an evil, designed to make women independent and unhappy, to divide men from women, destroy the family and our society. Designed to make women behave like men, and men behave like women. The institutionalized insanity of this has gone so far in recent years that we have even been forced by laws to accept that everyone can "choose" their gender. Children in some public schools are encouraged to question their own gender, and even allowed to medically change their own sex (and if the parents oppose this, they are prosecuted, and separated from their children).

Men and women are genetically different, and each should be appreciated for what they are. Each have their unique abilities. And children need both a mother and father (not two fathers or two mothers).

Yes, the Flower Women, the sirens, is an old symbol of sexual attraction in women. These charms are a biological fact, can't be denied or repressed (even though it is attempted through feminism). Men also have their bodily charms, and can rely on sexual wiles too. And this is the initial surface-attraction. (Nothing immoral or chauvinistic about that. It is perfectly normal.). But there is more depth to both women and men, to make a relation work. Some individuals sadly stay immature, and remain stuck in their sexual surface identity. Some become victims of their own beauty.

To me the Flower Women in the story, are only flowers, hollow shells, venus flytraps, shaped to resemble women only to lure and trap men. If one incorrectly sees them as real women, that may be sad. But they have no minds, they are pulp cellulose, in perfect harmony with what they do.

FWIW, well-said.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin, your wrote "Feminism is an evil, designed to make women independent," etc.

I have sympathy with some of what you said, but have you thought about the implied corollary, if women are not to be "independent"? It is that there will be men upon whom women can depend.

But are there very many such men around in modern American-European society? There are not, from what I have observed, for example when I was a college-level teacher. It seems rather that there are hardly any.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, your wrote "Feminism is an evil,
> designed to make women independent," etc.
>
> I have sympathy with some of what you said, but
> have you thought about the implied corollary, if
> women are not to be "independent"? It is that
> there will be men upon whom women can depend.

I viewed K's statement as a conversationally hyperbolic simplification, for sake of clarifying the phenomenon of modern political feminism and its goals.

These goals are, succinctly, antithetical to most evolved social traditions, which does not make them evil. I seldom am comfortable with terms like good/evil, right/wrong because they are, to me subjective--but I allow as how subjectivity is how humans perceive and experience the universe. So the idea of the most common traditional man-woman relationship (which we can explore in detail if we need to) supposes that the male provides/protects the female and their shared offspring, allowing her advantages in child-bearing and rearing. If an individual is raised in such a tradition, and the majority of the adults within that group similarly accept and are comfortable with it, it is then "right" for that group.

And if it can be shown that the traditional system has evolved to benefit the raising of subsequent generations, and has done so successfully and consistently, then any contrary male/female social models must equal or better the evolved system or face the simple truth that subsequent generations are now placed at a relative disadvantage to those born under the old system, and then the $64 question: what, specifically was gained, and for whom, in this trade-off?

Why did society choose to do this? To what ends?

If society then rationally accepts that yes, in the new system the raising/rearing is diminished, but it has other benefits that the society now values more highly, that's an acceptable societal compromise.

But never, ever try to say to me that there was not a trade-off--that there was no diminution of child-raising. You'd have to say that it's diminished, but the perceived trade-off advantages are more important a priority.

Again, OK, if that's what society wants, although I may choose to absent myself from that society, if I'm free to do so.

>
> But are there very many such men around in modern
> American-European society? There are not, from
> what I have observed, for example when I was a
> college-level teacher. It seems rather that there
> are hardly any.

Well then, they'd better learn how to get it up, is all I can say.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I sympathize with much of what you said, Knygatin. As I've mentioned once or twice before, I'm strongly opposed to some of the common sentiments in today's world. I'm not necessarily opposed to the freedom of choosing genders, or even those surgeries (which plenty of people have regretted afterwards, though you'll rarely find that represented in popular media). But what bothers me is the artificial forcefulness of it, the aggression and defensiveness and desperate justification that comes with it, and the insistence that it cannot be criticized unless you want to be branded a demon. It feels all the more phony when it's derived from a source of insecurity, or when its main form of expression is through shallow and un-critical social media.

My feelings toward people and society are more in line with this passage from CAS' alien satire, "The Monster of the Prophecy":

"When it became known in Lompior that Alvor was the lover of Ambiala, no surprise or censure was expressed by any one. Doubtless the people, especially the male Alphads who had vainly wooed the empress, thought that her tastes were queer, not to say eccentric. But anyway, no comment was made: it was her own amour after all, and no one else could carry it on for her. It would seem, from this, that the people of Omanorion had mastered the ultra-civilized art of minding their own business."

I don't care much for what others are doing for themselves, because I'm not the one changing my gender or surgically removing anything, but in today's society I think people are no better at "the ultra-civilized art of minding their own business" than they might have been during CAS' time. All this stuff about social progress and changing the world is usually just another form of hyper-insistent invasiveness. What I'd like to see is more art and stimulating intellect from individuals, not slogans and banners and icons that hundreds of people can stamp everywhere. It's all too pompous and hypocritical.

Perhaps the only part I really disagree with is the idea that women need to be dependent on men (or men on women, for that matter). Perhaps this has to do with my childhood, when I was raised by a cripplingly meek Japanese mother and a wrathful idiot for a father. Those two extremes messed me up, to be personal for one moment. But even when I was young and watching all those films of swashbuckling adventurers, I found the women annoying for how utterly useless they were. Not because of any feminist beliefs, but because I always scorned the idea of having to carry someone around everywhere, unless they were a child or an elder. I'd demand the woman at least do SOMETHING than just exist to give Sinbad a kiss, otherwise she had no purpose in the story, and no use to the heroes!!! I admire a fiery-willed and intelligent woman who can act independently, though I have no use for all the phony posturing and moralizing in popular media today.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 4 Apr 21 | 07:14PM by Hespire.

Thanks for sharing this, Hespire.

What I see is that any given individual will do whatever they can to survive, and to ensure the survival of their offspring, if any.

Women will pick up this role as do the best they can, if no effective and cooperative males available. And this is fine.

If we are looking at optimizing the collective generation of off-spring of a group or species, the model that seems to work the best in most cases is the desired model, again, if optimization is desired.

It's my opinion that over time and considering large numbers of mating pairs, the male/female relationship that is familiar to most surviving cultures is optimum. This is the male provider/protector, the female nurturer.

It's true that at this moment the species needs less survival of offspring than in former expansionary times, when each individual was an essential contributor to the group's collective survival, so the species can afford such less than optimal child-rearing practices, for the moment.

But hey... what do I know, really?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 4 Apr 21 | 07:41PM by Sawfish.

I agree entirely that humans evolved their gender roles for useful, natural reasons, and that the male provider and female nurturer is an optimal relationship in most cultures and time periods. I never take offense when reading older novels that depict gender dynamics that are now scorned, and I have no issue with cliches like damsels in distress, which were to the advantage of movies like King Kong. I even feel comfort and reliability in the traditional dynamic.

The only thing I dislike is the treatment of women like royalty, and men like their disposable servants. I never liked the idea of doing absolutely everything for a useless adult, man or woman. But that seems to be more of a pulp/Hollywood device than anything. Or a survival of chivalric romance. Some knight I'd turn out to be!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 4 Apr 21 | 08:04PM by Hespire.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree entirely that humans evolved their gender
> roles for useful, natural reasons, and that the
> male provider and female nurturer is an optimal
> relationship in most cultures and time periods. I
> never take offense when reading older novels that
> depict gender dynamics that are now scorned, and I
> have no issue with cliches like damsels in
> distress, which were to the advantage of movies
> like King Kong. I even feel comfort and
> reliability in the traditional dynamic.
>
> The only thing I dislike is the treatment of women
> like royalty, and men like their disposable
> servants. I never liked the idea of doing
> absolutely everything for a useless adult, man or
> woman. But that seems to be more of a
> pulp/Hollywood device than anything. Or a survival
> of chivalric romance. Some knight I'd turn out to
> be!

Good observations. I, too, think that media portrayals are simply trivia fluff, and pity the po' foo' who takes these as models for their own behavior.

So far as being a chivalric knight, here's what a motivated, involved dad gets out of having a daughter: for a part of that time, when they are little, all of those noble and gallant and protective behaviors you so admired when reading about them as a child, *you* get to be that person, to your daughter.

What a bonus! And it does not weld them into a preconceived role, since it's transient. My daughter went on to become a major female college varsity athlete, no fading flower.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Raising children is a pleasure I never got to know, though it's not too late for me if I ever get in another marriage, which I'm in no hurry for. My dad held an intense hatred toward women, and often complained about the way young girls are raised like princesses, said it made them bratty and whiny as adults. Maybe I gained something of that bitterness, but I've always been good with kids, I'm told, and I bet you I couldn't resist that fatherly urge to be a real knight when the time comes. It must be natural to a lot of people.

Thank you all for your responses to my post, and it seems you pretty much sorted out the initial question marks in your following discussion.

As to the lack of real dependable men today, that is part of the psychological gender mix-up our society has been intentionally subjected to.

I don't see women as helpless. Both women and men, in their natural identities, are strong. And we naturally compensate each other. We are the perfect combination. Ying and Yang. It is present everywhere in Nature. At the same time, humans are complex beings, and we create culturally advanced societies; the will always be problems, life is a struggle, we strive towards harmony both within ourselves and with the others we relate to, to find our optimal position in existence. Some may initially be more successful, but misfortune is something that sooner or later comes to everyone. Living is difficult enough as it is, and we definitely don't need to increase these difficulties by perversely denying the principles of Nature. Odd individuals, genetically and hormonally, occur in Nature; but today confusion is intentionally forced upon all of us.

Nothing better to do today, so I thought I'd ask if, among other generational sensibility differences other note, they note what I believe I see as a sort of monolithic fixation on the idea of safety.

"Is it safe?"

"Your safety is our first concern..."

"Keeping you safe..."

I keep hearing this not as an added ancillary consideration for any proposed activity, product, or event, but as a major--perhaps primary--concern.

It would be easy to dismiss what I just said as the prattling of an old fool who wants to take worrisome chances--and perhaps you'd be half right--but I'm not counseling unsafe behavior so much are counseling a weighing of the perceived benefit against risk.

The way it seems now, it's an absolute: you can never be too safe--just as you never be too tolerant--and to argue against this is to say you don't care for Mom's apple pie.

Has anyone else noticed anything like this seeming elevation of "safety" to a religious fervor?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish, I'll bite the bait you dangled about "safety."

Yes, I've noticed that sort of thing.

One factor in the talk and action about safety is that Americans have become litigious. Thus, as self-defense, one tries to make one's home, property, workplace, school, etc. risk-free -- because one doesn't want to be sued. My dad worked in city government in Oregon & became risk manager. He kept an eye open for things that could injure people, first because he didn't want people to be hurt, but second because he didn't want the city to be sued. So, for example, he noticed that someone whipping around a corner on a bike could be hurt if he ran his vehicle between the bars of a storm sewer grate. Solution? Weld bars across the original bars.

Some talk and action relating to reducing or eliminating risk is, I imagine, insincere, in that the proponents' real agenda is advancing the areas of life under "public" supervision. It takes a village to raise a child, said Secretary Clinton. She might have been more forthright had she said, It takes The Village to raise a child (alluding to the surveillance society of TV's The Prisoner series from the 1960s). People become used to being monitored and that may make them more obedient to government-sponsored programs not related to safety, e.g. self-censorship rather than free speech.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, I'll bite the bait you dangled about
> "safety."

Hah!

Guilty as charged...


>
> Yes, I've noticed that sort of thing.
>
> One factor in the talk and action about safety is
> that Americans have become litigious. Thus, as
> self-defense, one tries to make one's home,
> property, workplace, school, etc. risk-free --
> because one doesn't want to be sued. My dad
> worked in city government in Oregon & became risk
> manager. He kept an eye open for things that
> could injure people, first because he didn't want
> people to be hurt, but second because he didn't
> want the city to be sued. So, for example, he
> noticed that someone whipping around a corner on a
> bike could be hurt if he ran his vehicle between
> the bars of a storm sewer grate. Solution? Weld
> bars across the original bars.
>
> Some talk and action relating to reducing or
> eliminating risk is, I imagine, insincere, in that
> the proponents' real agenda is advancing the areas
> of life under "public" supervision. It takes a
> village to raise a child, said Secretary Clinton.
> She might have been more forthright had she said,
> It takes The Village to raise a child (alluding to
> the surveillance society of TV's The Prisoner
> series from the 1960s). People become used to
> being monitored and that may make them more
> obedient to government-sponsored programs not
> related to safety, e.g. self-censorship rather
> than free speech.

This is what I was hoping for: a sort of catalyst for the thought that came to me earlier, undeveloped: the current elevation of safety to SAFETY.

I think you are going in the right direction, too. I think there's a desire in people today to be protected by an all-powerful benevolent entity--like a Mom, when we were toddlers.

Previous generations placed value on "growing out" of this phase, but this was not a rite of passage for my daughter's generation.

And it dawns on me, too, that we currently have no rites of passage, such as most previous societies had, when an adolescent was publicly promoted to adulthood, after being instructed on what, exactly, is expected of the contributing adult.

All this was a public announcement of what everyone else expects as minimum acceptable behavior. If you want to be a member of the tribe, these are the dues.

Do you see anything even remotely resembling a declaration of expected behavior in today's crop of coming-of-age individuals? Because I sure don't.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Some talk and action relating to reducing or
> eliminating risk is, I imagine, insincere, in that
> the proponents' real agenda is advancing the areas
> of life under "public" supervision. ... People become used to
> being monitored and that may make them more
> obedient to government-sponsored programs not
> related to safety, e.g. self-censorship rather
> than free speech.

Very important point there, Dale. And Corona is used in the same way, as an excuse, an efficient psychological tool, for generally increasing government control and insincere repression of the people. To take away the freedom and everything from the people that potentially could pose a threat (or even future political opposition) against the rulers. To make the people as easily manageable as possible. The spreading of fear is the most efficient preparation for increasing government control and establishing new far-reaching "state of emergency" laws.