SES then and now - what has changed?

[Free Thinker]

I think they mean that ALL men embody the absolute.

It's just another version of Paul's busibodyness about men and women. The men are like God while the women are like the church. Yeah, I took a class on Christian marriage at my Catholic college. I should have paid a little more attention but frankly, I didn't care all that much.

[Free Thinker]

I want to call everyone's attention to the fact that I am editing my earlier post answering ADG's questions.

I spoke to my mother at length about the school, as well as other family issues this weekend. I also spoke to my father, who told me that my mother actually weaned me from breastfeeding at 5 months old, because that was the school's guidelines. He also said, although he couldn't remember exactly what the rationale was, that they said something about it being a conscious decision that would somehow help the child. ACK!!!!

So it was entirely the school's fault (coupled with my parent's lack of knowledge on the matter) that my mother had to go through such pains and suffering trying to relactate and feed me, and that I went malnourished for so long before she could.

I'm also pretty sure that the rules were 4-6 months for weaning, as opposed to he 4-6 weeks ADG stated. If it had been weeks, there would be many cases of malnourishment and failure to thrive among children of school attenders. I don't know of anyone in the school besides me who had these issues. (Poor immune system, asthma and allergies from toddler-hood on up until now as I sit sniffling with sinus pain.)

Sigh!

[NYC]

Yup, women obeying men (specifically their father or husband) is suggested as the ideal. The father or husband is said to embody the Absolute, so the wife is to assume she is obeying the will of the Absolute. The woman is said to embody nature, or the universe.

WOW Bella?I did not realize that female subservience was still out-loud advocated in the AU school. You don?t mention your perspective on this. do you agree that a woman should obey her husband or, lacking one, her father?

take it to the extreme, if the woman has to obey the will of the Absolute without question what happens when the Absolute tells her to jump out of a window?

Even with an everyday example, I don?t see any empirical evidence to assume men as a group are more rational or wiser or closer to God ?the Absolute? than women.

What Bella is describing is the classic duality of patriarchy ? men over women, humans over animals, the Absolute (or God) over humans and it all follows theologically speaking from the big dualistic divide, spirit over matter (purusha over prakriti in Sanskrit).

Dualism sees the world as a series of paired opposites where the first term is dominant and the second term subordinate. Where spirit is privileged over matter, the mind is more important than the body, men rule women, humans dominate animals, etc. The primary, dominant terms are grouped together and the secondary, subordinate terms associated as well ? so women ?are? nature and emotion, etc, and men ?are? reason even though evidence suggests women reason as well as men and men do experience emotions (though perhaps they are culturally trained not to show them).

Dualism has a tendency to distance women from God. But it is obviously a handy way of looking at the world if you are in the dominant category.

Advaita Vedanta is a non-dualistic system. The Self and ?the Other? are one. And while there is a strong thread of patriarchal, dualistic thought in Hinduism (and Christianity), that kind of division is inimical to advaita.

This is probably the "subtle and mysterious quality" referred to, and the wife is (generally speaking) supposed to provide the "heart" in the relationship while the husband (generally speaking) provides the reason.

What a crock. I would prefer not to have the burden of feeling my husband?s emotions for him, and to think for myself. I am surprised this idiotic teaching survives thus far in Australia. It has no basis whatever in advaita.

Men have not always and everywhere been the bosses; matriarchal cultures existed before patriarchal ones and every post-industrial, information-age society is starting to swing back in that direction. Putting adult women under male rule leads to abuse and exploitation. No man alive can fully embody the Absolute, and so any man who is GIVEN absolute power is doomed to fail to live up to it.

Of course, power can be overt or covert. In a patriarchal system, the man is the head and the woman the heart but what is usually left unsaid (at least in front of the men) is that the woman is also the neck and she can turn the head to any direction she wants.

[daska]

Bella

If your husband is the Absolute and he has rejected SES and its teachings for himself then why are you still a member? Surely your attendance implicitly questions his judgement and is therefore a direct contravention of the school's teachings and a denial of your husband's 'Absoluteness'...

...which presumably means you are about as close to becoming one with the absolute as I am

??

[bella]

NYC, I've found that "obedience" can be - and is - interpreted on quite a few levels. Ideally, it means that the husband's or father's word on a subject is final. I think what helps to get people offside with this teaching in the school is that it's seen as a focus on the differences between the sexes, rather than the essential unity (as you just mentioned). If you believe you're part of the same whole, but working in different ways through different forms, it's easier to accept. It really is a major issue for quite a few people in the school (especially the women, unsurprisingly), because the interpretation is often that there is a separation being made between "strong and capable" and "weak and useless". I don't see it that way, and it's still a bit of an issue for me. In the end, who's to say that the assumed greater capacity for "steadier reason" is better or worse than the assumed greater capacity for understanding, compassion and empathy? One is more useful in overtly directing things, and one is more useful in supporting the whole. It helps if you don't make a value judgement on which is more important or worthy. As I said though, this really is a sticking point, and it stays as mostly an ideal for quite a few people, quite a bit of the time. I suppose it comes down to whether someone is prepared to accept, fully, that they may not always know what the best course of action is, all of the time. That's a toughie.

Daska, my husband hasn't criticised my attendance at the school or asked me not to go. He made the decision that he wasn't interested, but hasn't told me I'm retarded for sticking with it or anything. There really isn't anything implicit about it - I don't shave my face because he does, either. That said, I have no doubt you're right in thinking I'm about as close to the Absolute as you are.

[a different guest]

It's assumed men have a greater capacity for "steadier reason" ????? That is absurd.

[bella]

It might be interesting to see what "steadier reason" means to different people though. Wanna go first, ADG?

[a different guest]

actually bella, what immediately sprung to mind was the ability to read, understand and sucesssfuly use the instructions that come with Ikea furniture. LOL

And i've never met a bloke yet who can correctly assemble at Bjyork Bookcase (or whatever) first go - but a lot of women who can!

[ross nolan]

Comments; This discussion about the equality or inequality of men and women and the differing reactions to the proposition (whether or not terminology like 'the absolute' is involved ) can be seen as merely an example of either an ideological argument (which has a predetermined outcome independent of fact or argument and usually unable to be altered by either ) or as an epistemological discourse (as in what is 'meant' by equal what value is put on 'steadiness' 'analytic' etc versus 'feeling' 'caring' etc )

A fair degree of hypocrisy and self contradictory utterance is evident with a denigratory "example" of how hopeless men are at simply assembling some 'foolproof' DIY furniture as against the demonstrated superiority of women . (many television ads have this same theme with the resignedly tolerant oh-so capable woman showing the doltish "mere male" -- to use the title of a long running column in "Women's Weekly" magazine -- how to do some childishly simple task )

If men were to use this same tactic to belittle women's abilities in such a blatant and pointed way what do you think "feminists" might be moved to do about it ?
BTW have you ever heard of "masculists" ?-- the corresponding term for
those who forcibly defend male rights,male superiority, male interests etc
-- how about "male chauvinist pig" then ?

How many of these so superior women have ever designed a piece of furniture, or the machines that made it, or built the factory it was made in, or the office building that most 'feminists' assert their (more than) equality in, or the technology behind this that you use to belittle the intelligence and abilities of men ADG (the internet, electronics,physics etc ) In my field, Aeronautics, I honestly do not know of even one aircraft ever designed by a woman . How can this be if the aggressively
postulated 'non difference' (equality) of women is a fact ? Draw up a list of other "Ikea furniture" like demonstrations of male stupidity while you are at it -- perhaps start with mining operations founded and staffed by women, work up to steel mills, industrial operations of all kinds, dams,bridges, transport systems,food production machinery, political,legal , scientific contributions , medicine, etc etc

This is the thanks and recognition men get for "busting their guts" in the most life threatening tasks that society demands, for taking on life shortening stress and imposing on themselves the most difficult and most unpleasant tasks that have to be done (including putting their lives on the line in times of war even if sent to war by a Margaret Thatcher ) -- participation in military forces is never compulsory for females even though a number now and in the past have certainly participated in active military service and supported the war effort if factories during wars (the Russian female pilots in WW2 The Israeli army and current "equal opportunity" female military participation are in general exceptions to a historical rule of women being shielded from the real horrors of war and, being honest, generally having a less suited physical make up even if denied by rabid "equalitists" -- this is the most truthful explanation for the participation of, overwhelmingly, males in the productive, industrial and scientific etc fields.

Sorry if that sounds supportitive of the "SES ish" view (as I was earlier accused of ) It's just an undeniable (rationally) fact.

What is equality ? Engineers and people who have to acheive repeatable values in just about any quality,measurement or property realize that true equality is just about impossible to acheive to a high degree despite every effort to do so . (there has to always be a "tolerance" or built in ability to accomodate 'variation' or 'difference' so that things can ultimately work)

Rigid, brain dead insistence on the existence of "equality" and "equal capability" would result in chaos in society and mass starvation, war etc if actually enacted -- if ADG took all the "suppressed" women in society and swapped their jobs with their husbands or male 'counterparts' then you would soon see the real comparative abilities of the sexes -- about the only idealogically driven experiment of this kind actually performed in recent times was the 'return to year zero' cultural "equalization" carried out in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge . Remember the killing fields ?

The exact same mindset is behind the "defence" of Aboriginal cultural "equality" and "cultural relativism" that has been so extolled and promoted as fact before on this forum --- the whole SES existence seems to stem from a naive "anti western values" let's get back to the "superior" "original" teachings of 5000 years ago -- Henry George wanted to overturn the despicable capitalist system that "exploited" the labour of the masses and again aimed at "equality" of outcome -- pull down the entrepreneurs, the capitalists (nearly all men) , stop nasty male industrial competition in favour of wholesome female cooperative quilt making (or some equivalent) and all will be in a state of "nirvana".

Whatever the supposed "absolute" or god figure that underlies the SES/Hindu vision of the world I don't think "he/she/it" can emdody the sort of qualities that ADG would like either , -- nature IS red in tooth and claw and life brutish and short if you take away the contributions of the hated and despised "mere male" and the fruits of thousands of years of 'cold,calculating male dominated science,work and thought' -- what good would it have done for white men to adopt aboriginal "noble savage" lifestyle rather than bring his inferior western values and ways ?

If you believe in some God figure is he not, by truthful examination of the world as it was , more like some roman emperor sitting above a blood thirsty spectacle of kill or be killed in the colluseum than a benign all loving "female" diety that speads sweetness and light amongst the bucolic elysian fields below ? ie the supposition that all was well before "adam" sinned and upset the "garden of eden" that pre industrial humanity enjoyed (the gist of the "chief Seattle thing " and the 'golden age of Krishna" )

This sort of repudiation of critical thought, western ideology and simple observable fact is what most irritated me about the crap being pushed under false pretences by the SES/SOP and I find no commonality of purpose with ADG who seems to have similar fundamental views to them -- I think that ADG in only superficially at odds with the sort of ideology behind the SES and ,apart from the resenting the seperation of roles and explicit recognition of the dissimilarity of much of male/female constitution , would accept the SES doctrines very easily.

The distinct disinterest in discussing in any meanigful way the philosophy and it's logical outcomes involved in this entire overview of the SES and it's effects but rather just a few peripheral minor divergences of view makes the level of consideration not much different to the heated debates about exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
.. depends, ..what dance are they doing..........

Did anyone actually go to the SES SOP to consider philosophy ?

Ross Nolan

[a different guest]

Well considering we are now talking flat pack furniture made from particle board is it a pun to say to Ross that you certainly seem to have a "chip" on your shoulder?

Ross your argument is mindlessly simplistic and I really do not appreciate your assumption about my pov or putting words in my mouth.

but just as aside, you said

In my field, Aeronautics, I honestly do not know of even one aircraft ever designed by a woman

well here's the "first", and "first" implies others...

Elizabeth (Elsie) MacGill (1905-1980) ? Elsie MacGill was the first woman to graduate from the University of Toronto with an electrical engineering degree in 1927. She worked in aeronautical design, and was responsible for WWII production of the famous Hawker Hurricane. She became the first female aircraft designer in the world. She also helped draft the international airworthiness regulations for the design of commercial aircraft.

[ross nolan]

Reply to ADG /viewers,
ADG, I certainly did not intend to insult your "pov" whatever that might be , as to putting words in your mouth this started with your purporting to "apologize" for my statements and in a patronizing and snide aside "explaining" how ignorant rural bumpkins ,like me (in your conceited presumption) had to be 'compensated for' by much smarter and properly informed persons like yourself . (the little aside to "Daffy" about what should "we" do about this reinforces the feeling of your need to 'belong' and have 'acceptance' so characteristic of political correctness in general -- and of course the basic mechanism used by cults to create group solidarity )

Most of your postings come over as smart arsed to use a good old Australian term hard to misunderstand -- any woman who goes out of her way to post the "C..T" word describing a vulgar term for female anatomy (look at ADG's previous postings) does not need me to "put words into her mouth" .

When I see women demanding to work in coal mines or abbatoirs or any of thousands of other nearly exclusively male "dominated" 'occupations' that underpin your standard of living and point out the lack of 'equality' in these unglamorous areas of work I will concede that there is no difference between men and women in either innate abilities,proclivities or vocational decisions as to what is "good enough" for them .

Your example of Elsie Mc Gill (well known to me and easily locatable to anyone who can use a search engine ) in no way invalidates the statement regarding female aircraft designers -- because so many men were away at war she had the opportunity to run an aircraft production plant building the Hawker Hurricane --- designed and completely developed in far off England under the control of Sir Sydney Camm .

If I recall correctly Elsie Mc Gill died of some nasty disease shortly after -- it is to her credit that she took on the task of overseeing the building of an aircraft in wartime -- this is largely an administrative task and really a long way from designing anything . Your use of "first" does not of course imply that any others ever existed even if she had genuinely designed anything -- 'the exception that proves the rule' is more to the point .

The designer of the Hurricane's contemporary and stablemate in keeping England free from ideologically extremeist Nazi Germany , the Supermarine Spitfire , was RJ Mitchell a very (terminally ) sick man who died before it went into battle but spent his last days in ensuring that the Battle of Britain would be able to be won (on technical grounds but needing the sacrifice on many young men ) -- Royce of Rolls Royce was also a very sick man but ran the company from convelescence in the south of England providing the superb Merlin engine that made possible the success of both aircraft and probably saved the free world thereby -- but, the existence of the Spitfire,Hurricane and the Merlin owes a huge debt to a woman. -- Lady Houston ( Fanny Lucy Radmall) who, independently financed the design and construction of the winning Supermarine Schneider racer that won forever the Schneider trophy for high speed flight and gave birth to the Rolls Royce Merlin -- this at a time when the British government was into appeasement and denying that a few Nazis posed any real threat . Lady Houston had the guts to go against the tide of political correctness and launched a campaign of pamphletteering aimed at waking up a complacent and in- denial government headed by "cowards and poltroons" to quote one phrase she used -- she put her hereditary riches to the service of Mitchell and Royce just when it was needed. That is an example of real female contribution and a tale to inspire gender based pride (although she was no man hater )

I reccomend the book "Lady Houston" by Wentworth Day published by Wingate 1958 -- a bit harder to come by than a cheapshot from the net but a real instance of a strong willed woman who stood up and made a great contribution .

(My gliding club at Mildura also had a female instructor ,Mardi Gething, who ferried aircraft during the war and another famous aviatrix, Nancy Bird Walton, stood up against the draconian behaviour of the civil aviation authorities in Australia when real action was needed )

In dealing with people (including as factory managers or flying instructors) women do indeed have skills and temperament that can very much suit them to successfull careers -- they can be less competitive,confrontational or more empathetic than men in similar positions (sorry if that observation offends your "one size fits all" counter view to the view that there are distinct and also valuable qualities displayed by females that might be termed "characteristic" (but definitely not displayed by all females ) -- also unfortunately held by the SES it seems (and probably 95% plus of the population who are realists)

Men are much greater risk takers than women and for that reason alone make better fighter pilots and lots of other roles in society. (even 'steadiness' in pursuit of scientific truth, art and music, construction and creation in general etc might be able to be correlated with the hated 'maleness' defect -- the STATISTICAL preponderance of men in just about every such field is not invalidated by one mischosen and spurious instance of an exception -- how many female Mozarts,Leonardo da vincis,
Michaelangelos,Isaac Newtons etc etc by the thousands , can be named?)

Denigrating or denying the differences between men and women does you no credit intellectually nor does it serve to counter the pernicious aspects of the SES/SOP by accusing anyone who simply agrees with such an obvious statement of fact as 'mindlessly simplistic' or as a supporter of the SES credo -- do I have to remind you ADG that it is you who didn't have the 'fortitude' to actually enter into the SOP teaching and who hides behind an anonymous acronym ? You have indicated no enthusiasm to actually try to do anything to protect your relatives or any other vulnerable people from their destructive effects .

"Witty" little smart arsed contributions that add nothing seem to me to be nothing more than for self amusement and ego ("Chip" on the shoulder/'chipboard' etc -- pure verbiage)

You have been invited to defend your 'authoritive' utterances about Aboriginal culture and primitive beliefs in general, being extolled as beyond criticism (lest the "first" stone labelled "racism" be hurled by you without sin or fault ) -- you did not answer why you condemn arranged disparate marriage by the SES yet do not say anything against the same practice by Aborigines when it is "culturally approved " or "unseen" by the politically correct (really afraid to stand out of the crowd and attract the approbation of the mob? ) -- likewise I posted real factual refutation of the untruthful statements you made about historical claims (Reynolds/Windshuttle etc ) and posted links (see "Experiences at the Adult schools" and/or " Australian issues" under general discussion ) to real factual information -- no retractions or apologies though from ADG.

Look up Bill Bryson's 'Down Under' pg 350- 355 for a frank description of the real current Aboriginal cultural situation - his description of the blacks 'an almost absurdly high number sported bandages on shins,elbows,foreheads or knees' ..'beaten up with puffy faces' ... unseen by the passing whites like victims of some silent undeclared war , but all due to violence inflicted by other blacks -- ADG might not like to know that traditionally Black women had no right to speak or had any status in communal affairs (only to other women) no matter how old, up until very recent times when the introduction of alchohol so devastated the male elder system that they took over the reins (many Aboriginal women pleaded that "equal rights" to get drunk not be granted to their people )

A more misogynist society would be hard to find (the examples of Paul ,of biblical fame and Hindu "manu" law discriminating against women have been noted also -- it is indefensible to declare all women to be liars or not to be trusted etc by law , as the SES teachings do, but to peddle disinformation in 'refutation' is no help -- ie ADG you don't just say, for an example , "All women are physically stronger than men. Women have made most of the discoveries in science,engineering and technology. Women are also more intelligent,caring,perceptive and understanding than men . Ancient peoples like the aborigines and noble red indians are also much more able and sensitive,perceptive etc etc than western white men . Anyone who contests these statements is an enemy of "the rest of us" and must be a supporter of the SES . They should therefore be condemned and stoned. " (just joking about the stoning bit )

Your general drift is not hard to discern nor is the underlying attraction to non scientific thinking and ancient pre industrial (ie pre obvious male pre eminance ) culture that had been more "matriarchial" as observed.

Trouble is, this sort of thinking is what leads to extremist religiously based terrorism such as the recent suicide bombings in England, the 9/11 symbolic use of the hated west's "materialism" and technological acheivements (skyscrapers and jet airliners) against itself and everyday bombings in the middle east .
A number of professional observers and historians have attributed the anti western motivations of these religious fanatics to the falling behind of the middle eastern societies that resulted from adherence to the mystical,spiritualistic ,religious past- looking culture as against the scientific path pursued by the west called 'civilization' that looks to the
future and relies on rational thought.

Without belief in reincarnation and a heavenly reward for doing something of merit in support of a diety that tells it's people that they are just as good (or really much better) than the "others" who do not deserve their higher standard of living and have to be taught a lesson by the 'unmaterialistic' but spiritually superior followers , you cannot create a terrorist movement or justify such destruction and carnage.

Beliefs do count. Even stupid outdated beliefs like the SES promote -- whether the "good" side is anti scientific ,anti modern, anti capitalist etc because it is driven by obsessive fundamentalist religious views or is comparably based on misandrony and feels the need to side with the uncivilized and primitive against the western 'male dominated' model.

Hindu mysticism certainly includes the idea of reincarnation, reward for deeds seen as supporting the laws (manu etc) and ancient primitive beliefs , demands unthinking automatic obediance, refutes rational questioning or difference of viewpoint and aims to educate (indoctrinate) both adults and children through it's schools.

Just substitute "Islam" for Hinduism in the above and consider where this current wave of terrorist madness started and then return the original Hinduism or,better, SES/SOP and think about it again.

I won a bet that the recent British bombings were in fact suicide attacks and motivated by religious beliefs . Osama bin Laden is in many ways a dissaffected ex engineer who has turned his back on the modern western "decadent" scientific society to return to primitive religiously founded culture -- who else disowns much of the last few hundred years of "progress" , teachs reincarnation , reward for supporting the ancestor worshipping beliefs, is anti western etc etc ? Perfectly harmless little cultural tea sipping social group ?

The basic virulent anti westernism revealed in the SES approved "Chief Seattle" speech that you flippantly categorized as an "urban myth" that you, so 'enlightened', knew was not genuine, was not deserving of condemnation in my view because of false attribution but because of it's very reason for existence in denigrating the entire western, male, ethos and giving a morally superior status to the primitive and irrational -- one responder (SES member) tried the yes,but ISN'T IT SO GOOD ? doesn't it just express so much lovely truth even if fabricated and falsely claimed to be a real noble savage speaking ? Well NO NO and NO actually and ditto for other" beautiful myths" like the Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Koran,Aboriginal dreamtime, and general SES bullshit .

The common factors in all these things do not label them as innocuous or to be admired or ignored as harmless -- let alone an affront to the real truths behind western scientific humanist society and,yes civilized thought.

Anybody with a meaningful response is welcome to post it.

Ross Nolan .

[Free Thinker]

I'm just popping in here right now to remind people that I'm ignoring Ross's drivel because I'm on a strict no-troll diet. I suggest that you all do likewise, especially you, ADG - you know better than to get engaged in it.

Bella - thanks for an honest, clear description of how you see that part of the teaching. While I agree that there shouldn't be value judgements based on which is better, the "male" aspects or the "female" ones, the fact is that in general society, people DO place emphasis on the value of each and put one over the other. And the SOP reinforces those value judgements while proporting to "support" the differences between men and women. This goes so far as to continue the tradition of keeping women "barefoot and pregnant" (as we say here in the States) while letting the men rule the house financially and materially as well as "reasonably".

Here's an easy example - when I was in the school, we would get a nice roaring fire going in the main fireplace at Wallkill because it got awful cold in the winter, plus it was fun. Who was in charge of doing that? MEN. Women were not allowed to have anything to do with it because men are the "firekeepers" - I'm not kidding, that is what they called them. So even in this easy task, men had the power of deciding when we could have a fire, and then didn't let the women do any of it.

In terms of obeying -

"Ideally, it means that the husband's or father's word on a subject is final."

Is this YOUR ideal, or the ideal of the school? (I know it's the ideal of the school, I'm just wondering if you share it as such.)

Because if there is no value judgement as to which is better, reason or empathy, then why is reason always in charge of making the decisions? Shouldn't there be some situations where empathy would guide one to make the better decision? I'm sure you'll agree with this (seeing as you're a reasonable gal ) and if so, then why should the man's word be final when it might not be the best? Value judgements are inherant in such a system where one voice always rules the other.

I wonder who's word on a subject is final in a lesbian marriage...

Edited for grammar

[a different guest]

I'm just popping in here right now to remind people that I'm ignoring Ross's drivel because I'm on a strict no-troll diet. I suggest that you all do likewise, especially you, ADG - you know better than to get engaged in it.

A troll free diet sounds like a good idea to me. And honestly if there is one thing worse than a troll it's a long-winded troll.

Shouldn't there be some situations where empathy would guide one to make the better decision?

No doubt.

But generally would not a mix of BOTH "reason" AND "empathy" be best?

And I still dispute that men have all the "reason" or, for that matter, women have a monopoly on "empathy".

one more thing - although not reading his ridiculously bigoted and ill-informed posts this did leap out at the screen at me as I was scrolling down. He wrote "any woman who goes out of her way to post the "C..T" word describing". I guess he's referring to this post here http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... 3&start=15 which was actually referencing the now locked and cleaned up SANDRA thread here http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=222 in which Mike finally wrote "I am not your babysitter who has to wade through 'cunt' postings. "

I wonder if Mike "went out of his way" to write that?

[ross nolan]

Thanks to "free" "thinker" -- God knows what a "troll free diet" is but you are welcome to eat ,or put into your own head,or ignore, whatever you like -- your concentration on the minutae of whover lights fires in their schools or some similarly 'significant' aspect of the conduct of SES schools illustrates my point better than I could myself , it is indeed little different to fervent discussion over the number of angels dancing on pinheads.

In similar vein was the matter of a dispute breaking out in flight between Muslims as to which direction to face for Mecca -- such intern ecine argument over interpretation of received dogma might be of immense interest to adherents of such cultish groups but the rest of us are more concerned with what their weird beliefs might lead on to and how they affect the rest -- ie will they decide to crash it into a city rather than if they have correctly determined the magnetic deviation to find Mecca (another jetliner was burned on the ground by Hajis using kerosine stoves during a delay, no doubt Allah supplied them all with the promised harem of virgins etc etc )

Doubtless such fine points of doctrine as to which 'essence' is more' pure'and who should 'obey' whom in domestic affairs can be scholarly debate fodder for SES 'ers (why not continue the argument to say, the army or an industrial enterprise and see how "unreasonable" the idea of having someone actually make a final decision on things really is )

Have you been reading about the English underground bombers -- how unremarkable they seemed , just average folks , etc -- yet harbouring warped and fundamentalist dogma that results in the destruction of it's opposite in modern society -- you may not realize, as is characteristic, FT that you have been brainwashed to think only in certain ,highly restricted, ways and don't even realize the overall manipulation of your worldview and loss of focus .

You once explained that your psuedonym "free thinker" had nothing to do with the anti superstitious movement of rational thinkers by the same name (that, whilst knowing of, you nonetheless copied) -- you have no need to define yourself as being totally unlike the real Free Thinkers as your posting content proves this conclusively .

Bit like the unscientific,religio-mystic cult calling itself "School of Economic Science" .

Maybe you are one of the bumbling incompetent "can't screw together a piece of IKEA furniture" 'metrosexuals' described by ADG and sought out the SES because you don't identify with the general western society based on rational thought,science,industry,etc etc -- if you find solace and sanctuary in the SES on that basis then I only hope you don't eventually decide that if you are "the truth" and the rest of society is "wrong" then logically you should do something to 'impose' the truth on the rest or just gain good karma by martyrdom.

Watch out for trolls -they're out to get you .

As for 'ADG not getting drawn in' -- has she ever bothered to do a coherent,meaningful statement of her own 'credo' or just a few cryptic,breezy, witty little flippant 'throwaway lines' -- has she ever actually stated her 'pov'? ( I think she meant POV or point of view -worked it out later on, but she obviously thinks her time is so valuable that she cannot spare any to actually write three little words (but then she wouldn't get the cache of being "IN" with the 'smart' crowd )

I am not actually writing to ADG - if I wanted to do that I could send her a private message -- it is putting a counterpoint to the revealing statements that she makes and hides behind (politically correct lies etc ) that reflect the prevailing denigration of the entire edifice of western civilization that itself paves the way for superstitious irrational crap like that of the SES.

If I agree with something said by ADG or with something by the SES it does not mean I do so for the same reasons -- an engineer friend attended a lecture on "womens studies" at Melbourne university (fancy a course in Tarot, Belly dancing, astrology etc etc -- all are available now at universities or 'institutes of technology' here ) at which he could no longer contain himself at a 'serious' lecture about the' truths' of astrology - he got up to say that what he had listened to for the past hour was based on complete scientific hokum and started to debunk the very astronomical basis for the predictions being made but was unexpectedly cut off by another audience member who also 'exploded ' with indignation in support of him saying that ' yes ,because Venus was in the house of Gemini and not Libra at all then the peaceful , female centred aura being described would NOT be dominating the world at all" --- the engineer was trying to point out that the whole complete belief system was based on irrational crap and was not even self consistent , the "supportitive" woman astrologer was merely disagreeing over some 'technical' point of interpretation whilst accepting the 'truth' of astrology .

That is about the comparison between ADG and myself even if ADG claims to be non religious also -- being non religious means you do not have to "respect" the idiotic or superstitious views of the religious --that includes 5000 year old or 40 000 year old superstition and is oblivious to political correctness or fear of disfavour by upholding unpopular facts or putting an argument that will attract criticism -- progress of any kind cannot occur where 'consensus' rules.

Why is it OK for ADG to denigrate men in regard to matters of practical constructive ability (she chose the subject to ridicule not me ) but not for someone else to mount a defence or put a contrary argument ? Is it not simple philosophical discourse to challenge a proposition so put ?
(But then the school of philosophy never was about philosophical discourse -more like dogmatic decree and uncritical acceptance with group agreement-- these are not "socratic dialogue" as advertised )

You are welcome,FT, to leap to defend ADG but realize you do it for reasons not unlike the astrology example -- I do not see that teaching your children this same baseless rubbish and backward mysticism is going to do then any good in future any more than pandering to Aboriginal dreamtime superstitions helps advance their progress nor does using an example of a high acheiving woman engineer justify the reversion to "female" qualities based on mysterious intuition, earth goddess worship, matriarchial society etc the "astrology" vs "astronomy" thing.

For the record Elsie MacGill stated in 1946 that nothing prevented Canadian women entering or pursuing a career in engineering (unlike legislation in Australia that really did prevent acheivement in aircraft design by legislation ) -- she contracted polio and was severely handicapped during her time running an aircraft plant giving her even more credit for achievement in the highly rational field of engineering - she was sacked by a vindictive official as a scapegoat over production shortfalls on a later sub contract together with another engineer whom she married soon after -- she also championed the Burnelli aircraft design which it appears fell foul of president Roosevelt's personal political enmities and could account for her ill fortune .

You have nothing to tell me about the costs of standing up against entrenched interests or political intrigue in the aircraft design field ADG and I would have much much more in common with Elsie than you just because of similar gender (there is no relected glory here ) -- likewise I do not appreciate your calling yourself "a fellow aussie" in your emails -- this whole thing is not about nationalistic or other matters of "racist" identification it is about the battle of ideas ultimately -- whether we live on the same continent or not has little significance and I probably have little in common . (the old adage that two violinists who don't speak the same language can probably communicate better and have more in common than two persons of the same nationality who have only that in common)

I have defended another Australian-Bella-from unwarranted abuse and unfair,derogatory,stereotyping by several other SES or ex SES members (see "Thanks Bella") but only on the basis that rational and worthwhile discussion of ideas or their effects cannot be let descend into a slanging match hurling stupid insinuations based on ideas of national inferiority .
(the 'astonishment' by FT et al that such backward drivel is still being pushed 'out here' is a backhand comment on his view of Australian sophistication in it's own way -- from what I know the same is being taught in England at least and the US websites don't seem to portray some huge improvement )

Note. this post is in response to FT's post that appears before my last piece (probably queued due to different time zones etc )

PS In my bit about women complaining of a "glass ceiling" in getting to top corporate jobs I should state that I find the enormous unearned and undeserved payments to top executives -very seldom ex engineers or ever hands -on people - to be obscene no matter what sex: they seldom have any idea what they are doing or in fact add much to the real business of productive or technical enterprises -- the lack of any fight for parity by women to 'crash through' the "glass floor" to the dirty and menial jobs or those having real hard engineering or other responsibilities is real -- but could it also reflect a recognition that men and women are differently able (division of labour was once cited by Albert Einstein as THE most valuable invention of mankind from which all else inevitably
flows and the sexual differentiation of labour is the most long standing and basic of all -can it really be just a male conspiracy?

Basic contributions to Internet technology were in fact made by Rita Hayworth (Hollywood actress) in packet switching of data and I will concede that Elsie Mac Gill did indeed have a very major part in the design of an aircraft, the Maple leaf trainer, rejected for use in Canada but built in Mexico (the internet attribution of her design of the Hurricane,- together with a picture of the Spitfire (!)- is incorrect )

What lesbian marriages have to do with relationships between the sexes or SES dogma eludes me except perhaps for more fodder for explorations of the application of an overall flawed and throwback belief system - how many angels CAN dance on a pinhead ? What if they were lesbians? Who gets to dance backwards? Is this sexist etc etc etc......

What HAS changed in SES thinking and teaching of any real significance-- AS SEEN by those not enmeshed in it but adversley affected by it's effects on others or as a potential and actual liability to the best interests of society as a whole . (it only takes a few nuts ...... )

Ciaou. Ross Nolan.

[Free Thinker]

Editing to remove curse words in deference to the MAN (that would be our beloved Mike ) while leaving the meaning so that the posts responding to this make sense:

"Rude curse word for female genitalia"
"Rude curse word for female genitalia"
"Rude curse word for female genitalia"
"Rude curse word for female genitalia"
"Rude curse word for female genitalia"
"Rude curse word for female genitalia"
"Rude curse word for female genitalia"

This is even more wierd than before, but just to be perverse, and just because for many years I coudn't even talk about the technical term for female genitalia, I'm going to leave this post here!