Was that while you were mowing the lawn like a good husband pleasing his wife?God, it's fun to slam the feminine. Ninety-nine threads on the subject and counting. Ho-hum. I get it. I saw another dragonfly today, one as beautiful as all the rest.
DQ: Similarly, when women don't talk about men or think about clothes, jewelry, children, marriage, etc. Similarly, when women engage in intellectual discourse, and when they don't ....
EI: But that is only one of the eight lanes. Sexuality can stay in its own lane, and not interfere with the flow of traffic in the intellectual discourse lane.
Since love is irrational by its very nature (due to the fact that it springs from the false belief that things inherently exist and essentially involves becoming attached to a mirage), it is impossible to be fully rational while being in love - regardless of whether you are a man or a woman. You will always be setting up mental blocks and deflecting the logical spotlight away from the possibility of exposing the falsity of your love.If that really is how it works, and that really is a difference between men and women, then now I understand how it is that men must give up relationships with women to become wise. I didn't really comprehend how handicapped men were in that area.
That does answer my question about how I can think rationally and still have room for love, yet the guys here think it's an either/or situation.
Well, my second thought over the article was that he may have been quite proud to be really good at “rumpy-pumpy.†Reads more like a euphemism than anything else. The third thought was that there might be a remote chance that it had most of its substance edited out--but I seriously doubt that.I don't know about that. I reckon the author is just an average pussy-hungry bloke content to go along with whatever women say.
OK. Most men are quite happy to take the boot (being immune to any real harm from it), such as being accused of only being good at rumpy-pumpy, so long as it keeps the women fragile--and this dynamic between the sexes we call a feminised society.The phenomena of putting the boot into men is too widespread and too entrenched in modern culture to be anything other than a product of the feminized times we live in.
The psychology underlying it all is quite interesting. The constant hoeing into men by society is actually misogynistic in nature because it rests on the assumption that men are strong enough and tough enough to take it (which, of course, they are). By contrast, the howls of protest which invariably erupt the moment anyone lays even a finger on women implies that women are fragile and need constant protection.
So, the traditional patriarchal dynamic is the misogynistic yet feminised society. Feminised because it, like women, has no more substance than the ideals of men (I mean, hell, most of the time all we have to offer is a matter of reactionist self-defence--much like the war on terror--oh! what an empty ideal that one is; no wonder it goes down like an orgasm) and misogynistic because it purports protect but in fact utterly defeats women.This is actually a continuation of the traditional patriarchal dynamic which views women as prized cattle that have to be idealized, molly-coddled and protected. And yet because feminists, and women generally, are so dull-witted, they actually believe they helping the cause of feminism with this constant hoeing into men, and they also fondly believe that now, more than ever, they are living in a culture which deems men and women to be equal.
Love is a lot like death, the great re-unification and equalizer. Since differentiating itself forms consciousness, love would be the end of it.David Quinn wrote:
Love is like a gravitational attractor in the mind which greatly distorts everything around it, making it impossible to see things clearly. Indeed, enlightenment/sanity is nothing other than the absence of all gravitational attractors in the mind.
You make it sound like women don't take this stuff seriously, but hardly anything is more serious to them than bonding with people. Ideas do have value to them, not as tokens of truth but as tokens of emotional bonding. Still very valuable to them, though.David Quinn wrote:Sexuality underpins the very definition of what a woman is.
That is why, for example, many women treat ideas like they do, say, lovely new dresses and love to go around parading in them at internet forums in the hope of engaging in intimate intercourse with intelligent men.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:But that is only one of the eight lanes. Sexuality can stay in its own lane, and not interfere with the flow of traffic in the intellectual discourse lane.
Processing emotion is not intellectual discourse.Brizendine elaborated: "Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road."
I know from experience that I sometimes have emotions that I am not aware of. That is, other people can see it on my face, but I'm not aware of it. The emotions are there, but not really connected to me; more like something my body is doing. This may be the "small country road" Brizendine mentions. To talk about emotions I am having, I have to really stop and think about it, because really I'm barely aware of them.It also explains and how I have had times of my body having an emotional meltdown but inside my mind was merely mildly disgusted with the stupid, uncontollable waterworks and thinking rationally. Any females out there - have you also had experiences where you found yourself crying and wondering who this sniveling mess was that you were stuck inside? That the tears had nothing to do with "you" but it was more like a leak in the plumbing system?
David responded:God, it's fun to slam the feminine. Ninety-nine threads on the subject and counting. Ho-hum. I get it. I saw another dragonfly today, one as beautiful as all the rest.
I just have to say there's a difference between seeing the relevance of femininity's impact on the world, and being attached to ranting about it. I don't think Carl made a bad point. Especially seeing as how women can't ever become men....it's pretty much a useless cause. I suppose one "good" thing that comes out of it, is men understanding the opposite sex more. Yet.. I don't think it's good for the understanding to come from teachers who hold a grudge. Then the understanding is flawed, and the students never really mature into freely thinking individuals on the issue. They build up an unconscious anger against femininity.Was that while you were mowing the lawn like a good husband pleasing his wife?
If a person can't see the importance of the male/female issue and the way it impacts on all aspects of life, including the philosophic life, then quite frankly, I don't see any hope for them.
Okay David, so you and I get feelings the same way - does that mean my feelings are more like a guy's, that yours are more like a female, or that this is not gender-specific but type specific (like hair color or eye color), or that basically that's how people experience feelings?DHodges wrote:
I know from experience that I sometimes have emotions that I am not aware of. That is, other people can see it on my face, but I'm not aware of it. The emotions are there, but not really connected to me; more like something my body is doing. This may be the "small country road" Brizendine mentions. To talk about emotions I am having, I have to really stop and think about it, because really I'm barely aware of them.
Women, it seems, generally really feel their emotions. They can't understand how it's possible to be disconnected from them. I guess it's like having a higher pain threshold or something.
This has leads to misunderstanding in relationships - the woman thinks I need to talk about things, that I am holding back - while actually the emotions are inconsequential to me, and it's quite a bit of work to connect with them, in order to express them verbally.
I don't know.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay David, so you and I get feelings the same way - does that mean my feelings are more like a guy's, that yours are more like a female, or that this is not gender-specific but type specific (like hair color or eye color), or that basically that's how people experience feelings?
Love itself is fluidic, to all the different meanings and types of love. Loving and being in love are not the same. If one does not become attached to being in love (granted that intoxication may be addictive to some), then one can embrace all the kinds of love there are, including loving enough to let go when it is appropriate to do so.David Quinn wrote:Since love is irrational by its very nature (due to the fact that it springs from the false belief that things inherently exist and essentially involves becoming attached to a mirage), it is impossible to be fully rational while being in love - regardless of whether you are a man or a woman. You will always be setting up mental blocks and deflecting the logical spotlight away from the possibility of exposing the falsity of your love.
Love is like a gravitational attractor in the mind which greatly distorts everything around it, making it impossible to see things clearly. Indeed, enlightenment/sanity is nothing other than the absence of all gravitational attractors in the mind.
If being repulsed by a person is "another form of love", then what behaviour or attitude isn't a form of love?All people are lovable if you understand them well enough, but that does not mean that one would necessarily want close contact with all those they love. Loving from a distance is another type of love.
Does this involve understanding what causes a person to behave like he does, thus viewing him as an innocent child, as it were, who had no real choice but to follow his lot in life?Furthermore, understanding another is a key to love
Question is, when is enough enough? The near constant emphasis on gender issues reduces this forum to caricature. Is there another spiritual tradition that does so? Is yours the only one that makes sense? Is is logical to do so? Is it reasonable and rational? And why is not the focus more on one's inner aspects of this dreaded feminine? Why is it always a constant harping on women themselves? I am beginning to suspect that it has more to do with little boys who cannot grow up than about the percieved weakness of the opposite sex. Little boys with issues, going over and over the same ground without getting past the obstacle on the path.David Quinn wrote:Carl wrote:
Was that while you were mowing the lawn like a good husband pleasing his wife?God, it's fun to slam the feminine. Ninety-nine threads on the subject and counting. Ho-hum. I get it. I saw another dragonfly today, one as beautiful as all the rest.
If a person can't see the importance of the male/female issue and the way it impacts on all aspects of life, including the philosophic life, then quite frankly, I don't see any hope for them.
-
There is a lot of discussion about consciousness and unconsciousness. But it doesn't hurt to be regularly reminded what is meant by unconsciousness - and for that women are a very good example.Carl G wrote:And why is not the focus more on one's inner aspects of this dreaded feminine? Why is it always a constant harping on women themselves?
Scott,sschaula wrote:Elizabeth,
I get the impression you like to talk as a way of sorting out your ideas, rather than sorting them out first and then talking.
In defining this term, I will be forced to use some imprecise phrasing that may seem contradictory, but in fact will not contradict but indicate the parameters of love. In defining any term, the precise meaning can not be expressed with other terms, or the term itself would be redundant.David Quinn wrote:I'm not sure that I can find any meaning in your conception of love. What exactly do you mean by love? What is its distinguishing characteristic?
Loving from a distance is not the same as being repulsed by the person. It is an acknowledgement of the illusion, in the conditions of either knowing that there are some characteristics that one would not find lovable, but from a distance those characteristics are not observable or insufficiently observable to be bothersome, or of knowing that one has insufficient knowledge of the other person to judge whether she would have the same feelings if she knew him better – and being sated with the quantity of love she feels from a distance.If being repulsed by a person is "another form of love", then what behaviour or attitude isn't a form of love?All people are lovable if you understand them well enough, but that does not mean that one would necessarily want close contact with all those they love. Loving from a distance is another type of love.
Yes David, it most certainly does. And forgiveness is tremendously easy for one who loves – even one who loves rationally enough to see the flaws.Does this involve understanding what causes a person to behave like he does, thus viewing him as an innocent child, as it were, who had no real choice but to follow his lot in life?Furthermore, understanding another is a key to love
When you look at the sum total of what occurs on this forum, the subject of woman/femininity is hardly discussed at all - perhaps only 10 or 20% of the time. This isn't very much, given the importance of the subject.Carl G: And why is not the focus more on one's inner aspects of this dreaded feminine? Why is it always a constant harping on women themselves?
Kevin: There is a lot of discussion about consciousness and unconsciousness. But it doesn't hurt to be regularly reminded what is meant by unconsciousness - and for that women are a very good example.
DQ: I'm not sure that I can find any meaning in your conception of love. What exactly do you mean by love? What is its distinguishing characteristic?
E: In defining this term, I will be forced to use some imprecise phrasing that may seem contradictory, but in fact will not contradict but indicate the parameters of love. In defining any term, the precise meaning can not be expressed with other terms, or the term itself would be redundant.
In its broadest, most watered down sense, love is a purely positive regard combined with a surge of adrenaline. Purity in this sense means that the aspect of regard that is combined with adrenaline is only of a positive nature. Other feelings may exist, but the only associated condition with the adrenalin must be positive regard. Adrenaline with a negative regard would be hatred, and adrenaline with either a neutral or ambivalent regard would be fear.
E: All people are lovable if you understand them well enough, but that does not mean that one would necessarily want close contact with all those they love. Loving from a distance is another type of love.
DQ: If being repulsed by a person is "another form of love", then what behaviour or attitude isn't a form of love?
E: Loving from a distance is not the same as being repulsed by the person. It is an acknowledgement of the illusion, in the conditions of either knowing that there are some characteristics that one would not find lovable, but from a distance those characteristics are not observable or insufficiently observable to be bothersome, or of knowing that one has insufficient knowledge of the other person to judge whether she would have the same feelings if she knew him better – and being sated with the quantity of love she feels from a distance.
E: Furthermore, understanding another is a key to love
DQ: Does this involve understanding what causes a person to behave like he does, thus viewing him as an innocent child, as it were, who had no real choice but to follow his lot in life?
E: Yes David, it most certainly does. And forgiveness is tremendously easy for one who loves – even one who loves rationally enough to see the flaws.
Women probably talk more then men due to the fact that they have a wider corpus callosum. This means that the two halves of their brains probably communicate faster, allowing for easier speech, intuition, and emotional expression. It's been observed that people without a corpus callosum demonstrate poor social judgment, can't express their emotions, have difficulties interpreting non-literal speech, and have an impaired sense of humor.But when it comes to the famine of feminine unconsciousness currently pervading our society, which is even more dangerous and lethal from a spiritual point of view, hardly anyone wants to know.
Is that a fact? There are just as many studies (eg Bishop and Wahlsten, 1997) that demonstrate the corpus is wider in males. Anyway, the whole hemisphere simplification of the brain is overrated.ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Women probably talk more then men due to the fact that they have a wider corpus callosum. This means that the two halves of their brains probably communicate faster, allowing for easier speech, intuition, and emotional expression.
Sounds more like a common case of brain damage, or autism.EI wrote:It's been observed that people without a corpus callosum demonstrate poor social judgment, can't express their emotions, have difficulties interpreting non-literal speech, and have an impaired sense of humor.
You should have been able to tell that it's an unquestionable fact by the way I used the term "probably" multiple times in my above post. :)Is that a fact?
You're right. Although, the splenial portion of the corpus callosum is still believed to be larger in females. In reality, the cognitive differences between men and women appear to be quite few. I'm inclined to believe that the majority of observed behavioral differences are due to cultural circumstances.There are just as many studies (eg Bishop and Wahlsten, 1997) that demonstrate the corpus is wider in males.
You could call it "brain damage". It's a very specific sort of brain damage though.Sounds more like a common case of brain damage, or autism.
Yeah, even while I did get your attempt at humor... you still appear to have failed to notice how all the 'probably' qualifiers were related to your conclusions about talking and brain communication, not about the more fundamental suggested size or shape difference which you clearly stated to be a 'fact'.ExpectantlyIronic wrote:You should have been able to tell that it's an unquestionable fact by the way I used the term "probably" multiple times in my above post. :)Is that a fact?
The suggested typical shape of the female splenial portion might as well be caused or influenced by the way females behave, since children do not appear to differentiate there yet.ExpectantlyIronic wrote: Although, the splenial portion of the corpus callosum is still believed to be larger in females. In reality, the cognitive differences between men and women appear to be quite few. I'm inclined to believe that the majority of observed behavioral differences are due to cultural circumstances.
Perhaps I should qualify your list here a bit:ExpectantlyIronic wrote: You could call it "brain damage". It's a very specific sort of brain damage though.
