se wrote:
quoting EI:This is coming from a guy who has successfully achieved existance off of government handouts to spend his life bashing women for non-achievements.
se wrote: Really? So... the guy can't have a successful relationship with a woman, he can't hold down a job... It's all starting to add up as a rather sad tale of woe, isn't it?
It's understandable then that his own ego-driven needs would compensate by fabricating an elaborate tale of sageful enlightenment and doing what he can to bring in others around him who will reinforce and strengthen that delusion, i.e., someone like Sue Hindmarsh who by her own admission has always had a "masculine" mind and no doubt, has felt the sting of being different. Sue is praised for reflecting David's "teachings" while someone like Pye, who is clearly, an exeedingly intelligent and rational woman who likely presents a personal threat on multiple levels, is ridiculed.
The ego is fascinating in its bends and twists to seek personal gratification, no?
to which Kevin responded:
So your measure of success is being in a relationship with women and having a job. Is that right?
Success is being successful at something.
One could measure success at, only to name a few: finances, romantic relationships, friendships, other interpersonal relationships, logic, artistic endeavors (you can break that category down into its composite parts), environmental restoration, invention, animal breeding...
I think a number of people are looking to see what exactly it is that the "enlightened" on this board are successful at. I see some literary output, but what a number of us are challenging is the basic premise of that literary output and noting parts that lack logic. Without a valid premise, one can not make a logical argument.
Instead I see manipulation (both frank and se being accused of putting on a "knight in shining armor" act for disagreeing with the premise that women are essentially incapable of enlightenment), rewording (oh, I was just exaggerating - logic does not exaggerate, it is precise), and purported "knowledge" based on limited information (David supposing he can get all he needs to know about women by labeling 90% of himself womanly and looking at that, and Kevin supposing that he learned all he needed to know about women because he had a girlfriend for a year when he was 10. Since the brain does not finish developing until age 25, there is hardly any woman in a little girl - supposing that Kevin's girlfriend was about his age. If in fact she was a woman, she would have been a child molester. Most child molesters are male, so judging all women on one child molester is not great data collection).