#iambecomenothing

[phroyd]

Your attack of Hamas is as indoctrinated as your (baited) hate of the Right. You make me sick and fail to see when and how you are taking sides in a war you clearly only glance. You are stratified, almost certainly a middle class white male and you are the perfect outer shell of dissident opinion that keeps US propaganda strong. DemocracyNow! Noam Chomsky on DemocracyNow! August 11th yesterday can and does debunk your propaganda on Palestine. Sadly you will have to do the rest...

Your point might be accurate, save for all fo the Criticism I have Against Israel for their constant violation of tentative agreements made regarding their annexing of Palestinian Land during negotioations  that, the Israelis know,  will go nowhere.  It is criminal, more-so than their attacks against Hamas.  Hamas started a War, war is Horrible, innocent people die in War, Hamas counts upon that idea; they sacrifice their own people for an end that will never happen, the eradication of Israel. The miltary wing of Hamas spent most of the Palestinian monies on weapons and tunnels, leaving their own people in poverty. You see them as "Freedom Fighters; yet there may have been a time in history when that was true.  They are now nothing but Cowardly Terrorists, refusing to disarm,  as that would make a statement negting their Mission Statement to Destroy Israel.  The major Arab Powers in the region do not want Hamas, ISIS or ay of the other Militant Groups gaining any real power. Fundametalist Islam will be the death of a civilized middle East; these people are 1,000 years behind social evolution and it's time to rid the middle East of their military presence. And your assumption about my limited information about Hamas and Palestine has no basis.  You know not where my opinions are born of; and it's certainly not American Corporate News. Disarm Hamas, expel their Military Wing and Palestine will have no detractors in pursuit of forcing Israel to accept a Palestinian State, returning land and making repaprations.

Phroyd

[phroyd]

More on Gender ...

iambecomenothing reblogged your post Response To A Post Comment, Hopefully ... and added:

Gender differences aren’t “biological”, with the exception of external features associated with...

OK, let's look at it from a different perspective, Socio-Political.  It would make sense that Gender, in this country, would be the logical next issue in both questioning and objecting to the social status quo.  There has never been another time in history of recorded social movements which parallels the incredible gains in Civil Rights made by so many differnt groups.  To simplify, for discussion's sake, we had a wave of Rights movements gaining momentum and becoming a wave which caught many different groups riding it's crest.  First, we had Civil Rights for Black Americans, then other identified "minorities, from that there was a exlposion of demand for civil rights for wmen, then the homosexual community; riding that crest was the beginning of what eventualy degenerated into Political Correctness, those who demanded recognition and respect who have been identified previously with archaic terms that had taken on derogutory referrence (retard, a valid clinical diagnosis in the 30's and 40's degenerated into an insult, being one example); and now Gender.

From a Socio-Political perspective, questioning Gender in not an unreasonable next issue for scrutiny.  Throughout history, the two "recognised" genders (recognised by status quo societies) were Men and Women (male and female) and there were social-role exectations accompanied by dominance and submission in their social order.  Men held the power and the oney (property, capital, etc); women were the servant class (sex, childbearing, chattle, labor).  These role associations held steady through th transition from the Gentry Class structure to the Labor Class Structure.  It wasn't until the 1960's that there was a questioning of everything about the social status quo which began the momentum for questioning the role-approriated status of minorities and women, and eventually the gay community.

Yet, I find it difficult to separate "Gender" itself, from Gender-imposed social roles.  And underlying all of this is still the basic fundimentals of Biology which DO have a primary impact upon what draws people to specific roles.

So how does a recognition of multi-gender definitions play into this?

Phroyd

[phroyd]

Response To A Post Comment, Hopefully An Ongoing Discussion.

iambecomenothing replied to your post: iambecomenothing said:I appreciat...

Would you call race differences biological? I think you are losing the forest through the trees.

Race differences aren't "biological", with the exception of external features associated with race.  The issue of "Gender" is an inconsequential arguement; more-so, from a psychological prespective, absent of role expectation, it has become a fundmental Narcissistic perception of "Identity."  The Core, psychologically, of "Identity" isn't your Gender, your Sexual Preferrence .... it is defined by your primary values, how you persue those values in relation to others, what you create in the world around you and how you negotiate expanding Humanistic, Compassionate and Fair interactioms and results. This entire Gender-Obsession in the current generation could justifiably be argued as the next social degeneration of fundamental narcissism; where "Gender" is now the issue bringing people to become even MORE egocentric and withdrawn from society.  It is an academic argument which produces no valuable social gains, such as Civil Rights, Social Rights; it avoids directly confronting important and powerful limitations fragmnting our society: Ongoing Subtle Racial and Sexual-Preferrence Discrimination, Class Discrimination, Financial Diiscrimination, Environmental Exploitation and the prevention of Democatic Equality as the process of governing.

When Christopher Lasch predicted, in his book "The Culture of Narcissism", the spiraling inward of social perceptions in relation to "Personal Need", he was correct in seeing the direction of society shifting attention to essentially narcissistic, ego-centric pursuits. We now have a culture where Entitlement has diminished the very experiences which people need to have, so as to develop healthy self-esteem and self-image (not discounting popular media's influence); it has resulted in a disproprtionte sensitivity and subsequent anger to people's bruised feelings; it has made the inconsequential experience the ceterpiece of people's focus of attention through social media. Simply put, it has removed their interest in joining Society and working toward a better one for All.  "Gender" definition is logically the next inward narcissistic focus of attention, from a clinical perspective.  To try to Politicize it, is a desperate attempt of an immature need for Validation, not a Mature one.

There are far, more important issues in need of changing, not just for a handful of individuals, but for our society, our nation and our planet. So, therefore, in relation to the bigger picture, and giving it Value, "Gender Issues" can psychologically be judged as nothing more than the latest definition of issues associated with sexual identity, a normal psychological stage.

Phroyd

[phroyd]

I appreciate your take on economic inequality but you still have a long we to go in understanding how categories create an oppressive web. 'Biological Gender' is silly. Sex is biological, gender is a socio-political tool of power, one of the oldest, and serves to stratify us on a familial personal and cultural level. Sex is no more real than race, now we must understand both to undue the damage. Have you ever thought about your problems as stemming from gender problems?

I'm more concerned with the pseudo-psychological significance of "Gender"; a dialogue which has grown in the wake of the Civil Rights fight for the Gay Community.  There are issues of role-association with "gender", but biological gender isn't "silly", it's reality.  I undrstand that there is a serious educated discussion concerning Gender; however, the popular expression, of what might be a more complex discussion, is nothing more than sexual identity issues.

Phroyd