Discuss Star Trek: Voyager

OK I just binge watched the whole series and the last episode (Endgame) killed me.

I'm sorry but Chakotay and 7-of-9? That makes no sense.

Chakotay and Janeway spend 6 and a half years together, having dinner having breakfast being Mom and Dad to the crew. I truly imagined a scene on Earth where they say "Well, we're no longer Captain and First Officer" and fall into each other.

But no. Instead we have a pic-nic.

On the other hand 7-of-9. The Doctor has professed his love at least once in public. Harry Kim has had some romantic interests. Hell! Even Tuvok had a certain logical affinity to her. All of these are thrown out the door.

As an aside I thought a hook-up with Data would have been excellent. Those wiley nana-probes.

I just picture a bunch of writers with no interest the show just saying "yeah, that'll do it let's have lunch."

82 replies (on page 6 of 6)

Jump to last post

Previous page

@Tim-Buktu

I'll slow it down for you. I have heard about gender studies classes. I investigated them. I saw these You-Tubes. I have a rational (apparently male) mind.

See how you CONTRADICT yourself:

ME:

it's also NOT ACCURATE because it's A LIE (which she also ADMITS when she explains how SHE WAS REQUIRED to TAKE IT in order to get a HISTORY DEGREE).

YOU:

I am shocked SHOCKED! that someone on the internet is not 100% accurate.

ONE MOMENT you point out how what one finds on the INTERNET ISN'T always ACCURATE.

The NEXT MOMENT one finds you saying you've INVESTIGATED something on the INTERNET that you've also just pointed out IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE to go to.

So one MOMENT you point out how it's NOT ACCURATE to rely upon what one finds on the NET, and the NEXT moment you claim to be EDUCATED from having watched a CHIRPY LITTLE SARAH PALIN AIR HEAD CLONE talking about something on the NET.

And you also claim that's being RATIONAL???

:rolling_eyes:

@Invidia

Whether or not you CHOSE to SEE THINGS this way or not is IRRELEVANT.

@Hobnobber

Words of a petulant tween.

Yes GUILTY as charged.

My ID or LITTLE DEVILISH SIDE was definitely coming out to play when one typed that reply.

:grinning:

And besides, what's the matter with one being just as SARCASTIC as my DEBATE BUDDY keeps being???

It's GOOD PRACTICE to IMITATE him (which is also said to be the HIGHEST FORM of FLATTERY). Because that way one can also ABSORB some of his PERSONALITY TRAITS and ASSIMILATE THEM.

:smile:

To make a SMILEY FACE simply type this : and then you'll see some of the SMILE FACES POP UP.

If you want a ROLLING EYES face simply type the : symbol again and roll and that kind of a face also pops up.

If you want a CAR or a COW ... same process type the : symbol and up pops a cow or a car or mixed drink or whatever else you want.

:cow :car etc.

@Hobnobber

Perception modified by experience and discussion, then introspective reflection, a process to assimilate.

Not dogmatically pursue confirmations without purpose other than personal agenda clouded in webs of hormones and emotion as guides for rationality, posed as academic fact.

Nicely put HOB.

That's also a nice way to SUM UP the CHIRPY LITTLE MISS TWINKLE TOES who is definitely pushing her PERSONAL AGENDA clouded in a WEB of HORMONES and IMMATURE EMOTION which she also incorrectly assumes is a case of her being RATIONAL when she's actually being EXTREMELY IRRATIONAL.

And YES ... INTROSPECTION and REFLECTION do come in handy don't they???

@Hobnobber

Chakotay found the instilled qualities of Janeway and village in a Seven package. His nurturing and protective side surfaces

This is also WELL PUT as well.

Since both SEVEN and JANEWAY had DOMINANT MASCULINE SIDES to their PERSONALITIES (sort of like being PSYCHOLOGICAL TWINS), it makes sense that he'd be attracted BOTH of them.

And CHAKOTAY was also doing a FINE JOB of TAMING JANEWAY that time when they were stranded on that PLANET together with the other little MONKEY creature.

Anyhow, you also seem to have caught on to the other ISSUE that TIM didn't see.

And that's WHAT IF someone already has a BALANCE of both TRAITS???

Does that mean they don't FALL in LOVE???

Or they fall in love with someone else who also has a BALANCE???

But if 2 people already have a BALANCE, then is that FALLING in LOVE by the DEFINITION the PROFESSOR was using???

But since he was also reading from a BOOK by PEARSON, was it that person's idea???

And not the PROFESSOR'S idea???

Anyhow, who would be a good choice for JANEWAY if she already has a BALANCE of both TRAITS and isn't in need of finding a MATE with an OPPOSITE SIDE???

And can we ever really achieve a BALANCE and MAINTAIN it once we have it???

Or keep it once we do happen to achieve it or find it???

Nietzsche also explores that kind of a matter in THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA when that character comes to the TOWN called THE MOTLEY COW where he finds a MAN walking on a TIGHT ROPE who's trying to get OVER to the OTHER SIDE to become THE OVER MAN.

But before he can make it OVER to the OTHER SIDE ... out comes the little APE or MONKEY that JUMPS over him ... and makes it there to the other side before THE MAN can.

So it's also as if the APE/MAN/OVERMAN were another VERSION of the ID/EGO/SUPEREGO, where instead of PROGRESSING to a state where we're ALL SUPER EGO, what we do is CONSTANTLY CYCLE or MORPH BACK and FORTH from one state to the other one again.

:grin:

ZARATHUSTRA says:

AS APE is to MAN, so shall MAN be to the OVER MAN.

  1. APE

  2. MAN

  3. OVER MAN


  1. ID

  2. EGO

  3. SUPER EGO


1. FATHER (ID/ APE/EYE for an EYE)

2. SON (TURN the OTHER CHEEK)

3. HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST


1. THESIS

2. ANTI THESIS

3. SYNTHESIS

Invidia: let's recap:

A student says something that you disagree with. You call her names (blonde, bimbo , screaming toddler) and compare her to a failed politician.

I disagree with some of your points and you say I'm projecting my problems.

This is then followed by several pages (sorry "screens") of you giving me a book report on your PSHYCHOLOGY OF GENDER video that you watched. I don't speak psychobabble. (Although I am fluent in guy-speak)

To be clear, I don't care about the psychology behind Voyager. I watch it to relax. I don't need to prove every statement I make. You sound very childish when you ask. But for an example, I said I investigated Gender studies on You-Tube. I also said I don't trust everything I read. You seemed to take that as some kind of victory on your part. Have you ever heard of gathering evidence? Or of testing facts? Eventually we get to a true picture of the situation. That is what I did.

Hobnobber: Thanks for your post.

This sort of thing is not really in my wheel-house and it may take me a while to plow through it but I'll give it a try.

@Tim-Buktu said:

Invidia: let's recap:

A student says something that you disagree with. You call her names (blonde, bimbo , screaming toddler) and compare her to a failed politician.

CORRECTION:

No one said anything about SCREAMING. All one said was she reminds one of a TODDLER having a TEMPER TANDRUM when it doesn't get its way. TODDLERS can also KICK YOU or BITE YOU and don't necessarily have to YELL at you to ANNOY you.

And The FIRST GOOFY GIRL with the BRACES also isn't a BLOND.

It's the other girl who IS a BLOND that was being made reference to as being a BLOND. Because she has BLOND hair. But YES the use of the ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEN was definitely used when one refers to them as being BIMBOS, and therefore one is also GUILTY as charged.

But like the case is where one CORRECTLY DESCRIBES the APPEARANCE of the other girl who has BLOND HAIR, the BIMBO DESCRIPTION is also one that's been ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY APPLIED to both of them.

But didn't you also do the same kind of thing in regards to what you said about JANEWAY???

You might be right. Maybe Janeway is just so mind-numbingly tedious that it just seems like a monologue whenever she opens her mouth.

BINGO!!!

You mean I said TWO things that make sense to you???

ONE feels the same way about those TWO BIMBOS in those videos that you claim illustrate where YOU're COMING FROM ... (that they're both also what you DESCRIBE as being MIND NUMBINGLY TEDIOUS to listen to).

But AGAIN, one still also sees NOTHING that you have in COMMON with them.

So is this also a case of "DO AS YOU SAY but NOT as YOU DO YOURSELF"???

Your DESCRIPTION PUTS DOWN JANEWAY, yet someone else isn't allowed to PUT DOWN the BIMBOS in those VIDEOS???

I disagree with some of your points and you say I'm projecting my problems.

When you suggested I was UPSET when that was NOT the CASE, and you'd also just said "WOW just WOW", imo, that was a CASE where you PROJECTED how you yourself felt onto me. Because you saying "WOW just WOW" is also what gives one that kind of impression, and it also DEMONSTRATES how something had been said that TRIGGERS that kind of a REACTION from you.

This is then followed by several pages (sorry "screens") of you giving me a book report on your PSHYCHOLOGY OF GENDER video that you watched. I don't speak psychobabble. (Although I am fluent in guy-speak)

No one gave you a BOOK REPORT.

This is still another FALSE ACCUSATION on your part.

What you were given were NOTES that one took while watching THE TELECOURSE.

Since one NEVER read the BOOK by PEARSON that they studied in the course, one can hardly present you with a REPORT about it.

Thus the reason why what you were given were CLASS NOTES that one had taken while WATCHING the COURSE.

This is also STATED CLEARLY prior to the rest of what follows in the NEXT 10 PARAGRAPHS (because the COMMENT about GREASE is also MINE and not something the professor said). Also NOTE the way MOST of those 10 PARAGRAPHS are also SHORT and composed of just ONE SENTENCE.

Thus also giving you a TOTAL of about 10 to 20 SENTENCES, which also illustrates how YOU EXAGGERATE about the LENGTH of the NOTES the same way as you EXAGGERATED when you said JANEWAY had given MANY MONOLOUGES when she had NOT even given us ONE MONOLOGUE.

In other words, we've got a PATTERN going on here now where YOUR PERCEPTION is the PROBLEM (not the WRITING and NOT the LENGTH of the NOTES you were given).

To be clear, I don't care about the psychology behind Voyager. I watch it to relax. I don't need to prove every statement I make. You sound very childish when you ask.

YES, it's CLEAR enough that you're being EXTREMELY STUBBORN and CLOSED MINDED for some reason.

And when one suggested what the REASON for that might be, that's also when you GOT UPSET and PROJECTED that kind of a state of MIND or the way that you yourself were feeling onto ME,

Because I was definitely also NOT the least bit UPSET at the time when the FALSE ACCUSATION was made, due to the way that one has also encountered plenty of other BIMBOS before like the ones in those videos.

But for an example, I said I investigated Gender studies on You-Tube. I also said I don't trust everything I read. You seemed to take that as some kind of victory on your part. Have you ever heard of gathering evidence? Or of testing facts? Eventually we get to a true picture of the situation. That is what I did.

NO. YOU DID NOT INVESTIGATE anything.

What you've done is POST a LINK to SEVERAL ONLINE VIDEOS, like to the one's with those 2 GOOFY GIRLS in them, that also don't CORRELATE in any way to the rest of our conversations, because the courses they make REFERENCE TO also are NOT the same kind of COURSE that we were discussing.

And that was also POINTED out to you when it was explained how the NOTES from PSYCHOLOGY COURSE dealt with THE DUALITY of the MIND (not the BODY) but you also chose to IGNORE that FACT.

Thus the reason why what's said in those VIDEOS is NOT EVIDENCE of anything.

As far as one can tell the GENDER and ETHNIC COURSES the one girl took were also SOCIOLOGY COURSES (not PSYCHOLOGY courses).

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/humanities---social-sciences/sociology/sociology.html

Race / Class / Gender

Gender and Violence

Human Sexuality

Race / Ethnic Relations

Social Stratification

Sociology of Asian Americans

Sociology of Blacks

Sociology of Gender

Sociology of Poverty

Sociology of Women

And SOCIOLOGY is the STUDY of a GROUP of people, whereas PSYCH is the study of an INDIVIDUAL (not GROUPS).

And each time one ASKED YOU WHY you said those VIDEOS illustrate WHERE you were COMING FROM, you also NEVER replied or ANSWERED the question.

On the other hand, each time a claim was made on MY PART, not only were you given LINKS, but you were also given QUOTES that were in them, and you were also given a DISCUSSION about the reason why it was RELEVANT to our conversation.

But instead of any kind of APPRECIATION for the TIME and EFFORT put forth on your behalf, you get CRITICAL and COMPLAIN about the LENGTH of what's been said.

SO NO.

POSTING links to a couple of GOOFY GIRLS who took courses in SOCIOLOGY is NOT GATHERING EVIDENCE or TESTING FACTS.

All it's doing is SEARCHING for someone who shares your OPINION of a TOPIC that you also keep saying you have NO INTEREST in discussing ... even though you've also been PRESENTED with PROOF that the B5 WRITER that you also claim did such a FINE JOB with IVANOVA also CREATED his B5 CHARACTERS using the ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY of JUNG.

So you claim a WRITER did a FINE JOB, then after one POINTS OUT how that writer used the SAME ANALYSIS as the PROFESSOR teaching the GENDER CLASS, you try to SHUT DOWN the conversation (the same way as the other GIRL was doing when she took the other GENDER class).

Because the HOSPITAL EXAMPLE that she's given was also a really STUPID thing to say ... because DOCTORS and NURSES are also PROFESSIONALS who would IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE a SURGICAL SCAR and realize the reason why it was there ... thus also leaving NO REASON why they'd need a CHART where someone CHECKS off what kind of BODY PARTS they had.

This is the reason why the class and the PROFESSOR would OBJECT to what she's saying, because what she says is SIMPLY STUPID and EXTREMELY UNIFORMED (just like the case was when SARAH PALIN replies saying she can SEE RUSSIA from her house after she's asked a FOREIGN POLICY QUESTION).

In other words, posting that LINK to that VIDEO leaves one CONFUSED as to WHY you'd think that BRAIN DEAD IDIOT illustrates WHERE you're COMING from when you have NOTHING in COMMON with her whenever you do put forth the EFFORT and say something to DEFEND yourself.

But MOSTLY you also DON'T DO THAT, and keep posting LINKS to VIDEOS thinking that PROVES something when it DOES NOT and only CONFUSES one as to the reason why you'd post such a link.

And when the VIDEO was DISECTED (after you also FALSELY ACCUSSED one of not having even watched it) ... and one described all of the CONSTANT SKIPPING and JUMPING Around it does ... due to it being EDITED every few SECONDS ... and pointed out other reasons why what she was saying was a bunch of BS ... once again you complained about the LENGTH of the message instead of ADDRESSING what's been said in it.

And now you also use this other RED HEARRING or the DIVERSIONARY TACTIC of pointing out how one has CALLED her names (which is true), but it also still doesn't address the FACT that this YOUNG GIRL is another SARAH PALIN type, or is someone who MADE the VIDEO as a way to ACT OUT because she's ANGRY that she was FORCED to take the course that she didn't want to take.

So even though she's been COMPARED to being a TODDLER, the ACCUSATION is also still TRUE, due to the way she's also ACTING OUT the same way as one does whenever they also have a TEMPER TANTRUM.

Her HISSY FIT is done in a much more SOPHISTICATED fashion, but it still also amounts to the SAME THING:

She's PISSSED at the PROFESSOR and is INSULTING his INTELLIGENCE by saying he doesn't have TENURE (which is also something NOT EVERY PROFESSOR wants to have in the first place due to the way it requires them to do other JOBS for which they don't GET PAID).

My LIT PROFESSOR QUIT his JOB after he got TENURE, for example, because they also insisted that he do the JOB of a DEAN without getting PAID anything EXTRA for doing it. So TENURE also DOES NOT mean one is NOT QUALIFIED to TEACH, which is also a FALSE ASSUMPITION you've made due to LISTENING to that AIR HEAD who has NO IDEA what she's talking about.

And this was also already EXPLAINED to you before, but you IGNORED IT, which is also the reason why one has GONE into MORE DEPTH about the matter THIS TIME than one did the LAST TIME. Which also means the LENGTH is your FAULT due to the way you also tend to COMPLETELY IGNORE what's been said to you before.

So YES, one CALLS her NAMES, but that's also because the NAMES she's been CALLED are also ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS of her.

In other words, you've also let yourself be DUPED by her and have more or less also DRANK the POISONED KOOL AID that she's DISHING OUT to you.

But that's also YOUR CHOICE, and there's also NOTHING anyone else can do if you CHOOSE to be DUPED by what she's saying to you.

Hobnobber:

Thanks for your post.

This sort of thing is not really in my wheel-house and it may take me a while to plow through it but I'll give it a try.

Nice to see how you're at least KEEPING an OPEN MIND about something.

This THING (as you put it) is called the STREAM of CONSCIOUSNESS technique.

FAULKNER, JAMES JOYCE, VIRGINA WOOLF are also writers who used that STYLE.

THE SOUND and the FURY by FAULKNER may also be a NOVEL that you've read before???

It begins with a chapter where a MENTALLY CHALLENGED character (probably has AUTISM) is unhappy because he misses his SISTER.

Then we're presented with 2 other CHAPTERS by his other 2 brothers ( QUENTIN and JASON ) who complain about their sister.

And what's interesting is how the MENTALLY CHALLENGED BROTHER gives us the MORE ACCURATE PORTRAIT of their SISTER than the other 2 brothers do who are not MENTALLY CHALLENGED but are PSYCHOLOGICALLY SPEAKING even MORE HANDICAPPED than their AUTISTIC BROTHER.

Anyhow, trying to read the FIRST CHAPTER can also be DIFFICULT, but it's also well worth it if one wants to SEE and UNDERSTAND how there's another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SIDE to the SISTER than the one's we get from the other 2 brothers who do nothing but PUT her DOWN.

Because what we get in the BENJY chapter is a DESCRIPTION of how TENDER and COMPASSIONATE she was with him instead of having her PORTRAYED as some kind of MONSTER or WHORE simply because she got pregnant and wasn't married at the time.

So YES, the BIMBOS were called NAMES.

BIMBO DEFINED:

An attractive but EMPTY HEADED YOUNG WOMAN

Hence the reason why the AIR HEAD description also applies to them.

So calling them that also doesn't NEGATE the ""FACT"""" that they ACCURATELY fit into that kind of a DESCRIPTION, due to the way BOTH of them were TROLLING the other people and PROFESSORS in their CLASSES the same way as JASON and QUENTION COMPSON were also TROLLING their SISTER in the chapters they wrote about her.

Because like the case was with SEVEN of NINE, JASON and QUENTIN also had WAY TOO MUCH MASCULINE ENGERY.

And the RESULT of their IMBALANCE ...

(the 2 BIMBO's in the videos also have the same problem)

also leads to the SUICIDE of QUENTIN, and to the GREEDY JASON ...

(who RIPS off and KEEPS the CHILD SUPPORT CHECKS that he was sent to support his NIECE having her FIND THEM and then STEAL them BACK from him again)

getting his JUST DESERTS in the end.

:relaxed:

https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2015/kahlenberg

Teacher tenure rights, first established more than a century ago, are under unprecedented attack. Tenure—which was enacted to protect students’ education and those who provide it—is under assault from coast to coast, in state legislatures, in state courtrooms, and in the media.In June 2014, in the case of Vergara v. California, a state court judge struck down teacher tenure and seniority laws as a violation of the state’s constitution.*

18 states have recently weakened tenure laws, and Florida and North Carolina sought to eliminate tenure entirely.

Amidst this sea of negative publicity for educators, journalist Dana Goldstein wrote that “the ineffective tenured teacher has emerged as a feared character,” like “crack babies or welfare queens” from earlier eras.

conservatives have long attacked policies such as tenure

All the attention to tenure—especially from progressives—raises an important question:

What is it exactly?

The legal definition is simple:

tenure provides those teachers who have demonstrated competence after a probationary period with due process rights before being fired. It is not, as critics contend, a guaranteed job for life**.

Once a teacher has earned tenure, also known as due process, he or she has a right to know why a discharge is being sought by the employer and a right to have the issue decided by an impartial body. In the words of the University of Pennsylvania’s Richard Ingersoll, “Typically, tenure guarantees that teachers must be given reason, documentation, and a hearing prior to being fired.

Tenure does not prevent their termination, but it does require that employers show “just cause” (a reasonable ground for action) for termination.

In other words, essentially THE BIMBO in the VIDEO also COMPLAINS that the TEACHER she COMPLAINS about could be FIRED without JUST CAUSE or without DUE PROCESS for not doing a good enough JOB.

And also ASK yourself this:

IF the BIMBO in the VIDEO had a LEGIT COMPLAINT (she complains the teacher wasn't FAIR to her), then WHY NOT ADDRESS it to the PROPER AUTHORITIES instead of making a VIDEO where she COMPLAINS to a GROUP of STRANGERS that she DOESN'T EVEN KNOW and CAN'T even SEE???

Seriously, HOW RATIONAL is that TIM???

Does what she's doing really MAKE ANY SENSE to you???

So Keep on SIPPING on the POISONED KOOL AID that she's DISHING out to you if you like.

It's YOUR CHOICE.

:rolling_eyes:

ALSO NOTE the way the CLASS NOTES also only contain 10 SENTENCES (that have also been SPACED OUT into looking like they are 10 Paragraphs):

SOME **CLASS LECTURE NOTES on THE PSYCHOLOGY of GENDER**

EVERYBODY has BOTH a MASCULINE & a FEMININE SIDE to their personality.

In a course called THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER, the professor explains how falling in love is nothing more than one person being attracted to the more developed and dominant Masculine or Feminine traits of another person that they are lacking in themselves.

In the so called traditional marriage, for example, a female with feminine traits often marries a male with more masculine traits (although a male with feminine traits may also chose a wife who has developed more of her masculine personality traits as well).

In the course of time, a wife will then tend to take on her husbands masculine personality traits, and he may likewise develop some of her feminine personality traits.

(One can also observe this process at work in the movie GREASE where Olivia Newton John becomes a more Masculine Huntress type of female at the end -- when she's wearing black leather pants trying to please John -- whereas John Travolta trades in his leather jacket for the letter sweater -- becoming a softer jock type to try to please Olivia).

But a problem that frequently developes in our society is one where the female eventually takes on her husbands more masculine personality traits, yet her husband fails to develope the more feminine side of his personality.

And in such a case, divorce is often the result, due to the way the wife is no longer interested in playing the sweet nurturing mother type of role to her husband any more.

And after the divorce, the husband tends to marry another wife, (usually a younger woman), usually another one who still hasn't yet developed her masculine side, again someone who is willing to mother him and nurture him.

And if the husband still fails to develop the feminine side of his personality in a relationship with his 2nd wife (who also developes her masculine side), the result may be still another divorce for the same reason again.

In other words, the main purpose and goal of a relationship is for the female to become more masculine and for the male to become more feminine, or vice versa, until they have a BALANCE of both traits. Only in this way can we become a more balanced individual, or a WHOLE person, who doesnt have an OVERABUNDANCE of either the Masculine or the Feminine sides of our natures.

The professor who taught the Gender class also describes our current society and culture as a very UNBALANCED one. He says we are way too Masculine and this imbalance causes us much grief and suffering.

SO THE NOTES (which are also NOT a BOOK REPORT like you COMPLAINED about) are ACTUALLY also only 10 SENTENCES in LENGTH.

Thus also giving us EVIDENCE that YOU have EXAGGERATED about their LENGTH (the same way as you EXAGGERATED about FAST FORWARDING through THE MANY NON EXISTENT MONOLOUGES of JANEWAY).

CONCLUSION:

This is a PERCEPTION problem you have that is also NOT based upon any EVIDENCE or the FACTS that you also FALSELY CLAIM exist when they DO NOT.

PS:

And one also wonders WHY you complain about 10 SMALL SENTENCES that I posted ... yet you don't complain about the 27 PARAGRAPHS that HOB posted here (which also contain what looks like at least 10 sentences within most of his paragraphs).

@Hobnobber said:

The professor who taught the Gender class also describes our current society and culture as a very UNBALANCED one. He says we are way too Masculine and this imbalance causes us much grief and suffering.

What's that? Worldwide?

It's slowly GETTING to be that way.

To illustrate the point, consider the way many of us have PHALLIC SHAPED NUKES pointing at each other.

Not ALL of us have them WORLDWIDE ...

but others that we wish didn't have them also keep attempting to GET THEM (North KOREA and IRAN).

So the situation might not be WORLDWIDE (even though setting them off could also involve the DESTRUCTION of the entire WORLD).

But it also could eventually end up being that way.

So ...

did you see this part of what was said in the OTHER POST:

you also seem to have caught on to the other ISSUE that TIM didn't see. And that's WHAT IF someone already has a BALANCE of both TRAITS??? **Does that mean they don't FALL in LOVE??? Or they **fall in love with someone else who also has a BALANCE??? Butif 2 people already have a BALANCE, then is that FALLING in LOVE by the DEFINITION the PROFESSOR was using??? But since he was also reading from a BOOK by PEARSON, was it that person's idea??? And not the PROFESSOR'S idea??? Anyhow, who would be a good choice for JANEWAY if she already has a BALANCE of both TRAITS and isn't in need of finding a MATE with an OPPOSITE SIDE??? And **can we ever really achieve a BALANCE and MAINTAIN it once we have it??? Or keep it once we do happen to achieve it or find it??? **Nietzsche also explores that kind of a matter in THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA* when that character comes to the TOWN called THE MOTLEY COW where he finds a MAN walking on a TIGHT ROPE who's trying to get OVER to the OTHER SIDE to become THE OVER MAN. But before he can make it OVER to the OTHER SIDE ... out comes the little APE or MONKEY that JUMPS over him ... and makes it there to the other side before THE MAN can.

ANY THOUGHTS???

OPPS. That didn't work very well so here it is again for you in a much better FORMAT:

@Invidia said:

@Tim-Buktu

I'll slow it down for you. I have heard about gender studies classes. I investigated them. I saw these You-Tubes. I have a rational (apparently male) mind.

See how you CONTRADICT yourself:

ME:

it's also NOT ACCURATE because it's A LIE (which she also ADMITS when she explains how SHE WAS REQUIRED to TAKE IT in order to get a HISTORY DEGREE).

YOU:

I am shocked SHOCKED! that someone on the internet is not 100% accurate.

ONE MOMENT you point out how what one finds on the INTERNET ISN'T always ACCURATE.

The NEXT MOMENT one finds you saying you've INVESTIGATED something on the INTERNET that you've also just pointed out IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE to go to.

So one MOMENT you point out how it's NOT ACCURATE to rely upon what one finds on the NET, and the NEXT moment you claim to be EDUCATED from having watched a CHIRPY LITTLE SARAH PALIN AIR HEAD CLONE talking about something on the NET.

And you also claim that's being RATIONAL???

:rolling_eyes:

@Invidia

Whether or not you CHOSE to SEE THINGS this way or not is IRRELEVANT.

@Hobnobber

Words of a petulant tween.

Yes GUILTY as charged.

My ID or LITTLE DEVILISH SIDE was definitely coming out to play when one typed that reply.

:grinning:

And besides, what's the matter with one being just as SARCASTIC as my DEBATE BUDDY keeps being???

It's GOOD PRACTICE to IMITATE him (which is also said to be the HIGHEST FORM of FLATTERY). Because that way one can also ABSORB some of his PERSONALITY TRAITS and ASSIMILATE THEM.

:smile:

To make a SMILEY FACE simply type this : and then you'll see some of the SMILE FACES POP UP.

If you want a ROLLING EYES face simply type the : symbol again and roll and that kind of a face also pops up.

If you want a CAR or a COW ... same process type the : symbol and up pops a cow or a car or mixed drink or whatever else you want.

:cow :car etc.

@Hobnobber

Perception modified by experience and discussion, then introspective reflection, a process to assimilate.

Not dogmatically pursue confirmations without purpose other than personal agenda clouded in webs of hormones and emotion as guides for rationality, posed as academic fact.

Nicely put HOB.

That's also a nice way to SUM UP the CHIRPY LITTLE MISS TWINKLE TOES who is definitely pushing her PERSONAL AGENDA clouded in a WEB of HORMONES and IMMATURE EMOTION which she also incorrectly assumes is a case of her being RATIONAL when she's actually being EXTREMELY IRRATIONAL.

And YES ... INTROSPECTION and REFLECTION do come in handy don't they???

@Hobnobber

Chakotay found the instilled qualities of Janeway and village in a Seven package. His nurturing and protective side surfaces

This is also WELL PUT as well.

Since both SEVEN and JANEWAY had DOMINANT MASCULINE SIDES to their PERSONALITIES (sort of like being PSYCHOLOGICAL TWINS), it makes sense that he'd be attracted BOTH of them.

And CHAKOTAY was also doing a FINE JOB of TAMING JANEWAY that time when they were stranded on that PLANET together with the other little MONKEY creature.

Anyhow, you also seem to have caught on to the other ISSUE that TIM didn't see.

And that's WHAT IF someone already has a BALANCE of both TRAITS???

Does that mean they don't FALL in LOVE???

Or they fall in love with someone else who also has a BALANCE???

But if 2 people already have a BALANCE, then is that FALLING in LOVE by the DEFINITION the PROFESSOR was using???

But since he was also reading from a BOOK by PEARSON, was it that person's idea???

And not the PROFESSOR'S idea???

Anyhow, who would be a good choice for JANEWAY if she already has a BALANCE of both TRAITS and isn't in need of finding a MATE with an OPPOSITE SIDE???

And can we ever really achieve a BALANCE and MAINTAIN it once we have it???

Or keep it once we do happen to achieve it or find it???

Nietzsche also explores that kind of a matter in THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA when that character comes to the TOWN called THE MOTLEY COW where he finds a MAN walking on a TIGHT ROPE who's trying to get OVER to the OTHER SIDE to become THE OVER MAN.

But before he can make it OVER to the OTHER SIDE ... out comes the little APE or MONKEY that JUMPS over him ... and makes it there to the other side before THE MAN can.

So it's also as if the APE/MAN/OVERMAN were another VERSION of the ID/EGO/SUPEREGO, where instead of PROGRESSING to a state where we're ALL SUPER EGO, what we do is CONSTANTLY CYCLE or MORPH BACK and FORTH from one state to the other one again.

:grin:

ZARATHUSTRA says:

AS APE is to MAN, so shall MAN be to the OVER MAN.

  1. APE

  2. MAN

  3. OVER MAN


  1. ID

  2. EGO

  3. SUPER EGO


1. FATHER (ID/ APE/EYE for an EYE)

2. SON (TURN the OTHER CHEEK)

3. HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST


1. THESIS

2. ANTI THESIS

3. SYNTHESIS

@Hobnobber said:

Why is Nietzsche in there? I lived nuke, positive I know more.
To the edit: I'm going forward, not back for an answer. My rule.

Zarathustra is a character who has LIVED inside of a CAVE for a long time and then comes down from the MOUNTAIN to share the things he's learned while inhabiting the area.

Then when he enters the TOWN called THE MOTLEY COW he see the MAN on the TIGHTROPE who tries to reach the OTHER SIDE of it to become an OVER MAN:

But before he can make it OVER to the OTHER SIDE ... out comes the little APE or MONKEY that JUMPS over him ... and makes it there to the other side before THE MAN can.

So it's also as if the APE/MAN/OVERMAN were another VERSION of the ID/EGO/SUPEREGO, where instead of PROGRESSING to a state ( and STAYING THERE) where we're ALL SUPER EGO or an OVER MAN, what we do is CONSTANTLY CYCLE or MORPH BACK and FORTH from one state to the other one again.

:grin:

And that's where NIETZSCHE comes in. Because, imo, his APE/MAN/OVER MAN is basically another version of FREUD'S ID/EGO/SUPEREGO.

ZARATHUSTRA says:

AS APE is to MAN, so shall MAN be to the OVER MAN.

  1. APE

  2. MAN

  3. OVER MAN


  1. ID

  2. EGO

  3. SUPER EGO


1. FATHER (ID/ APE/EYE for an EYE)

2. SON (TURN the OTHER CHEEK)

3. HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST


1. THESIS

2. ANTI THESIS

3. SYNTHESIS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, also translated as Thus Spake Zarathustra) is a philosophical novel by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, composed in four parts between 1883 and 1885 and published between 1883 and 1891.[1] Much of the work deals with ideas such as the "eternal recurrence of the same", the parable on the "death of God", and the "prophecy" of the Übermensch, which were first introduced in The Gay Science.[2]

The UBERMENSCH is another word for the OVER MAN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra#Synopsis

The book chronicles the fictitious travels and speeches of Zarathustra. Zarathustra's namesake was the founder of Zoroastrianism, usually known in English as Zoroaster (Avestan: Zaraϑuštra). Nietzsche is clearly portraying a "new" or "different" Zarathustra, one who turns traditional morality on its head.

@Hobnobber said:

What's that got to do with 1-4 genders and the show?

By all means please proceed to ENLIGHTEN US by telling us more about these 1 to 4 GENDERS that you mention.

The POINT or GOAL of the GENDER LECTURE is to TRY and have a BALANCE of BOTH PERSONALITY TRAITS.

To not be so LOP SIDED or ONE SIDED (too much MASCULINITY/too much FEMININITY)

Which is similar to saying try not to be TOO MUCH ID or APE like oriented in the way that one relates to others.

But just like the SUN and the MOON constantly MORPH back and forth from the states where we have DAYTIME and NIGHTIME, we human beings also do the same kind of a thing.

And whenever we do reach the SUPER EGO or OVER MAN state, we don't STAY THERE.

What we do is remain there for a VERY BRIEF period of time, which is also like the TWILIGHT STATE we have as DAY turns into NIGHT or as NIGHT turns into DAY.

And then we're right back to either acting and behaving like ID like APES or like SUPER EGO oriented OVER MEN again.

Does that help to make it any more clear for you???

The state of BALANCE we achieve (if we ever do reach it) is also NEVER MAINTAINED for very long before we're right back to either acting like ID like APES or acting like we are OVER WOMEN again.

:wink:

@Hobnobber said:

To not be so LOP SIDED or ONE SIDED

In the moment or ALL the time as a state of permanence? The mechanics escape me, go to meetings.

Yes of course the MOMENT matters.

When SEVEN ORDERS KIM to take off his clothes so they could have SEX (without first giving him any FOREPLAY) that was a MOMENT where she portrays TOO MUCH MASCULINITY and is being TOO LOP SIDED or ONE SIDED.

The POINT is how we don't STAY in the SAME STATE all of the time.

INSTEAD we CONSTANTLY MORPH back and forth from being in ONE STATE to being in another different one.

When SEVEN later NUTURES the other BORG kids she's using the FEMININE PART of her PERSONALITY.

When she ATTACKS KIM and ORDERS him to take off his CLOTHES she's in her MASCULINE MODE at a time when she needed to be in her FEMININE or LESS WARRIOR or WAR LIKE state of mind.

In other words, she was being TOO AGGRESSIVE with KIM, which is also a MASCULINE PERSONALITY TRAIT.

MASCULINE TRAITS:

heirarchal

competitive

aggressive

mastery

goal directed

warrior

seeker

hunter mentality

separate

independent

FEMININE TRAITS:

egalitarian

co-operative

receptive

living in process w/relationship & natural world

working together co-operates receives

Caregiver

lover

connected

2 Paths by Pearson:

MASCULINE PATH:

begins w arrogance & hubris ( is a result of patriarchy)

too much ego

must sacrifice ego to achieve humility & find one's true identity over emphasis on oneself & achievement

devalues dependency needs & support of others

FEMININE PATH:

begins w humility & submission (males born into slavery fit this pattern too)

too little ego

must find worth & achieve a healthy ego to make a contribution

over emphasizes relationship & devalues the self

over emphasis on others

The Goal is the birth of our consciousness.

To become a WHOLE person--to Individuate-- to overcome archetypes of our culture that become stereotypes.

If we dont, our culture suffers.

But since SEVEN was also the AGGRESSIVE one with KIM ...

(whereas it's usually also the other way around with the MALE being the AGGRESSIVE one with the FEMALE) ...

one also has to wonder if that scene was one where we did OVERCOME the usual STEREOTYPICAL situation that one usually encounters or sees being portrayed on screen???

It was definitely an ENTERTAINING and AMUSING one to watch due to the way it also broke free from our expectations and from the typical kind of situations that we've become so use to finding when watching stories unfolding on TV.

:blush:

Anyhow, think of a FATHER who goes to work (which is using his MASCULINE ENERGY), then comes home and gets down on the floor to play with his child or children. When he's PLAYING with them he'd also be in his NURTURING ROLE or expressing his FEMININE SIDE.

So that's also the reason why we MORPH from being in one state into our being in another one ( like when the SUN disappears and the DAYTIME turns into NIGHTIME).

So even when we have a BALANCE of both TRAITS, we're also still MORHPING from being in ONE state that's more DOMINANT than the other one, to being in another state where the other one is the more DOMINANT one.

And this is also the COMPLAINT that Tim put forth about JANEWAY, when he said the WRITING was BAD, because of the way she MORPHS from being TENDER to being TOUGH (which he also said was like MIXING OIL and WATER).

But imo, that's also a display of GOOD WRITING when a character like JANEWAY is portrayed as having a BALANCE of BOTH TRAITS (unlike the case was with PICARD who was UNBALANCED ... due to the way that he LACKED having the skills needed to NUTURE kids ... which he also didn't like being around).

And that's also the MAIN REASON why JANEWAY is my favorite STAR TREK CAPTAIN ... because she was a more WELL ROUNDED and BALANCED CAPTAIN than PICARD ... which we also see demonstrated by the way JANEWAY MOTHERS SEVEN and several other members of her crew (which PICARD also didn't do because he also had DEANNA TROI as the SHIP'S COUNSELOR to do that for him).

Also NOTE the way THE VOYAGER has NO COUNSELOR, which is also why we see the crew members going to JANEWAY whenever they have a problem they need help with.

And, imo, JANEWAY also did an OUTSTANDING FIRST RATE JOB of HELPING THEM.

You can also see this in the eppy where she becomes a SHEPHERD to the 3 crew members who were the LOST SHEEP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Shepherd_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)#Plot

After a routine shipwide efficiency analysis, Seven of Nine determines that three of Voyager's crewmen are not performing at acceptable levels. Whereas such a problem on a starship would normally be remedied by a transfer to less challenging assignments, this option is not available to the crew of the Voyager, which is stranded tens of thousands of light years from Earth. Captain Janeway decides to take the three crewmen under her wing, and against the advice of Seven of Nine, brings them along on an astronomical study in the Delta Flyer in order to form a rapport with them. The three crewmen are science officer William Telfer, a hypochondriac; Tal Celes, a Bajoran whose substandard work requires constant double-checking by others; and the asocial Mortimer Harren, who is interested only in cosmological theories and has found an assignment where he can sequester himself on Deck 15 and pursue this subject between occasional duties

Then comes some ADVENTURES on an AWAY MISSION and the conclusion of the PLOT SUMMARY ends this way:

Janeway observes that in looking for lost members of her flock, the Good Shepherd ended up running into a wolf, but that in the end, she did find them.

In other words, she also MOTHERS and NURTURES these 3 LOST SHEEP the same way as she did SEVEN.

But whenever one tries to explain this, the reply one is given contains a couple of links to a couple of GOOFY GIRLS who've made VIDEOS where they're TROLLING their PROFESSORS and the other students in their class.

How would they like it if they were the PROFESSOR who taught the course and might LOSE his JOB because some SILLY BIMBO is busy BASHING and ATTACKING the course he teaches???

Apparenly they're both also on MISSIONS to try and convince others NOT to TAKE the COURSE which is also implied by the TITLE she used saying SHE TOOK IT so WE don't have to.

So one also wonders if she could be SUED for SLANDER or for DEFORMATION of character, which might also result in her having to pay for his LOST WAGES if he is FIRED???

All the professor would need to do is have others who took the course TESTIFY about what a DISRUPTIVE force the BIMBO was being in the class, which is apparently also what MOTIVATED her to make VIDEOS where she SLANDERS him and the other members of the class.

Same situation also applies to the other BLOND girl who was also full of RIDICULE for the choice made by others in her class in response to a QUESTION they'd been asked to answer.

How would this BLOND like it if someone else in her class made a VIDEO where they discussed something that she'd said in class, and they also didn't ask for her permission to do so???

Imo, both of them should also be EXPELLED for what they've done.

It's a bit like one's NEIGHBOR making a VIDEO about you (that you also know nothing about) where they also MADE FUN of something you'd said and then posted it on the internet.

IF you could also prove it wasn't TRUE, shouldn't you also be able to SUE them for the way that they tried to DEFAME you ( especially if what they said may also cause you to lose your job)???

Stuff like this is also the reason why we should RENAME what's now referred to as being SOCIAL MEDIA and call it ANTISOCIAL MEDIA.

Because, imo, that would also be a much MORE ACCURATE description of it.

And since the VIDEO with the BIMBO (who is still wearing BRACES on her teeth) keeps SKIPPING and JUMPING every few seconds, and she also keeps READING from something as she speaks, one also suspects she never took the COURSE, and is making a FAKE VIDEO where she merely claims to have taken something that she has not.

And that would also explain the reason for all of the CONSTANT EDITS (apparently which were also made to COVER UP ALL of the MANY MISTAKES she keeps making), and it would also explain the reason why she still looks like she isn't even age 17 yet (although she also tries to PRETEND as if she was 17 a long time ago).

Also NOTE the way she also SCREWS UP her face as she READS the HOSPITAL part (about checking off BODY PARTS on a HOSPITAL CHART),

as if that's also something that someone else got her to say FOR THEM ...

and isn't something that she herself ever experienced before or said in a classroom.

And that could also be the REASON why this YOUNG BIMBO isn't worried about getting EXPELLED from school or worried about getting SUED by her teacher (if she's also still a MINOR who's NEVER even taken a GENDER class or attended college before).

:rolling_eyes:

Also NOTE how she keeps saying things like probably actually which also isn't what one sees being said when we see what THE CAPTIONS say.

You can also see that happening for the 2nd TIME at the 1:15 TIME MARK where she's READING the LIST of TOPICS that she claims were discussed in the class.

But IF she really took the course, then one would also think she could REMEMBER them without needing to READ THEM after she'd also spend time discussing and studying them.

She also SQUINTS up her eyes again as if she's telling LIES when she says:

ONE TIME I THINK we were also talking about the b and c word ...

but the CAPS also don't say the ONE TIME I THINK part of what she's said ...

because someone probably also didn't want to call attention to the FACT that she only THINKS this happened (which probably also means it didn't really happen and she's MERELY MAKING IT UP).

Because saying the b or the c word (she also can't remember which one of them was said) is the END of the WORLD is also a GROSS EXAGERATION.

And still another CURIOUS thing is the way TIM also says he will SLOW IT DOWN for me.

Which is still another VERY CURIOUS thing for someone to say when one is communicating with someone by TYPING things back to them on a screen.

Is it possible this TIM could be this other person who calls themselves ANA???

Could that also be the reason why they said the VIDEOS would explain WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM, and then NEVER ANSWERED the MANY TIMES they were asked to EXPLAIN the reason why they thought the VIDEO explained something ABOUT THEM THEMSELVES????

TIM'S also been VERY SILENT lately.

Could it be because they also suspect that one might realize they ACTUALLY ARE this other person who made that VIDEO???

At the 1:47 TIME MARK we once again hear her saying something that's NOT said in the CAPS which is this:

WE AMERICAN WOMEN I DON'T THINK have problems.

Again, she says she DOESN'T THINK that's the CASE, which is still another INDICATION that she's NOT really SURE of what it is she's saying (because maybe what she's saying is FAKE and she's MAKING IT UP).

At the 2:18 TIME MARK when she gets to the HOSPITAL remark, NOTE how we once again have a situation where WHAT she's SAYING DOESN'T MATCH what the CAPTION is saying she says.

The CAPTION says:

Maybe we should keep the CONCEPT of BINARY GENDER for a person going into the hospital ... so that they aren't given an incorrect dosage of anything or have their precious time wasted while a doctor looks for , say uterine problems in a biological man.

whereas SHE herself says this:

DO YOU THINK MAYBE the CONCEPT of 2 GENDERS ... should be KEPT FOR ... if SOMEONE'S going into the hospital ... and they need URGENT CARE ... and they have a PAIN in their lower ABDOMEN ... then maybe we should keep that concept ... because they would get CARE much QUICKER or much more QUICKLY ... if the doctors knew if they were biologically a female or a male ... so they know what to LOOK FOR.

As you can see, There's definitely a HUGE MAJOR DIFFERENCE HERE.

So when the CAPTION doesn't even MATCH what it is that she's saying, one can also be pretty SURE this GIRL is A FAKE, or is someone who's probably also making the VIDEO for SOMEONE ELSE so that they can't be SUED or EXPELLED for doing it themselves.

Anyhow, this is still another reason the BIMBOS in those VIDEOS are also LOP SIDED or WAY too ONE SIDED (like SEVEN use to be before JANEWAY begins to TAME and CIVILIZE her).

be honest, you’re jealous

Jealous of WHO or WHAT???

JANEWAY??? SEVEN??? Some young BIMBO who's most likely also the PLAYTHING or PUPPET of someone else who got her to make that VIDEO and say what she's saying FOR THEM ... because they're PISSED about being made to take a course they didn't want to take ... that TRIGGERS something HIDDEN INSIDE of them that they're not willing to FACE yet???

So they get a SURRGATE to have a HISSY FIT or a TEMPER TANDRUM for them by PROXY???

The song about the little DOGGIE in the WINDOW comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=2AkLE4X-bbU

How much is that BIMBO in the WINDOW

The one with the WAGGLY TALE (Tail) (Braces and TWINKLE TOES)

How much is that BIMBO in the WINDOW

I'm betting that BIMBO'S for SALE.

More likely the SILLY IDIOT also did it FOR FREE.

SO NO.

There's No GREEN EYED MONSTER lurking anywhere around here. Just my ID urges wanting to come out and play and have some FUN.

:grin:

@Hobnobber

A fail is acid testing people

@Tim-Buktu

Do you want to be diplomatic or do you want to make sense?

@Invidia

The ATTEMPT was definitely to AVOID the creation of any ANNOYANCE on your part and not to CREATE it.

@Tim-Buktu

FAIL!

You're pointing your finger in the WRONG DIRECTION.

It was TIM who posted the FAIL reply in response back to me.

So it was also TIM who did the ACID TESTING (as you put it).

join the pod, all conflict resolved, pure memories produce pure people of one mind, spike the kool-aid for a round. Altogether, relax. Go-West, walk-wild, California-will-pay. Go-West, walk-wild, California-will-pay. Further north is grunge, violence and despair

Humming the doggie/BIMBO song again ...

I must take a trip to California ...

:blue_car:

Hopefully it also won't be 2049 whenever one gets there ...

but even IF it is ...

and one STOPS over in VEGAS to see DECKARD (and his DOG) ...

one would also have something IN COMMON with him ...

due to the way he tells WALLACE that HE KNOWS WHAT is REAL and WHAT ISN'T ...

when he introduced the OTHER FAKE RACHEL to him (the one with the GREEN EYES).

And They also say LIZ had LAVENDER eyes ...

https://www.livescience.com/33149-did-elizabeth-taylor-really-have-violet-eyes.html

which would probably also be difficult to find there in the BLACK MARKET that you mention.

Sounds more like one would need to use some kind of CUSTOM MADE ORDER and have plenty of DOE RAE ME in order to get a PAIR of those.

:two_women_holding_hands:

:eyes:

:eye:

:monkey:

Ok. ENOUGH GOOFING OFF for now ... now that one's taken a trip to CALIFORNIA ...

a place where one also use to LIVE at one time (even though others also say they think one needs to GET OUT more).

:grin:

So Back to the other STATE again (PUN INTENDED):

In addition to the links to the 2 BIMBO VIDEOS Tim gave us ...

Tim has also given us still another LINK to still another VIDEO (that he also claims explains WHERE HE'S COMING FROM).

So let's explore what we'll call:

VIDEO NUMBER 3:

The TITLE of it says this:

MOST of WOMEN's STUDIES is a FRAUD

Isn't that also suppose to be MOST ARE a FRAUD???

So this OLDER WOMAN in the VIDEO is also suggesting that MOST STUDIES of WOMEN are FAKE???

Does that also mean TIM is saying he AGREES with this claim???

Even if he's also MAJORED in CHEMISTRY and ENGINEERING and has NEVER even STUDIED WOMEN or taken any WOMEN STUDIES courses before???

Here's the 3RD link he gave us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snru8ZSfmkg&feature=youtu.be

NOTE the way the OLDER WOMAN also begins by saying this:

WOMEN'S STUDIES are a MIX of GOOD and BAD ...

Here's why:

and then she also proceeds to say they are:

Drawn from OTHER FIELDS ...

and that those who teach such STUDIES are

HISTORIANS with an EXPERTISE in a CERTAIN FIELD ...

the result being that you also end up with EXPERTS on WOMEN in the FIELDS of PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, experts on WOMEN WRITERS, etc.

And she also says that those PROFESSORS give STRAIGHT FORWARD ACADEMIC CLASSES.

So what this means is the BIMBO with a mouth still full of BRACES ...

who says she's a HISTORY MAJOR ...

is someone who also wants to get a DEGREE in HISTORY ...

yet she's also NOT WILLING to STUDY the HISTORY of GENDER or study the HISTORY of other ETHNIC GROUPS ...

and she also doesn't want you to STUDY such matters either???

Isn't HISTORY also FULL of people from different ETHINC GROUPS???

So she wants to be GIVEN a DEGREE in a SUBJECT (HISTORY), but she's also NOT WILLING to STUDY certain subjects in MORE DEPTH and DETAIL in order to get that DEGREE???

And this is also suppose to be a RATIONAL way of THINKING???

Where's the LOGIC of this kind of THOUGHT PROCESS???

Where's any EVIDENCE that this person has the kind of CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS that one needs to GET a DEGREE???

As was previously also stated right from the START of this discussion about the BIMBO with BRACES ...

Without the ABILITY to THINK CRITICALLY, we can also end up being like SARAH PALIN, someone who MAKES a COMPLETE FOOL of herself each time that she OPENS up her UNINFORMED MOUTH and nothing but a bunch of EMPTY HOT AIR pours forth from it.

As for the claim that she's a FAILED POLITICIAN ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politician

Definition of politician. 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government.

Since Since PALIN also never held her job as Governor of Alaska for very long: :

www.answers.com › … › US Governors › Sarah Palin

She took over as governor in December of 2006, which means she has only been governor for 1 year and 10 months.

calling her a FAILED POLITICIAN is also not an accurate way to describe her, because she was also NOT a person who was EXPERIENCED in the ART of SCIENCE of government.

In fact the reason why she left the job is because she was doing a LOUSY JOB at the time she left:

Palin was also the subject of an ethics probe concerning her brother-in-law, Mike Wooten.[10] On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[11] She then offered him an alternative position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[12][13] Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[14][15] He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten On October 10, 2008, the Republican-dominated Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release the Branchflower investigative report[25] which found that Sarah Palin abused her power as governor in the firing of Monegan.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin

Palin announced she was resigning her office due to the costs and distractions of battling ethics investigations describing the “insane” amount of time and money that both she and the state of Alaska had expended responding to "frivolous" legal ethics complaints filed against her.[2][3][4][5] She said the state had spent $2 million while she and her husband, Todd, would be spending "more than half a million dollars in legal bills

So when someone only holds an office for a BRIEF period of time, and doesn't even complete the 4 YEAR TIME PERIOD required of them, that DEFINITELY DOES NOT make them an EXPERIENCED POLITICIAN which is also the DEFINITION of put forth.

It's the same situation with the CURRENT POTUS who is also doing a LOUSY JOB. IF he also never completes the 4 YEAR TIME PERIOD he has, then he will also NOT be a FAILED POLITICIAN either. Because he'd still be A BUSINESSMAN who ran for office, and then got BOOTED OUT of it for doing such a LOUSY JOB. And even as a BUSINESSMAN he also did a LOUSY JOB by going BANKRUPT 6 TIMES. So that probably also means he doesn't really deserve to have that kind of a title either (but would still get it simply due to the LENGTH of TIME that he's been at it).

But if he's GONE before the 4 YEAR term is up ... then neither PALIN nor THE SCAM MAN (who ran the FAKE UNIVERSITY) would be FAILED POLITICIANS according to the DICTIONARY DEFINITION ... (due to neither one of them having enough EXPERIENCE or spending enough TIME in the position to fit into that kind of a CATEGORY).

So ...

basically the rest of what the OLDER WOMAN in VIDEO NUMBER 3 is saying is MOST TEXTBOOKS on FEMINISIM are LOP SIDED or way too ONE SIDED ...

and she also asks for someone who knows of one that IS NOT to let her KNOW about it.

But when one does a SEARCH to try to FIND these TEXTBOOKS, one also CAN'T FIND THEM (just like one also couldn't find any of the MANY JANEWAY MONOLOGUES that Tim said existed).

And found this book:

https://www.textbooks.com/Are-Women-Human-71-Edition/9780802829962/Dorothy-L-Sayers.php?CSID=ABUJQWOWJCWJMKQQDTO2DQSOB

with the TITLE "ARE WOMEN HUMAN," which the SUMMARY section also says contains 2 ESSAYS that don't really devote that much time to the TOPIC of FEMINISM.

So WHY is a book with 2 ESSAYS even being called a FEMINIST TEXTBOOK when it also describes it as not really talking or writing about the SUBJECT???

As far as one can tell the rest of the books in the FEMINIST TEXTBOOK LIST are also NOT really TEXTBOOKS either. They're mostly just little books in NOVELLA FORM that contain thoughts about the experience of being a FEMALE.

So here's the name of a COUPLE of other BOOKS for the WOMAN in the VIDEO (who also makes the FALSE claim that no feminist books exist that aren't LOP SIDED):

MRS. DALLOWAY

A ROOM of ONE'S OWN

and here's a LINK where you can also read A ROOM of ONE'S OWN online FREE of CHARGE:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200791.txt

Both works were also WRITTEN by VIRGINIA WOOLF (one of the writers previously mentioned who also uses the STREAM of CONSCIOUSNESS technique).

And since that kind of a TECHNIQUE can also be DIFFICULT for some to comprehend, there's also an ACADEMY AWARD WINNING MOVIE that was made about the LIFE of VIRGINIA writing the MRS. DALLOWAY book which is called:

THE HOURS.

And in the FILM we also meet a MODERN DAY woman that one of the characters keeps calling MRS. DALLOWAY (due to the way she EXPRESSES the ARTISTIC SIDE or her FEMININITY PERSONALITY by COOKING and having PARTIES for other people).

Which is also the reason why this would be a BOOK where FEMININITY is NOT being PUT DOWN the way that the WOMAN in the VIDEO NUMBER 3 complains MOST BOOKS do.

And in addition to THE PSYCHOLOGY of GENDER course, PBS also has another TELECOURSE called WOMEN'S STUDIES.

But MOSTLY what one did was READ NOVELS instead of TEXTBOOKS.

So one is also PUSSELED as to why this WOMAN who is ANTI FEMINIST claims MOST TEXTBOOKS are ANTI MALE in nature when the WOMAN'S STUDY course didn't even use any TEXT BOOKS at all.

A ROOM of ONE'S OWN is a NOVELETTE or an ESSAY that VIRGINIA wrote when she was asked to give A SPEECH about WOMEN WRITERS.

The PROBLEM of course is when VIRGINIA tries to go to the UNIVERSITY LIBRARY to do some RESEARCH about them, she's TURNED AWAY (because WOMEN also weren't allowed to use it ... for fear that they might BLEED on the BOOKS or something ... even though MALES could also CONTAMINATE them by getting their SEMEN on them ...... as was also demonstrated for us in still another film called THE SQUID and the WHALE ... where a young TWEEN BOY deliberately went around smearing his SEMEN all over several LIBRARY BOOKS, lockers, and other walls of the building until the JANITOR got tired of cleaning it up and BUSTED him for doing it).

So VIRGINIA was FORCED to seek out the info she wants in another way.

And that also leads to still more problems, due to the way there HAD NOT been VERY MANY of them (WOMEN WRITERS).

JANE AUSTEN and the BRONTE SISTERS are examples of WOMEN WRITERS.

But since WOMEN have MOSTLY been way TOO BUSY doing the COOKING and CLEANING and LAUNDRY, and doing other HOUSEHOLD CHORES (along with looking after the CHILDREN if they have any), that also means throughout HISTORY WOMEN also haven't had DENS or ROOMS of their OWN that they could GO TO as a way to GET AWAY from the DISTRACTIONS of the KIDS or the other SERVANTS.

And that's also the reason why the MALES have been able to PURSUE their CREATIVITY more than FEMALES were able to.

Note the way JANE and EMILY BRONTE (and her sisters) and VIRGINIA also NEVER had any KIDS of their own.

So that's also one reason why they were able to become FAMOUS WOMEN WRITERS or become a FAMOUS WOMAN POET like EMILY DICKINSON.

Because they had ROOM's of THEIR OWN where they could GO TO and not be CONSTANTLY DISTRACTED by their KIDS and/or HUSBANDS all the time.

https://www.shmoop.com/room-of-ones-own/

In A Nutshell X

Let's imagine two lab mice. Let's say they're writers (bear with us). Mouse A has a nice private cage and great food. Mouse B has lousy food and a bunch of other mice in her cage who keep interrupting her. In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf argues that men are like Mouse A and women are like Mouse B. And how can Mouse B—besides the fact that she's a mouse—write well under such bad conditions?

To put it another way—without all the mice—Woolf says you need privacy, money, and good food to do good work. If you have a lousy meal, how could you be in the mood to write beautifully? If you don't have any privacy, how will you get your thought down on paper without your husband or your kid bugging you? If you have to work at odd jobs for money, how will you find time to write?

So ... Has anyone else seen the FILM called THE HOURS???

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/590-the-hours/discuss/5a54dc019251417ab500fe45

Meryl STREEP plays the PART of a MRS. DALLOWAY type who LIKES COOKING and EXPRESSING the ARTISTIC PART of herself in that way.

In contrast we also have another character who DOESN'T LIKE COOKING or having the roles of a HOUSE WIFE.

And we also have NICOLE KIDMAN playing the part of the POET or VISIONARY (for which she also WON an OSCAR) when she portrays the part of VIRGINA WOOLF herself.

Thus also giving us a BALANCED STORY ...

and NOT one that is LOP SIDED or ONE SIDED ...

the way that the WOMAN in VIDEO NUMBER 3 CLAIMS all BOOKS about the STUDY of WOMEN are suppose to be.

So now that we have EVIDENCE that she's ALSO WRONG, shall we also give WOMAN NUMBER 3 a FAIL as well???

Or would doing that also fit into the ACID TESTING category???

VIRGINIA'S CHECK OUT NOTE that she left to her HUBBY LEONARD:

Dearest,

I feel certain I am going mad again. I feel we can't go through another of those terrible times. And I shan't recover this time. I begin to hear voices, and I can't concentrate. So I am doing what seems the best thing to do. You have given me the greatest possible happiness. You have been in every way all that anyone could be. I don't think two people could have been happier till this terrible disease came. I can't fight any longer. I know that I am spoiling your life, that without me you could work. And you will I know. You see I can't even write this properly. I can't read. What I want to say is I owe all the happiness of my life to you. You have been entirely patient with me and incredibly good. I want to say that - everybody knows it. If anybody could have saved me it would have been you. Everything has gone from me but the certainty of your goodness. I can't go on spoiling your life any longer. I don't think two people could have been happier than we have been.

Doesn't sound like something written by a woman who HATES MEN does it??? But that's also the kind of a FALSE CLAIM that the WOMAN in VIDEO NUMBER 3 puts forth when she states that all BOOKS read in WOMEN STUDIES class are ANTI MALE.

And here's a QUOTE from VIRGINIA:

"Each has his past shut in him like the leaves of a book known to him by his heart, and his friends can only read the title." - Virginia Woolf

But when CHAKOTAY was actually HOOKED UP and into the MIND of SEVEN, he obviously also GOT INSIDE of the PAGES of her BOOK (so to speak) and saw what was in there.

And HOB also describes what he found there by putting it this way:

a severely traumatized child existing in an adult body

Chakotay took on a work in progress ...

One that also begins with the NURTURING of JANEWAY (after SEVEN was DISCONNECTED from THE WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE HIVE MIND of THE BORG COLLECTIVE).

HOB ...

YOU MENTIONED going to MEETINGS ... when you said the MECHANICS escaped you ...

and you also said this:

My last partner had some disturbing male characteristics, leaving me in doubt and curiosity, not broken, never fledged to pursue until late, had dreams.

So would you like to tell us more about this person that you've mentioned, or would that also be NONE of OUR BUSINESS (like Tim said when he was asked to describe the mother of the child of the STAY at HOME NEPHEW that he'd mentioned)???

:relaxed:

QUOTE from A ROOM of ONE'S OWN:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200791.txt

The title women and fiction might mean, and you may have meant it to mean, women and what they are like, or it might mean women and the fiction that they write; or it might mean women and the fiction that is written about them, or it might mean that somehow all three are inextricably mixed together ...

then I began to consider the subject in this last way, which seemed the most interesting, I soon saw that it had one fatal drawback. I should never be able to come to a conclusion. I should never be able to fulfil what is, I understand, the first duty of a lecturer to hand you after an hour's discourse a nugget of pure truth to wrap up between the pages of your notebooks and keep on the mantelpiece for ever. All I could do was to offer you an opinion upon one minor point--a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction; and that, as you will see, leaves the great problem of the true nature of woman and the true nature of fiction unsolved.

Apparently the MOTHER of the child of Tim's STAY at HOME NEPHEW would also have found a way to SOLVE the HAVING a ROOM of ONE'S OWN issue with his NEPHEW being willing to take care of the child???

But you'd also still need a BREAD WINNER or someone to bring home the BACON if that MOTHER's also busy creating FICTION in her OWN ROOM???

And Going to the CIRCUS would probably also be more FUN than going out to get some BREAD???

Anyhow, one of my favorite scenes in The HOURS film is when one of the COOKS barges into HER ROOM where she's busy trying to WRITE her MRS. DALLOWAY NOVEL and INTERRUPTS her TRAIN of thought.

So as a way to PUNISH the COOK, and keep her from doing it again, Virginia sends the COOK off on an errand that involves a LONG TRAIN RIDE to LONDON. And one can also imagine the COOK having TIME to REFLECT on the TRAIN about what she's done, and thinking TWICE about it the NEXT TIME before she barges into the ROOM AGAIN and interrupts her BOSS LADY again, while she's busy trying to WRITE her WORK of FICTION (a situation that the COOK obviously also doesn't take SERIOUSLY or consider to be important enough not to remain UNINTERRUPTED).

And here's still something else to consider or REFLECT upon ...

After we had a FEMALE CAPTAIN who portrays a WELL ROUNDED and much more BALANCED PERSONALITY than we'd previously seen in the LOP SIDED cases of KIRK or PICARD ...

NOTE what happens when they went back to having another MALE CAPTAIN again ...

and how that didn't work ...

because the result was having a STAR TREK series CANCELLED for the first time in it's HISTORY ...

after only being aired for 2 SHORT SEASONS.

So that's probably also something else that one should REFLECT UPON* or take into consideration.

After the portrayal of JANEWAY, no one else has even come close to doing a BETTER JOB than the one that she did as the CAPTAIN in VOYAGER.

:relaxed:

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page