An opinion written in comments section in reply to a news article regarding gender behavioral differences and women have less 'braggadocio' than men or being perceived weaker throughout history:

Opinion: due to expectations of most civilizations (not all) that women were caretakers of children and the agriculture/herbal tenders while the male physical strength was utilized for hunting larger game and war, it occurs to me that men had to develop a separate social culture and interpersonal relations communication that would emphasize the need to be 'confident', encourage 'boasting' (of the "big" catch) to enforce the perception (by others) of great strength. This 'strength' eventually became equated, physically or mentally as societal needs and roles changed. Women, on the other hand, required the passivity roles as primary child tenders, as well as for tending to the herbal/medicinal/agricultural needs within the homes. The social structure of those 'left behind' during war or long hunts (including seafaring) --- had to change. For example, becoming fixed in an agricultural location, the fears of unity during natural disaster would be addressed. Without brute physical strength, the teamwork development through encouraging strength amongst the crowd (rather than boasting of one's own, per se) needed to be developed (especially as child tenders). The constant worry of loss of the partner would bond in a much more humble and passive manner, as well as the obvious status of the lack of physical strength vs. that partner--- so the subjects of discussion would have to be about what the 'other' is capable of, rather than what 'she' can do personally. The results of organized religion over the last few millennia only emphasized these traits, eventually even placing the 'male' figure as the dominant in nearly all 'modern' faiths.

In my opinion, these are a few factors that eventually resulted in evolved traits over the last 8000 yrs or so, that bled in social perceptions. Thus, women would score higher on emotional intelligence, and women would be less likely to inflate their own abilities, while men were encouraged to inflate their abilities to 'find their rank' in societal positions. What I find interesting about he recent feminist movements of the last century is the publicity allowed for larger organized voices. However, in history, there was always the 'strong'  and intelligent woman figure, in various queens, religious icons, warns (Matilda of Tuscany, Boadicea, Joan of Arc, etc.). In niche societies that are not as influenced by modern religion, the defined strong female may also be recognized for high intelligence (above others) and some still have reputations for being more cunning hunters than their male counterparts!

*Originally written 2003*

THE DIVINITY IN ARTISTIC CREATION

We live in a time of chaos and computers, globalized economies and currency numbers. The jaded cycles of 9 to 5 (ie: actually 8:30-9p or more, as the 70+ hr week is the norm for many today), corporate climbers drive --we seat ourselves in the expectations of the children's soccer teams and ivy league admissions, the BMW x2 and then, being politically correct and conscientiously green while perfecting ourselves with organics, yoga meditation and fitness routines and meeting requirements for social engagements (church, community or business and friends.) We have the part of the machine that we must fulfill when we play our roles -- the one that shackles and binds us within our very innermost thoughts --- our subconscious -- the center of our mind. It's a place of no rules, it's a place that connects to more than the body we are in -- it runs free, it runs wild, no boundaries, speaking before thinking, knowing before learning, laughing before crying and dancing before moving. It knows not time, not greed, not hate, not worry, not anger. It is still burning with the power of the origin, the divine, the universe-- it is still mysterious. It learns to communicate with the conscious that tries to teach it the things of this world, of food, clothing, people, of cars, of houses, of desires. It asks of the consciousness for one thing - to communicate and understand, to live and experience, grow and work from a place of this understand, a place of love and freedom. To nurture the communication and understanding, the consciousness must be free of constraints from fear, obsessions with competition and aggression, hate, anger, judgement, guilt, desperation, superiority issues, insecurities, and from any self-damnation. These are the negative emotions that work like trapdoors that open at inopportune moments to drive away the communication between the waking conscious self and the aware, but silent, unconscious self.

The unconscious self is the seat of the soul, a part of perfect beauty and absolute light. It understands what the universe relates to it --- then tries to convey that message to our waking self. From there, stunning and inconceivable ideas are born -- it is perhaps the yin (the dark night but passive feminine places from which things are born) -- and very extremely sensitive, but it is strong because it is sacred. When the message is allowed and sent, to be clearly and intentionally born into the physical world, amazing artistic creations happen with a divine touch that is beyond the conscious human's realm. To create is almost a law of nature; it is an underlying drive of life. Creation is to emulate the divine and mystery, it is to give life, it is survival, and it is a guaranteed mark of our permanence in this chaos. It needs neither audience nor approval - but does require love from the source. It simply wants to exist in the here and now after translation from the origins of the unconscious. But in the complexities of life that is human --- the conscious is not so perfect to easily receive or create from a place of unconditional love. The consciousness sometimes has been taught to fear things of 'unknown': the un-conscious, the un-done, the un-resolved, un-certainty, un-conditionality and the un-explained. So it fights fiercely to bring out fear and judgment - with anger and isolation - things that disrupt the flow of beauty and truth. Thus the struggle of yin and yang, for one to dance into the center spotlight, to fight for the lead stage presence --- begins. The battle within weakens the body and strains the mind. The consciousness is overwhelmed and the unconscious does not understand. It can be subtle or pronounced, but it is the riddle of all who are human to find the peace that would quell the raging lightning storms within. As with any war, seeds of negativity always produce casualties on all sides. And in misunderstandings and mistranslations, much is lost. But also true of conflicts, as time marches forward, so our moments are temporary and cannot last -- providing us with a final treasure of hope. It is within that hope that peace does follow - and the balance of yin and yang restored, to bring the masterpieces intended by the universe to physical fruition.

*originally written November 2016*

My apologies. It has been awhile. But it is time to speak now.

This year has been tumultuous in North America, particularly on the US side. The election has created a fire filled citizen divide like no other-- but it is on a scale of block vs. block instead of red vs. blue states. There are increasingly open statements and actions of hate dictated by racial bias, more and more misinformation on easily faked news venues and less and less facts.

Here are my view of the facts:

The new electoral college elected 'leader' is an insider of the great money republic, founded and following the religion of capitalism, based on principles of nepotism. Not just by family, but by family and business associates that are most favored, which is a small group in a few major cities, including Washington D.C.  Why do I think this?

He was born into money. He was born into a family headed by a man who believed in racial purity and preservation of bloodlines. And by race, it was a 'visual' term. He was spoilt by his family members and went to a military school in the northeastern US that was primarily Caucasian with old New England type American values. He surrounded himself with men of power, while 'gambling' his own fortunes but knowing his father would often help cover his losses if he lost. He also sought underground and celebrity power because he was fascinated by how these people became so popular and how the few would become wealthy out of the masses. He connected with people who could skirt the law or figure out how to bend rules in his favor. He announced to his former social associates that he wanted to become famous and run for president in the late 1970's and early 1980's-- well before any "Apprentice" or any famous casino headlines in Atlantic City. He also bankrupted many old craftsmen and honest workers in the later 1980's and 1990's, by filing bankruptcy on those sections of his businesses and is still claiming tax losses to this day.  All the while, he was in the press, hob-knobbing with the largest billionaires and selling a fake university scheme and putting on multiple faces as he parties with the fringes of Warhol drug & alcohol parties on some nights while dating 'appropriate' model-esque women for his off-spring one day, and making deals to force introductions to the most powerful financial and political figures in the world.

How much information and wealth would a person like this have to position himself into his dream of presidency? And as his year over year profit margins decline, how wonderful would it be for him to gain inside access to all the biggest names in the world and private emails and phones numbers, while also, being able to gain virtually anyone's private information he wished. How perfect it would be for him to promise his inner circle of associates, that their business interests and policies would be perfectly preserved or championed, if he were to be placed into such a position of power? Why, afterall, he had learned from his early associates that information for blackmail or association and party behavior is what would win the populace? Hollywood taught him that it has nothing to do with character, only the familiarity of a name by branding. It was the new way of business, to become popular while getting rich-- to promote one's own brand.