| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
A Modern Woman (Free verse) by Dovina Free to regard a situation
ponder with reason
select an attitude
use it
submit passively
push forcefully
vegetate
exasperate
or take it in a sporting way
with humor
as men want
all choices lie before
a modern woman
We can rest
think intensively
ponder scientifically
or philosophically
or take advantage
for training
or spiritual retreat
Iâd like to meet a modern woman
Up the ladder:
May Monday Explanation
Down the ladder:
Thank God for Lavatories!
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.6
Posted: November 23, 2005 11:46 AM PST; Last modified: November 23, 2005 11:46 AM PSTWeighted score: 5.0715218 Overall Rank: 6573 Comments:
[7]
zodiac @ 81.10.119.26
|
24-Nov-05/12:53 AM
|
Reply
She doesn't hang out at the same places you do.
Good Luck, theyre difficult to find, Ive been looking out for quite some time.
How is that modern. My grandmother could do all those things and probably did and her lifestyle was never more modern than what you might see on The Waltons. Unfortunately you can't meet her because she died in the late 80s. Maybe change modern to free and you might have more of a statement.
The first stanza has nice rhythm.
Our grandmothers did those things, and some did them as well or better than modern women. But they were the special ones. I think the big change in the last twenty years is attitude. Maybe I didnât say it well in the poem, but we can no longer rest in old expectations of frailty and excusable lack of integrity, but are expected to act professionally in our dress-for-success attire, and to work the project with constantly sensible demeanor. We like to say we accomplish this, but Iâm asking whether success at it is too costly and whether a more feminine businesswoman is really more successful.
I think your subject is a great one and you should work on this till you hit on something big. I want you to surprise me with things I've never heard from any woman. Tell me the thoughts of women 50 years from now. This is my challenge to you. If you meet it I'll give you a "You go girl" and declare women the superior sex.
50 years from now the thoughtds of women will have turned to younger men. I suggest using "you go girl" while "superior sex" still makes us giddy.
Seriously, I think this topic could be made into something big. And male thoughts could help.
That's no surprise. My last girlfriend was 41 remember.
I would have hoped for something more along the line of: In 50 years womens thoughts will have turned to how best to prepare the manslave's penis, deep fried or fricasseed.
Sorry, I save that sort for you know who. Besides, this started with my appeal for more femininity in the workplace.
You really wouldn't want to know what men are thinking. You'd be disgusted.
You really wouldn't want to know what women are thinking, you'd be disgusted. It's the way dogs and cats coexist, except for that elusive bond.
It's funny how no part of this conversation has any connection to my life or any woman I know. No, wait, that's not funny...
You see. You're gone a few days and people forget you existed.
Truly. But all this 'men don't understand women, women don't understand men, men are pigs, women are pigs' stuff is completely alien to me now. I guess there's nothing like living in a misogynist Muslim country to make people figure out their priorities.
You do realize you're saying you understand what goes on in Dovina's mind and more importantly you're not disgusted.
No, heâs saying that itâs not funny (i.e. sad) that no part of this conversation has any connection to his life and that all he sees in our talk is that men think women are pigs and women think men are pigs. It truly is sad. We must have the decency to provoke him no further on this sensitive issue.
Who's sensitive? All the Western women I know are well-adjusted and untroubled about things like whether they should be more or less feminine in the workplace. None of them think that, as far as the West goes, either sex dominates things; nor would they be able to say what either sex would dominate if it did. It's nice. We drink a lot and play Scategories. You're the ones who seem conflicted about things.
I just saw a Middle Eastern woman on CNN talking about how we need to torture our prisoners of war more. Every time we debate about whether or not to use force our enemies in the Middle East percieve us as being wusses. This was written verbatim.
That's ridiculous. I've never heard anything like that. That woman was probably tortured into saying so.
I shit you not. Ver-fuckin'-batim.
Obviously I can't stop you from believing such colossal stupidity, but I'd like to suggest that you not share it with other people lest they get the idea that you're stupid and don't sleep with you.
I've had a lot of reasons for not sleeping with a girl. Stupidity was never one of them. God I'm such a stereotype.
Colossal stupidity is one of those inane terms only someone desperate for a sleeping partner would think of and demonstrate by relating the two.
Relating the two what? Sometimes, I truly believe you're not trying to make sense.
Judges' ruling: Colossally stupid.
You have related the ideas of colossal stupidity and somebody wanting to sleep with somebody.
Judge's ruling: Associative dimness.
This sucks. You can't hold a metaphor straight for an entire line, but I'm getting called on inconsistent disses?
No metaphors here that I can see, just inconsistent disses. When two things are placed together in a sentence, and the two seem unrelated, I have to wonder why the writer put them together.
It was a dis. Top five biggest zodiac disses:
1. Your stupid. 2. Your Arab. 3. Your pants are down and you don't know it. 4. Meat-hat. 5. People don't want to sleep with you. By my rules, the aboveposted is a two-fer.
"When two things are placed together in a sentence, and the two seem unrelated, I have to wonder why the writer put them together."
Isn't that sometimes called poetry?
Yes, and you still wonder.
I have that effect on some people.
I seldom do. They usually think they know.
Thank you. Such finds are interesting. Have you read The Da Vince Code?
No. The legacy of Da Vinci and Jesus have endured some pretty outrageous blasphemy and from what I've read and seen in documentaries I'd say The Da Vinci Code falls somewhere near the credibility of Hudson Hawk. I hear the movie's coming out anyway. So for entertainment purposes it might be worthwhile.
As far as Mary Magdalene goes I think it could be any one of the many theories of who she really was, but the reason I linked you is because this is testament supposedly written by a woman. I like the idea of an equal oppertunity Jesus. I think all women should read this even if only for the sense of validation in the bible.
It seems out-of-chaacter with the Mary Magdeline in the four usually-accepted Gospels. There, she poured expensive purfume on Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair. In this purported Gospel, she is philosophizing like some elevated Dovina.
As for having a sense of validation in the Bible, I might find it easire to imagine being part of the Bride of Christ than most men do. And I think Jesus treated women of his day with more respect than the average man did.
I thought it was with tears she anointed his feet and I don't think the original says if that was Mary Magdalene or not. It does say he cured Magdalene of evil spirits and infirmities. Pretty much all the Gospels are purported. The Gnostics were the Spocks of the Christian sects, all about logic. I think its great that Mary's Gospel is the most logic based. It's a good message to women. To not let emotions fog your thinking. How can you not adore her now? She's an elevated version of you.
The idea of a married Christ was done much better, much more original and much more feasibly in The Last Temptation of Christ. I think Dan Brown has more respect for cheap gimmicks than for women. I hope to see the rise of the church of St. Mary Magdalene. http://magdalene.wise1.com/
Correction: The mystery lady did use perfume after washing his feet with tears and drying them with her hair.
The Magdeline description is beautifully written:
"With his hand and his heart he made her new. Lifted from within by the wind of the Spirit, she blew like a kite in the updraft, dancing dizzyingly while held firmly by his heartstrings 'til she came to earth again, touching down into his deep dark eyes. After that, she knew her calling." How can I help but swoon to such romantic uplift. The power of language is so great I could almost forget how inconsistent it is with the rest of the writings of that time.
They were almost all written at different times and at a closer look are all inconsistant.
http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/jesu http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:j5p http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0007.htm I guess it's a matter of faith.
It is a matter of faith, but what surprises me is that you're so much into textual criticism. Usually, it's clerics that get into that stuff. They look for some kind of validity for their faith. Are you a Baptist minister in disguise?
On the contrary. I have faith in what is valid.
Did you know there is something like 50 Gospel books of Jesus. Most were lost in history but they did exist. So I suppose you'd rather go with the popular choice than go with a Gospel who's people were called heretics for believing in logic and the equality of women. You were the one who claimed one gospel more consistant than the other. Isn't that what you mean by textual criticism.
In textual criticism, I go with the oldest Gospels and the ones written by people who knew Jesus well. Of course, the uncertainty of orgins and corectness in copying, and/or changing makes the science difficult. I am no expert in this, but many scholars think the original Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are probably from pre-70AD and come to us with only minor changes. Other gospels may be just as old and credible. I don't claim any of them to be better except on this basis.
Most scholars think John didn't even write John. Many think none of the three wrote the gospels. Show me a non-religious scholar who says they were written before 70 A.D.
I could argue why your argument is totally religously bias but I think this guy does a better job. http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage
I looked at that and it's interesting. I don't have the time to look up where I saw that. Bias could be argued on either side, and it would take a lot of time to sort it out.
Yes I guess I am bias towards the logical.
You have apparently studied this more than I have. I would be interested in a short list of the gospels you think are the oldest and/or the most reliable in terms of authenticity from the first century.
I think the only gospel written before 70 A.D. was the one Jesus wrote. He posted it once here on Poemranker but everyone made fun of him and called him gay, so he deleted it and quit the site. That's pretty much why all of us here are doomed to an eternal damnation.
Really though.
Mark was just a child at the time of the gospels and although Peter or Paul may have taught him reading and writing, it's unlikely either him nor his teachers were literate enough to write something like the gospels. John was likely to be illiterate. Many scholars agree Matthew was written by a second generation follower after 90 A.D. Luke was a physician and the only one educated enough to likely be the original author of his version of the gospels. The earliest he might have written it was between 60 and 80 A.D. but as far as I know he only met Jesus once and that was after he was resurected. So only one of the authors was even around most of the events of the Gospels and that was John and many scholars think that he didn't write the Gospel according to John.
The gospel of Luke carries the most detail of the four, and is often considered the most reliable, except perhaps for Mark. Luke also probably wrote the book of Acts.
There is disagreement on Mark's age during Jesus' later years. In any case, whoever wrote the book of Mark probably wrote from hearsay. May I ask why you have studied the criticism of bible texts?
For the same reason you don't take everything I say for the gospel.
Yes, but I do not seek out everything I find out about you and study it, trying to decide which items are the most credible.
So you're saying you and your poems aren't worth the effort. Agreed.
I didn't seek out anything. It started with a gift. I thought you'd like it. You stated something I disagreed with and God forbid I gave you my opinion. I saw something about the Mary Gospel on the history channel. I thought, "Dovina might get a kick out of this". It took me all of 30 seconds to find the link. Merry Christmas Scrooge.
No, no. That's not what I meant by my admittedly cumbersome sentence. I meant that I don't search for information on a person or a subject and analyze everything that I can get my hands on unless I really want to discover the truth on that subject. It seemed to me that you were doing a lot of research on the origins of the gospels and I wondered why.
I guess it's partly because around here if you don't back your arguments up with some kind of legitimate documented support than people just fart in your face and accuse you of being full of shit. I honestly think you're much smarter than me in many ways but you'll leave little holes in your arguments were people can trump you by pointing out such pointless things as misspelled words or bad grammar or just a slight miswording. Then ignoring the actual point you were trying to make. I know I'm probably guilty of those very things but usually it's for the sake of humor.
I do leave holes in my arguments, sometimes on purpose, to give zodiac or Dark Angel room to maneuver, but more often due to carelessness or ignorance. I find it flattering when all they can fault is spelling, grammar, or some trivial mistake.
I donât consider myself a Scrooge, but please accept a Scroogeâs gift: You can, within an hourâs time come at me with a hug and dis me for offensive Silent Night as if each thing I say were independent of the whole For that I thank you and expect no more than for each contrivance that I write to stand upon its own
What, no hug?
Nonetheless I am flattered.
I'm talking about not taking what the preacher says as the Gospel truth.
Agreed.
Almost. But then you have to think, people at that time didn't really write like that, did they? People in this airy New-Agey time do. Hmmmm.
I'm guessing they couldn't find anyone to translate it into the King James version.
344 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
