# Dear Woman video - pretty amazing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620 "2011-04-08T02:34:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/221 "2011-04-10T02:52:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Well, if these guys were interviewing you for a job and saying: “due to your nurturing femininity, we don’t want you to work here”, you’d have a point. In this context, it’s strange. It’s not strange in the least to hope that people will not assume things about me that are not true, based on my gender. In fact, I think it’s a perfectly normal thing to hope for. > [@](#): > > I missed nothing, because I took it all in without looking for something to be insulted by. As a result, I understood perfectly what they were saying: “ **We are failing** to be present, we think **you are bette** r at that and we should be more like that.” Which really is kinda hard to miss if you actually continue to listen or read the whole sentence, \*\*_including the part you keep leaving **out** _: > > Why haven’t you been quoting\*\* the whole thing,\*\* Sarahfeena? Wow, I got red text! Must be because my intentions were so deeply nefarious. Actually, I didn’t quote the whole thing because 1) I didn’t take notes during the video, and was using quotes other people posted to help me out, and 2) I don’t think it changes the meaning or implication nearly as much as you seem to. > [@](#): > > Really? “As **humans** , our preoccupation with goals and results has often burnt us out, making us unavailable for relationship.”? Why would they say that? Certainly it’s true of some women, but in general you find more women unhappy about men showing up for the relationship than the reverse, and this is what they intended to address. Particularly if you go “stretch” to reading the complete passage: I think it’s only a perception that more women are unhappy about men showing up for the relationship than the reverse, and not necessarily a perception that reflects reality. It is not the reality in my relationship, for instance. > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]I honor your capacity to \*\*listen to your body \*\*and its needs for food, rest and playtime.[/li][/ul] > Using your logic, I guess this really means: “…you’re so busy eating, sleeping, and fucking off, you never work hard like we do.” This is so bizarre. In what universe are women better at listening to their bodies and their needs for food, rest, and playtime? I know an awful lot of guys who sleep till noon and play video games all day, every chance they get. And I know plenty of women who don’t take care of themselves, especially the working mothers of today like me who don’t have time to get enough sleep and always eat right. > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]I celebrate your ability to pay attention to what is here, right now.[/li][/ul] > Well, how about\*: “_You’re too irresponsible to consider future consequences, we are left to do all the planning for our future._”\* Again, I don’t need to “reinterpret” this, as you’re suggesting. The mere idea that this is something women are supposed to be good at is coming out of left field as far as I’m concerned. > [@](#): > > [ul][li]As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out and made us unavailable for relationship.[/li][/ul] > You’ve already said what you think the first half of the sentence implies, but if you take the WHOLE SENTENCE…umm… let me think for a minute. Oh wait, I know: _You don’t care about goals and results like we do, you are just clingy and obsessive, get a life already._ Again, I know plenty of women who are obsessed with their careers and don’t have time for relationships. How is this an inherently male quality? And how does the WHOLE SENTENCE change things, just because they’re putting it in the context of relationships? If anything, that makes it MORE insulting. > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li] I know we have drawn you into this imbalance as well, so often frustrating your longing to connect.[/li][/ul] > This is getting tougher… umm, what’s insulting to women about the imbalance _they_ are taking ownership of? Oh wait, I know! It’s us because we’re obsessive and clingy about relationships,and that is creating an imbalance… but they said _they_ draw _us_ into the imbalance, so I guess maybe that’s not it, and _they_ are frustrating _our_ longing to connect..hmmm. I’m stumped. I just can’t figure out what the implied insult is here, but then I don’t have a lot of practice with it. So the women who are imbalanced (like the one perhaps I’ve referenced above) have only been drawn into it against their better judgment? How weak-willed ARE these women? > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]The time for a process-centred way of being is now upon us.[/li][/ul] > Well, viewed in the context of what else they’ve said my inclination is to read it as referring to being present: be in the process, vs. being about the result. But again, I’m coming up empty with how this is insulting, since they are saying that the time has come to do this. Are they complaining that it’s being forced on them somehow? I don’t know what this one means, so I don’t know how to address it. > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li] I welcome your wisdom to maintain balance in our bodies, and in our ways of meeting.[/li][/ul] > Welcoming our wisdom? I guess maybe it’s insulting that they limit it like this instead of saying hey welcome our wisdom in everything imaginable, but that’s about all I can think of. I just suck at finding the implied insults, I’m afraid. It sounds so condescending, it makes me cringe. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I’m kinda strange like that. I’m pretty much about people’s intentions, I admit. If their intentions are good, I just don’t really see the point in aggressively scrutinizing the execution to come up with ways it could be misconstrued. I can’t see any payoff in it, and I think it’s very weird that anyone else does because I don’t see anything positive or useful coming out of it. I find it much more rewarding and useful to focus on the plain intention. Most people who hold outdated stereotypes don’t intend to be insulting. Does that mean we should allow them to spread those stereotypes just because they didn’t intend insult? > [@](#): > > You don’t have to be flattered any more than you have to be insulted. You just recognize that it isn’t about you at all and move on. It’s not all about me, it’s about all womankind. I think better of women than to allow us to be labeled with tired and condescending stereotypes > [@](#): > > I agree. Nor does “As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out and made us unavailable for relationship.” have an implied subtext. It’s a straightforwward and complete statement, the first part of which is an explanation of how their lack of balance has led to their failure in relationships. Absolutely no hint of a diss on women for failing to set goals. In fact, the important word is “preoccupation”. It’s not that they are such bitchen goal setters and we’re hopelessly drifting, it’s that they are so obsessively focused on one thing, they shut out everything else and it has a terrible effect on their relationships. > > When you don’t make it a point to ignore the complete sentence, it is an unambiguous admission of failure. So managing to find an insulting subtext is kind of amazing, really. I don’t get why it makes it better for the men to admit failure. OK, so they’re stating that they’re bad at things we’re good at, and vice versa. I don’t think that evens things out and makes it ok…all it means is that they’re stereotyping men, too. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/222 "2011-04-10T03:10:16Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You… have a point. > > BUT YOU USE IT TO OPPRESS WOMEN! If I told you you raised an interesting point, would you let me hold it against you? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/223 "2011-04-10T03:11:07Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I don’t get why it makes it better for the men to admit failure. OK, so they’re stating that they’re bad at things we’re good at, and vice versa. I don’t think that evens things out and makes it ok…all it means is that they’re stereotyping men, too. Indeed. I’m too goal-oriented? Fuck that noise. If you meet me and talk with me and decide that I’m too goal-oriented, then whatever, tell me. But don’t put me in your little 1960s gender-box and think I’ll be happy with it. **Stoid** , it may well be that you’re happy with this because of your age. [You may wish to take this guy’s advice to heart](http://partiallyclips.com/2002/07/28/fishing-with-grampa/). ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/224 "2011-04-10T03:27:26Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > [li]Together we can make miracles[/li][/LIST] My first reaction whenever I hear these words is “Amway type miracles or Flavor Aid type ones?” ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/225 "2011-04-10T03:50:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > No, I don’t. I keep rejecting your insistence that you have some special understanding that the authors **actually meant** a whole host of things for which there is **no evidence of any kind.** > > And as long as your criticism is based on this magical ability you believe you have that makes your assumptions, insertions, additions, distortions (not to mention subtractions!) and inventions valid substitutions for what the words actually say…I will reject your opinion as meaningless. When did I say I knew what they actually meant? I was sharing what my reaction to the video was. The creators of the video probably didn’t mean for their manifesto to be condescending, insulting, and cheesy - but, in my opinion, that is how it appears. I’m sorry that you object to me sharing my opinion, but that doesn’t make it invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/226 "2011-04-10T03:59:18Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > What makes women more connected to the earth than men? This is certainly something I’ve heard before but given how many lesbian communes failed in Arkansas because the women didn’t understand how hard it was to live off the land I’m going to call baloney on this one. Women aren’t any more deeply connected to the earth than men. Or hell, maybe they are. Someone explain to me what this means? A good place to start is Graves, Robert. _The White Goddess_. Third edition amended and enlarged. London: Faber and Faber, 1952. It traces the earth goddess meme in western culture, but does it in such a way that leaves you prepared to observe where a lot of new age woo-woo has spread and mutated since then, leading us to the embarrassing display of Stoid’s video. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/227 "2011-04-10T04:34:02Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > A good place to start is Graves, Robert. _The White Goddess_. Third edition amended and enlarged. London: Faber and Faber, 1952. It traces the earth goddess meme in western culture, but does it in such a way that leaves you prepared to observe where a lot of new age woo-woo has spread and mutated since then, leading us to the embarrassing display of Stoid’s video. Mine was a rhetorical question but I thank you for the book suggestion anyway. I’m familiar with the work of Marija Gimbutas who wrote “The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe” and “The Language of the Goddess” in the 70s and 80s respectively. Anyway, Gimbutas posited that Europeans were peaceful people that was woman centered before the big bad patriarchy arrived with the Kurgen invasion in what year I cannot remember…a long long time ago. Anyway, a lot of the goddess types are fans of Gimbutas. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/228 "2011-04-10T05:00:13Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It’s not strange in the least to hope that people will not assume things about me that are not true, based on my gender. In fact, I think it’s a perfectly normal thing to hope for. > > Actually, I didn’t quote the whole thing because 1) I didn’t take notes during the video, and was using quotes other people posted to help me out, and 2) I don’t think it changes the meaning or implication nearly as much as you seem to. > > I think it’s only a perception that more women are unhappy about men showing up for the relationship than the reverse, and not necessarily a perception that reflects reality. It is not the reality in my relationship, for instance. > > This is so bizarre. In what universe are women better at listening to their bodies and their needs for food, rest, and playtime? I know an awful lot of guys who sleep till noon and play video games all day, every chance they get. And I know plenty of women who don’t take care of themselves, especially the working mothers of today like me who don’t have time to get enough sleep and always eat right. > > Again, I don’t need to “reinterpret” this, as you’re suggesting. The mere idea that this is something women are supposed to be good at is coming out of left field as far as I’m concerned. > > It sounds so condescending, it makes me cringe. > > Most people who hold outdated stereotypes don’t intend to be insulting. Does that mean we should allow them to spread those stereotypes just because they didn’t intend insult? > > It’s not all about me, it’s about all womankind. I think better of women than to allow us to be labeled with tired and condescending stereotypes > > I don’t get why it makes it better for the men to admit failure. OK, so they’re stating that they’re bad at things we’re good at, and vice versa. I don’t think that evens things out and makes it ok…all it means is that they’re stereotyping men, too. See how easy it was to crap all over it _without_ making anything up? I knew you could do it! Good job. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/229 "2011-04-10T05:13:49Z")
I think the words just made Stoid feel good all over about herself and that’s all that she can comprehend. I think she’s easily manipulated and should be very careful about who she listens to since she only hears the words that she likes and ignores all the rest of the crap. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/230 "2011-04-10T05:24:03Z")
Overgeneralizations still suck when it comes to understanding complicated issues. As soon as you begin to believe there is “a” feminine (or masculine) perspective or agenda, or whatever, you pretty much reveal yourself to have checked your brains at the door, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/231 "2011-04-10T05:28:11Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > When did I say I knew what they actually meant? > > Here: > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > Regardless, I’m not clear on how encouraging men to be simpering little sycophants towards the women in their lives is going to help enforce workplace equality. Having emasculated men fawn all over me and apologize profusely for all the slights my great-great-grandma suffered hardly sounds like an improvement to my workplace. > [@](#): > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > When did I say I knew what they actually meant? > > here: > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > Do you not see that the video is also asserting that all women have the same ‘female perspective’, the same ‘feminine way of being’? That all women are deep and intuitive and nurturing and in touch with the earth? That women are not aggressive, analytic, strong, career-driven, etc? Don’t you see how that attitude is offensive in and of itself? > [@](#): > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > When did I say I knew what they actually meant? > > here: > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > As Sarahfeena said, the quote “I celebrate your ability to pay attention to what is here, right now. As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out…” is right there in their manifesto. It is not a stretch at all to read this as ‘you women are so good at just being happy with whatever you have right now - it’s only us men who have goals and desires for the future’. > [@Meyer6](#): > > …there are no ‘factual statements’ in the video, just opinions, so I don’t know how I could possibly misrepresent those. It is a FACT, that the video and written manifesto say: [ul] [li] As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out and made us unavailable for relationship.[/li][/ul] And you **MISREPRESENT** (aka, claim you know that it actually meant) it as: > [@](#): > > you women are so good at just being happy with whatever you have right now - it’s only us men who have goals and desires for the future It is a FACT that the video and manifesto say: [ul] [li]I honor your **deep connection to the earth**.[/li][li]I honor your intuition[/li][li]\*\*I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me \*\*[/li][/ul] and you **MISREPRESENT IT** (i.e.asserted it ACTUALLY MEANT) as: > [@](#): > > That women are not aggressive, analytic, strong, career-driven, etc You are obviously comfortable doing this, and you’ve defended it as acceptable - just own it already. You think it’s great, I think it blows. Different strokes and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/232 "2011-04-10T05:48:10Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Overgeneralizations still suck when it comes to understanding complicated issues. As soon as you begin to believe there is “a” feminine (or masculine) perspective or agenda, or whatever, you pretty much reveal yourself to have checked your brains at the door, IMHO. I’m afraid I’m going to have to stick up for perspectives here. I have no doubt that my perspective is shaped in part by race, class, and even gender here in the United States and I strongly suspect that yours is as well. Why? Because we are treated differently based on those criteria in many social situations. I wouldn’t argue that masculine and feminine perspectives are universal but I certainly think they do exist to some extent within the context of our society. I certainly don’t believe they’re universal truths though. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/233 "2011-04-10T05:54:41Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And you **MISREPRESENT** (aka, claim you know that it actually meant) it as: > It is a FACT that the video and manifesto say: > > [ul] > [li]I honor your **deep connection to the earth**.[/li][li]I honor your intuition[/li][li]\*\*I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me \*\*[/li][/ul] I don’t think he misrepresented it so much as he interpreted in a different manner. Quite frankly, I interpreted a lot of what was said in the manifesto being incredibly sexist. Women are so intuitive and in touch with their emotions unlike men who are analytical and rely on logic. That’s classic sexism right there. I really don’t understand how you don’t interpret it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Zhen\_ka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecccb3/32.png) [@Zhen\_ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zhen_ka)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/234 "2011-04-10T06:24:23Z")
Personally, the token black guy made it for me. Really? I need a bunch of ugly white dudes to tell me anything? The dude with the upturned dreads was the best! I’m actually amazed that anyone in the video was considered “hot.” But, if you want to consider the oppression that white males have inflicted upon the societies of this planet…this is the best revenge! BOW DOWN BEFORE MY EARTH MOTHER BROWNESS VAGINA POWER!!! \*(with your tepid little video that you sent your mom and little sister) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/235 "2011-04-10T06:24:57Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I don’t think he misrepresented it so much as he interpreted in a different manner. Quite frankly, I interpreted a lot of what was said in the manifesto being incredibly sexist. Women are so intuitive and in touch with their emotions unlike men who are analytical and rely on logic. That’s classic sexism right there. I really don’t understand how you don’t interpret it that way. Two separate issues: 1. Is what they said sexist or not? Maybe yes, maybe no, depends, whatever. 2. If someone says women are X, _does it follow that they are saying men are NOT X_, and vice versa? Particularly when the text _ **repeatedly** _ refers, in various ways, to the idea that _both sexes contain both masculine and feminine traits_? **No.** I haven’t addressed #1 at all, I’ve been addressing #2. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/236 "2011-04-10T06:41:00Z")
As for the idea of the manifesto being sexist: depends on what you consider sexist. I don’t consider it sexist to recognize that men and women are different, because they are, from the minute they are born, as many progressive parents who were going to raise their children to be free of stereotypes learned when they gave their boys dolls and watched in dismay as they turned them into weapons and the girls turned the trucks into tea party tables. Sexism is descrimination and prejudice based on sex. I think it’s sexist to mutilate women’s genitals, murder them in the name of honor, deny them opportunities because you assume they’ll bail to have kids, etc. I think it is sexist to scorn men for crying, deny them opportunities because they are men, and assume they are the lesser parent because they have penises. Saying “I believe you, as a woman, have an intuitive nature/are closer to the earth/are more nurturing” is not sexist, because it is not prejudiced or discriminatory. Sexism is harmful. Assuming a woman has a more peaceful nature than a man is not harmful: you’ll know soon enough whether it was a correct assumption or not, and if you find out you’re wrong, you adjust. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/237 "2011-04-10T06:55:08Z")
Stoid, I said: > [@Meyer6](#): > > As Sarahfeena said, the quote “I celebrate your ability to pay attention to what is here, right now. As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out…” is right there in their manifesto. It is not a stretch at all to read this as ‘you women are so good at just being happy with whatever you have right now - it’s only us men who have goals and desires for the future’. I did not say that that was what they actually meant. I cannot read minds. I said I _read it as_ a ridiculous generalization about gender roles. In fact, none of your examples are quotes where I said I had special insight into what these guys actually meant, I was just saying what my reactions to the video were (eg. boy, I’d hate for the guys in my workplace to start acting like such a bunch of pansies). As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m sorry if it offends you that my reaction is different than yours, but I’m not going to apologize for my opinion. > [@Stoid](#): > > It is a FACT, that the video and written manifesto say: > > [ul] > [li] As men, our preoccupation with goals and results often has burnt us out and made us unavailable for relationship.[/li][/ul] > > It is a FACT that the video and manifesto say: > > [ul] > [li]I honor your **deep connection to the earth**.[/li][li]I honor your intuition[/li][li]\*\*I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me \*\*[/li][/ul] It is a fact that the manifesto includes those statements. Those statements themselves are not factual statements. Do you not understand the difference? If I made a video and said ‘the moon is made of blue cheese’, would that make it a fact? What if I sincerely believed it? It would be a fact that I said it, right? So that makes it a fact, right? > [@](#): > > You are obviously comfortable doing this, and you’ve defended it as acceptable - just own it already. You think it’s great, I think it blows. Different strokes and all that. I am comfortable having my own opinion, yes. I think it is acceptable to watch or read something and decide what I think about it, yes. I do not feel driven to just agree with whatever is presented to me, no matter how fervently the people who present it believe it. I know you see this as misrepresentation, but I don’t see why it is. Why isn’t it ‘misrepresentation’ when you say ‘[the manifesto] is open, positive, embracing, and no matter how gooey or new agey or imperfect it may be, it’s coming from a very good place, and I respect the intention in it and the spirit in which it’s offered’? Why do you have magic insight into the intention and spirit of these people? ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/238 "2011-04-10T07:27:57Z")
Hi, I’m **Two Many Cats**. You may know me from my threads about sexism in today’s society which usually get slammed as batshit insane among other things. I’m just checking in to say that this video is the goddamned creepiest thing I’ve seen on YouTube, and I’ve seen _The Cat with Hands_, and all those others where scary faces jump out at you at the end. This video is much, much worse. My feminine energy really wants to spray it with Raid. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/239 "2011-04-10T08:04:46Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > It is a fact that the manifesto includes those statements. YES! Excellent! Well done! > [@](#): > > I think it is acceptable to watch or read something and decide what I think about it, yes. I do too, absolutely, and I have in no way said you shouldn’t have your own opinion of what they said or that you shouldn’t express it. There’s an enormous difference between: _“They said that women have a natural connection to the earth. I think that’s crap. I hate that. I hate that anyone thinks that about women or about me. I’m offended by that! Fuck them”_ and _“They said I’m stupid and not good at math and don’t have any goals! Fuck them!”_ The first is an opinion of what they _ **really** _ said. The second is a made-up fantasy that has no real-world representation to support it, since none of the words they employed mean anything like that. The first you are entitled to. The second you are also entitled to, but it’s meaningless and has nothing to do with reality. > [@](#): > > I do not feel driven to just agree with whatever is presented to me, no matter how fervently the people who present it believe it. Excellent, I support that wholeheartedly! > [@](#): > > I know you see this as misrepresentation, but I don’t see why it is. Obviously. > [@](#): > > Why isn’t it ‘misrepresentation’ when you say ‘[the manifesto] is open, positive, embracing, and no matter how gooey or new agey or imperfect it may be, it’s coming from a very good place, and I respect the intention in it and the spirit in which it’s offered’? Why do you have magic insight into the intention and spirit of these people? I don’t because it’s not necessary. I simply understand the English language, the one we’re using. The words in it have meanings. I know what those meanings are individually, and when they are strung together into sentences, assuming the sentences are assembled in the normal manner that English sentences are strung together. When someone says"I come to you today as a man committed to becoming more conscious in every way. I feel deep love, great respect and a growing sense of worship for the gifts of the feminine. " and" I want to apologize to you and make amends" and"I commit to owning and stewarding a masculinity that honors and celebrates us as equals." and"I choose no longer to contribute to those forces, nor to be run by them in my own life. I offer you this apology in hopes that we can make a fresh start in a spirit of co-creation. " and"I commit to listening to the intuitive sense you have of how to heal our planet and make it thrive." and"I honor your capacity for peaceful resolution of conflicts, your ability to apologize effectively and forgive with grace." and"I apologize for dragging you into these wars, and for the rape, murder, broken hearts and damaged families that resulted from them. We welcome your wisdom in creating a world that can get along without resorting to destruction." and"I honor your sense of compassionate justice." and"With your natural sense of nurturing and abundance, I know we can work together to create a truly caring global economics. " and"I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do. Together, we can make miracles. " I comprehend all those words in those sentences! They do not need to be interpreted or translated in any manner whatsoever, because they are in English, they are structured correctly to form ideas and convey meanings, and those ideas and meanings are clear because the words are clear. And those words are very open, embracing, positive, and offered in a loving spirit, because that’s what those words, put together like that, _actually mean_. No interpetation required. Of course, I do consider honor, respect, justice, compassion, love, healing, grace thriving, etc as positive things. I guess if you think those things suck, you would find them negative. But I’ve never met anyone who thinks those things suck, so I think it’s fair to say that my calling them positive is an accurate assessment of the intention behind them. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620/240 "2011-04-10T08:07:17Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > 1. If someone says women are X, _does it follow that they are saying men are NOT X_, and vice versa? Particularly when the text _ **repeatedly** _ refers, in various ways, to the idea that _both sexes contain both masculine and feminine traits_? > > **No.** A question: why did they say _women_ are X, if they really mean _people_ are X? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-woman-video-pretty-amazing/577620.md?page=13)