Making peace with femininity

[Laird]

Oh, you know what women/woman actually is? Please, do tell!!

I'm no expert, but I know enough to know that their general capabilities aren't all that different from men's. They're certainly not the comparatively inept, unconscious creatures that you make them out to be.

[Unidian]

Laird,

OK, that's a fair enough call. From your perspective you're just being honest. Thing is, you have enough sane, intelligent people pointing out in no uncertain terms the flaws of your approach, yet you refuse to see sense. Of course, you're simply going to respond to me that you don't particularly care about other people's opinions, that yours is the only one that counts, and furthermore you're probably going to claim that it's arrogance on my part to presume that my way is "seeing sense" whereas yours is flawed. I can't really argue with you there, all that I can do is to encourage you to consider that many, many people who actually like you as a person, really wish that you'd reconsider your philosophical approach towards women - that it just doesn't match with reality and that it detracts from your character.

Well said. My opinion has long been (and remains) that Dan is simply too insightful a thinker and too fundamentally decent a man to continue with this "Woman" stuff forever. So far, I'm pretty much alone among my friends in that view - and as year after year rolls by and he does not relent, I'm looking the fool more and more. But, as Dan (presumably sarcastically) put it himself, "hope springs eternal." Perhaps, as he suggests, I am insane to do the same thing and expect different results. But we are tasked with beliving in our friends regardless of that. And beyond that sappy "friend" stuff which is probably eliciting an eye-roll from Dan as we speak, I really do believe he just might throw off his cognitive filters one day and think his way back to a more reasonable position.

Then again, maybe not. Time will tell.

[Dan Rowden]

Laird: I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to extend the definition of "misogynist" to include extreme disrespect and disparagement, particularly when it's held that a woman's fundamental nature is practically irredeemable.

Dan: Ah, convenient, let's extend the definition of misogynist so we can lump the nasty QSR in there!

As I wrote, I can't think of a word that fits better, and it doesn't make sense to me to invent a new one when this one is not very far off already.

It's a country mile off, actually. You may call me a chauvinist (remember that word?); call me a misogynist and I'll; cut your beard off, wipe your arse with it and make you eat it (while making you watch me drink all your Lambrusco).

What is "extreme disrespect" anyway?

It's extreme in the sense that you hold that it's practically impossible for a woman to earn your respect.

How is that disrespectful? Are you saying I should respect women just because they exist?

Is telling the truth as you see it extremely disrespectful? Should we lie, as philosophers, LIE about things out of respect for some group or thing?

OK, that's a fair enough call. From your perspective you're just being honest. Thing is, you have enough sane, intelligent people pointing out in no uncertain terms the flaws of your approach, yet you refuse to see sense.

No I don't; I have otherwise sane, intelligent people telling me how nasty my views are. I've been doing this a while now, Laird and I can tell you actual, substantial, non-emotional arguments come few and far between. You need to rethink what an argument is.

Of course, you're simply going to respond to me that you don't particularly care about other people's opinions,

Well, I don't; opinions are worthless things. I care about arguments.

that yours is the only one that counts, and furthermore you're probably going to claim that it's arrogance on my part to presume that my way is "seeing sense" whereas yours is flawed. I can't really argue with you there,

That's a consequence of an absence of argument. Can't be helped :)

all that I can do is to encourage you to consider that many, many people who actually like you as a person, really wish that you'd reconsider your philosophical approach towards women - that it just doesn't match with reality and that it detracts from your character.

If they wish for me to reconsider they had better start offering some substantial argumentation rather than just hand-ringing and moral indignation. If I want that sort of shit I'll join a Church or the National Party.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, you know what women/woman actually is? Please, do tell!!

I'm no expert, but I know enough to know that their general capabilities aren't all that different from men's. They're certainly not the comparatively inept, unconscious creatures that you make them out to be.

Seriously, Laird, you give me this piece of inept ad hoc drivel and yet expect me to accept criticism from you? Fair dinkum! Crikey.

[Unidian]

But isn't it true? Doesn't every study basically show that although there are some qualitiative differences in thinking between men and women, their general capabilities are roughly the same? Doesn't every bit of psychological, sociological, and anthropological evidence gathered by humankind support what Laird said? Isn't it the case that the only material which supports the QRS view of women is that written by QRS themselves and a few select historical philosophers, many of who had documented personal difficulties with women?

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

That doesn't make any sense to me. Basically you're saying that if a member of a certain social group is critical of that group they can't be taken seriously.

The black race (assuming it really exists), Jews and women are not social groups. Certainly blacks and women are born that way.

And don't you think it's a bit dodgy to essentially demand that any person identify so heavily with their social group that they would never criticise it?

I identify with the group Panama. Do you think I never criticize it? I do, if you haven't been paying attention. Yet I am proud to belong to that group (though not in the arrogant sense). I would never, ever deny it. And I would never do the equivalent of what Sue does when she calls herself a man.

How can anyone get critcised if those outside the group get called racist and those inside get called traitors?

There's a difference between positive criticism against a race and full-fledged racism. If for example, someone thinks that black people are inferior, or subhuman, I'd call them a racist. Saying that women are unconscious, unintelligent and subhuman is being a misogynist to me.

-

[Dan Rowden]

And beyond that sappy "friend" stuff which is probably eliciting an eye-roll from Dan as we speak, I really do believe he just might throw off his cognitive filters one day and think his way back to a more reasonable position.

Well, I may be heading down that track. I actually voted for a woman in my electorate in the recent federal election. Pretty good candidate. Don't know what came over me. Must have left my misogyny badge at home that day. Then again, I also voted against a fat turd bitch so maybe I was having a schizoid episode.

[Dan Rowden]

But isn't it true? Doesn't every study basically show that although there are some qualitiative differences in thinking between men and women, their general capabilities are roughly the same?

So, what's that got to do with philosophy and wisdom? None of us have ever said that women are incapable or even less capable, generally (but are in some specific areas, like men are) than men in most intellectual spheres. This is a strawman.

Doesn't every bit of psychological, sociological, and anthropological evidence gathered by humankind support what Laird said?

No. Show me a single piece of research that actually addresses what we talk about? Scientists don't even consider it let alone research it.

Isn't it the case that the only material which supports the QRS view of women is that written by QRS themselves and a few select historical philosophers, many of who had documented personal difficulties with women?

Hmm, what form do these "documented personal difficulties" take? And what man has not had personal difficulties with women/woman? You ever meet one? Besides which, it may be that our view has no historical precedence, therefore it must stand on its own. That in itself is not an argument against it anymore than "Natural Selection was wrong because no-one had ever argued it" isn't an argument against Natural Selection.

[edit: actually I think you'll find many psychologists have made similar points to us but just haven't couched it in the terms we do]

[Unidian]

Well, I can barely stand Hillary, so maybe I need to get my own house in order...

Nah, nevermind.I just remembered I can't stand Hillary because she's a coroporate sellout and a phony Democrat in name only. Phew, I was worried there for a minute.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, I can barely stand Hillary, so maybe I need to get my own house in order...

Well, the reason for not liking her is not her gender but her tendency to be a corporate whore.

Nah, nevermind.I just remembered I can't stand Hillary because she's a coroporate sellout and a phony Democrat in name only. Phew, I was worried there for a minute.

Ah, that's better. I was about to bring about the M word. I do enjoy a good last minute reprieve.

[Shahrazad]

None of us have ever said that women are incapable or even less capable, generally (but are in some specific areas, like men are) than men in most intellectual spheres.

People do that here very often.

[Unidian]

Hmm, what form do these "documented personal difficulties" take?

Well, I'd imagine that many of them, being pasty-faced lily-white philosopher types, couldn't get dates. But, since that's not very substantial, consider just a few documented examples: Poor Manny Kant never left his home town, and only left his house for ritual walks. Kierkegaard was a troubled soul in a variety of ways. And poor Fred Neitzsche was turned down for marriage either 2 or 3 times (can't recall which) before he finally went batshit crazy. I'm sure I'm forgetting several other possible examples.

Not to make a direct comparision of ourselves to these screwed-up luminaries, but you know as well as I do that we thinkers are not exactly a particularly "well-adjusted" bunch. Really, how are we not going to have trouble with women, short of going the "avoidance" route?

Isn't it well within the realm of possibility that a screwed-up history with women can contribute heavily to the development of anti-feminist views?

[Laird]

Laird: As I wrote, I can't think of a word that fits better [than "misogynist"], and it doesn't make sense to me to invent a new one when this one is not very far off already.

Dan: It's a country mile off, actually. You may call me a chauvinist (remember that word?); call me a misogynist and I'll; cut your beard off, wipe your arse with it and make you eat it (while making you watch me drink all your Lambrusco).

Nice "argument", Dan.

Dan: What is "extreme disrespect" anyway?

Laird: It's extreme in the sense that you hold that it's practically impossible for a woman to earn your respect.

Dan: How is that disrespectful?

Your disrespect is to falsely present women as vastly inferior creatures compared to men, when plainly they are not, and it's extreme in the sense that you hold this inferiority to be so severe and so innate that it is practically impossible to overcome.

Are you saying I should respect women just because they exist?

No. It's my approach, but we're different people and I don't expect that you should necessarily adopt the same one. At the very least though you could try not making an attitude of disparagement (disrespect) your default.

I've been doing this a while now, Laird and I can tell you actual, substantial, non-emotional arguments come few and far between. You need to rethink what an argument is. [...] If they wish for me to reconsider they had better start offering some substantial argumentation rather than just hand-ringing and moral indignation. If I want that sort of shit I'll join a Church or the National Party.

Oh, so apparently this doesn't qualify as a "substantial, non-emotional argument". Granted, there's a bit of enthusiasm in it, but I don't think that that disqualifies it as "emotional". And what was your substantial, non-emotional rebuttal? Why, the usual: "I'll get to you soon. There's a lot to rectify in your post", followed by sounds of the wind whistling through the empty reeds.

[Laird]

Seriously, Laird, you give me this piece of inept ad hoc drivel and yet expect me to accept criticism from you? Fair dinkum! Crikey.

Again: nice "argument", Dan. You've given me absolutely no idea of why you think what I wrote constitutes "inept ad hoc drivel", let alone rebutted it.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

That doesn't make any sense to me. Basically you're saying that if a member of a certain social group is critical of that group they can't be taken seriously.

The black race (assuming it really exists), Jews and women are not social groups. Certainly blacks and women are born that way.

Of course they're social groups. Any group of humans that can be divided into a group is a "social group", isn't it? By "social" I mean human society.

And don't you think it's a bit dodgy to essentially demand that any person identify so heavily with their social group that they would never criticise it?

I identify with the group Panama. Do you think I never criticize it? I do, if you haven't been paying attention. Yet I am proud to belong to that group (though not in the arrogant sense). I would never, ever deny it. And I would never do the equivalent of what Sue does when she calls herself a man.

That's a psychological metaphor. Do you imagine she rejects the fact that she's a woman?

How can anyone get critcised if those outside the group get called racist and those inside get called traitors?

There's a difference between positive criticism against a race and full-fledged racism. If for example, someone thinks that black people are inferior, or subhuman, I'd call them a racist. Saying that women are unconscious, unintelligent and subhuman is being a misogynist to me.

Well, see, here's my problem with what you just said - they're not my words (well, not all of them anyway). I have never said women are unintelligent. Such a claim is demonstrably wrong. One thing that has always irked me, even, frankly, depressed me about this issue is the habit people have of using their own words and terms to criticise my views. They really should limit themselves to my words. It's tedious to have to constantly deal with misrepresentations. Now, as for unconscious - women are predominantly unconscious, men somewhat less so. Almost every guru and sage worth a dime has stated this (though in general, non gender distinct terms for the most part). It's simply what people are. If they weren't they'd be damned sages. Getting upset over the use of this term is, to me, childish. You may disagree with the idea that there's variance in the degree of consciousness between men and women - that's fine, that's your right, but the observation that people are unconscious is not something to get huffy about. It's so obviously true that to deny it is to deny reason itself. Also, that women have an inherently lesser capacity to heighten their consciousness is how I see things. Do you think I like it that way? Do you think I gain some sort of psychological benefit from stating this? If you do you seriously don't know me. I'm more than happy for people to argue the falsity of that view, but try and tell me I'm misogynistic for holding it and I'll bash your cods in (metaphorically speaking).

As for "subhuman", that's not a term I use and for good reason, it's chock full of gratuitous emotional implication and intent. But if one did use it, it would all rest on how one is defining what "human" means. Obviously women are fully human in the sense of their biology. If we choose to use "human" to mean something like "entity functioning in reality" then all sorts of people are more human than others. Since we're perfectly happy with saying some people are more sane than others, more rational than others etc, I don't see a problem.

Btw, cods=cahones in case you're wondering.

[Dan Rowden]

None of us have ever said that women are incapable or even less capable, generally (but are in some specific areas, like men are) than men in most intellectual spheres.

People do that here very often.

Show me where QRS have done this. That's whose views we're discussing here.

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, what form do these "documented personal difficulties" take?

Well, I'd imagine that many of them, being pasty-faced lily-white philosopher types, couldn't get dates.

Yeah, that'd turn any thinker into a raving woman hater.

But, since that's not very substantial, consider just a few documented examples: Poor Manny Kant never left his home town, and only left his house for ritual walks.

That's more substantial? Shit.

Kierkegaard was a troubled soul in a variety of ways.

Certainly, but you don't think that observation constitutes a rebuttal, do you?

And poor Fred Neitzsche was turned down for marriage either 2 or 3 times (can't recall which) before he finally went batshit crazy.

Ditto.

Not to make a direct comparision of ourselves to these screwed-up luminaries, but you know as well as I do that we thinkers are not exactly a particularly "well-adjusted" bunch.

I don't think "well adjusted" and "thinking" are compatible, though, I suppose one may be well adjusted to thinking.

Really, how are we not going to have trouble with women, short of going the "avoidance" route?

C'mon, how can anyone not have trouble with women, well adjusted or otherwise. Woman, thy name is trouble!

Isn't it well within the realm of possibility that a screwed-up history with women can contribute heavily to the development of anti-feminist views?

Undoubtedly, but it needn't. So, when did you stop beating your wife?

[Dan Rowden]

Laird: As I wrote, I can't think of a word that fits better [than "misogynist"], and it doesn't make sense to me to invent a new one when this one is not very far off already.

Dan: It's a country mile off, actually. You may call me a chauvinist (remember that word?); call me a misogynist and I'll; cut your beard off, wipe your arse with it and make you eat it (while making you watch me drink all your Lambrusco).

Nice "argument", Dan.

Who said anything about an argument? It's a ploy to get the Lambrusco. Dude, you are so naive...

Dan: What is "extreme disrespect" anyway?

Laird: It's extreme in the sense that you hold that it's practically impossible for a woman to earn your respect.

Dan: How is that disrespectful?

Your disrespect is to falsely present women as vastly inferior creatures compared to men, when plainly they are not, and it's extreme in the sense that you hold this inferiority to be so severe and so innate that it is practically impossible to overcome.

You just repeated yourself and made exactly no point. If I believe my views are true, how am I being disrespectful. If you can't make the argument from that perspective, you don't have one.

Are you saying I should respect women just because they exist?

No. It's my approach, but we're different people and I don't expect that you should necessarily adopt the same one. At the very least though you could try not making an attitude of disparagement (disrespect) your default.

That's makes as much sense as your last point. If - try and concentrate here - my views are correct, which necessarily I hold them to be, then how do they constitute disrespect and/or disparagement? You're up shit creek in a barbed wire canoe hunting for electric eels with your bare hands on this one, Laird. Unless you can show that the truth is of itself disrespectful and disparaging (please note that you don't have to hold that my views are true for this point to stand).

I've been doing this a while now, Laird and I can tell you actual, substantial, non-emotional arguments come few and far between. You need to rethink what an argument is. [...] If they wish for me to reconsider they had better start offering some substantial argumentation rather than just hand-ringing and moral indignation. If I want that sort of shit I'll join a Church or the National Party.

Oh, so apparently this doesn't qualify as a "substantial, non-emotional argument". Granted, there's a bit of enthusiasm in it, but I don't think that that disqualifies it as "emotional". And what was your substantial, non-emotional rebuttal? Why, the usual: "I'll get to you soon. There's a lot to rectify in your post", followed by sounds of the wind whistling through the empty reeds.

Oh, fine, I'll respond to it! Happy now?!

[Dan Rowden]

Seriously, Laird, you give me this piece of inept ad hoc drivel and yet expect me to accept criticism from you? Fair dinkum! Crikey.

Again: nice "argument", Dan. You've given me absolutely no idea of why you think what I wrote constitutes "inept ad hoc drivel", let alone rebutted it.

Give me a break. You think that shit you wrote counts for something against decrying a person's views as misogynistic? What's to rebutt anyway? Assertions aren't argument for anything. You say my views are all wrong, worse than that they are tantamount to evil, the implication being - necessarily - that you know the real story, and you give me that shtick and expect me to take it seriously? C'mon!!!! as Leyton would say. Let's take a bit of a look at what you wrote:

I'm no expert,

Oh, great, you're not an expert but you feel qualified to dismiss my viewpoints as misogyny? Man, those are some balls you have on you.

but I know enough to know that their general capabilities aren't all that different from men's.

How the hell was I supposed to rebutt that? How do you rebutt an unsubstantiated and undelineated statement of belief?

They're certainly not the comparatively inept, unconscious creatures that you make them out to be.

Boy howdy, that was really tellin' me! I think I'm convinced.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Well, see, here's my problem with what you just said - they're not my words (well, not all of them anyway).

I didn't say they're your words. From what I can remember, all I have heard you say about women is that they are not good for wisdom and enlightenment. IOW, assuming your view is true, women are inferior to men as long as you value wisdom above all other things. I find that a lot less offensive than the stuff Sue has posted here on women. Yet you claim to agree with Sue's view.

Show me where QRS have done this. That's whose views we're discussing here.

We were also discussing Sue's views, and you defended her against those of us who said she is a misogynist.

I'm not going to search dozens of old threads now, but I will save the relevant posts that come up in the future to show as evidence. Next time this conversation comes up, I will be a lot better prepared.

-

[xerox]

...

[Dan Rowden]

Sure, QSR make a lot of noise about Woman, as opposed to women (learn the difference and stop taking it as an affront to your deluded sense of self), most of which is quite correct. Their apparent failing is their one sided perspective and adherence/attachment to masculine psycho-babble, without much regard to the fact that it is an equally flawed gender based perceptual construct upon which the illusory self hangs itself.

I don't think that's fair. We do say that "masculinity" is a tool one uses for a purpose and that the wise person goes beyond gender. It may be a fair criticism to suggest we don't say it enough, but I think part of the reason for that is that it's hard to get people to see through their gender attachment conditioning at all.

That they seemingly elevate a (phalocentric) gender psychology is a bit laughable.

Is it laughable to extol people to use a screwdriver rather than a chisel to undo screws?

Fancy saying 'my variation of your delusion is better than your delusion.' Its magnigicently ironic and starkly redundant. Hey, my fog is a different shade than yours.

That would be a reasonable point except that we don't do it.

That they attach concepts of perceptual frameworks, like reason and logic, to a gender identity, a delusion, is baffling. So far, my masculine logic hasnt managed to reason much sense into it.

That's because you're too girly. Grow some already! ;)

Sometimes l wounder if they themselves are not a bit deluded or that they are deliberately affecting a belligerantly exaggerated persona purely for effect. As a way of teaching a lesson.

Unfortunately sometimes people need to whacked around the head with reality for them to begin to notice it. I don't believe it's appropriate to wake a sleeping person in a burning house by whispering in their ear that it might be a good idea for them to leave.

[Laird]

You just repeated yourself and made exactly no point. If I believe my views are true, how am I being disrespectful. If you can't make the argument from that perspective, you don't have one.

OK, well, I believe that it's true that God detests all women and has appointed me as the divine punisher, and that every woman I meet I should strip naked and rape. That wouldn't be disrespectful now, would it? After all, I believe that my views are true.

Oh, fine, I'll respond to it! Happy now?!

There's no need to respond. I'm just pointing out that some of us do try to engage seriously with you on this by presenting reasoned arguments.

Laird: but I know enough to know that their general capabilities aren't all that different from men's.

Dan: How the hell was I supposed to rebutt that? How do you rebutt an unsubstantiated and undelineated statement of belief?

By pointing out, for example, in exactly which ways women's general capabilities (or the particular capabilities with which you are concerned) are inferior to men's.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Well, see, here's my problem with what you just said - they're not my words (well, not all of them anyway).

I didn't say they're your words. From what I can remember, all I have heard you say about women is that they are not good for wisdom and enlightenment. IOW, assuming your view is true, women are inferior to men as long as you value wisdom above all other things.

That's right. Change the goals and values and entirely different judgements of inferiority arise.

I find that a lot less offensive than the stuff Sue has posted here on women. Yet you claim to agree with Sue's view.

I do agree with her views, but as I said elsewhere that doesn't mean I always agree with the way they're expressed. I'd need some specific examples of where she's gone overboard to be able to say if I agreed or not (with the idea or the expression of it).

Show me where QRS have done this. That's whose views we're discussing here.

We were also discussing Sue's views, and you defended her against those of us who said she is a misogynist.

Actually, I didn't defend her against those claims. I defended intellectual rigor against those claims being made without substantiation. I don't need to defend Sue; she's a big girl.

[Dan Rowden]

You just repeated yourself and made exactly no point. If I believe my views are true, how am I being disrespectful. If you can't make the argument from that perspective, you don't have one.

OK, well, I believe that it's true that God detests all women and has appointed me as the divine punisher, and that every woman I meet I should strip naked and rape. That wouldn't be disrespectful now, would it? After all, I believe that my views are true.

Actually, no, it wouldn't be disrespectful. Stupid, maybe, but not disrespectful. You need to grasp that respect and/or disrespect is a particular psychological disposition that is not automatically inherent in ideas or actions. Soldiers kill each other. Is that disrespectful?

Oh, fine, I'll respond to it! Happy now?!

There's no need to respond. I'm just pointing out that some of us do try to engage seriously with you on this by presenting reasoned arguments.

Oh, I'll respond just to show you that what you wrote doesn't entirely constitute "reasoned arguments".

Laird: but I know enough to know that their general capabilities aren't all that different from men's.

Dan: How the hell was I supposed to rebutt that? How do you rebutt an unsubstantiated and undelineated statement of belief?

By pointing out, for example, in exactly which ways women's general capabilities (or the particular capabilities with which you are concerned) are inferior to men's.

Ever see a woman pee her name in the snow?

<more serious response pending>