In defense of the feminine energy

[Ryan Rudolph]

If we observe the disorder in the world, most of the atrocities and blunders are done by men, not women. Men go to war. Male construction crews continue to build up the overpopulated cities that destroy nature. All industrial and technological progress is the handy work of men, who are leaching the earth’s vital resources, and destroying many aesthetic creatures and habitats. Man has become supremely stupid in his quest for creativity and progress. The earth has become a whore to be raped. Man is a rapist and molester of the earth.

And yes, these are all things you know…. It maybe redundant, but repetition has a certain value.

Now let us look at woman’s behavior. Generally women are harmless, they’re biggest vice is they follow and imitate ignorant men, but generally speaking they are not as destructive as men because they’re intellects are not as clever. I say this is a strength, not a weakness. Clever men are destroying the vast beauty on this fragile planet. The woman is like a fairy or sprite, she is a symbol of playful, yet childish neutrality. So reviewing the sexes, both are incrediblely weak, but men are the ones that need to be intelligent more than the woman. She is not a problem.

If men mature, women will follow like children. But the biggest threat on our planet are insecure men that like to invent things, kill things, and make zillions of dollars doing it.

Moving on to a related subject…

Religious confession is incredibly important for a follower of truth. However why are we afraid to confess folly with other men? Why do we attack each other so brutally? I think we are afraid because we do not wish to appear inferior in the eyes of others because we are all striving to be the “top dog sage.” And our masculine pride overpowers our feminine yearning for true friendship and brotherhood.

If there is true friendship, it is a journey of suffering, which requires an openness and a certain vulnerability or powerlessness between men. This is a feminine force, not masculine.
Intellectual battles are the result of a philosopher who has grown a little too masculine. He lacks the feminine energy. Dialogue is much more effective than intellectual battles, but every message board I visit seems to be infested with dominant males who enjoy asserting and waving their holy erections in each others faces.

The masculine is important because it is needed to discern truth, and weld reason. It is a very powerful weapon.

However the feminine is important because it is required for any sort of humble self-deflating confessions of folly.

If the feminine is not present, a struggle for power and superiority is inevitable between men.

If a philosopher has grown a little too masculine, his comedy will lack compassion in that it will be based on the sadistic attack of others, which takes place in the “masculine intellectual battleground”

But if he has within him the feminine spirit, his comedy will be based on his own hypocritical follies, and wacky behaviors, which is much more whole, because it encourages all to confess, and our collective tragedy becomes a comedy where we all laugh at each other equally instead of sadistically focusing all attention on just one.

I’m asking myself this question as well, but do we have the courage to lower our sword of truth, and our armor of masculine pride, and communicate as brothers instead of sage warriors determined to competitively outwit the other as a means to win the “top dog” gold medallion….?

[kjones]

To find out the validity of your statements supporting feminine energy, whatever that is, reason is used. It's unnecessary to deflate anything except unreason. So, I need never rely on anything else.

Becoming top dog sage is a revealing kind of phrase, like something growling on the top of a mountain of straw. Surely that mountain can't be huffed and puffed away by deflation, but by figuring out what it logically is, ultimately speaking.


Kelly

[hsandman]

Dear girl,

You can get a boy friend by being more honest about what you want. Concentrate on finishing school. Stop trying to be someting you are not. Listen and think more, insted of talking rubish all the time. Stop puting yourself down. This is not realy a "flame", because it was my curiosity that made me read the rubish you so diligently wrote and it was not realy your fault :P
I could answer it, but you would not like the answers. I am still hoping there are inteligent people on this forum from who i could learn something, so please be quite and stop poluting the "water" with your nonsence.

thank you.

[Dan Rowden]

It's rather hard to know where to start unravelling the multitude of perceptual errors in this post, but I'll have a go at a few of them:

If we observe the disorder in the world, most of the atrocities and blunders are done by men, not women.

This is statistically true but only because men are, predominantly, the "doers" of the world; men are burdoned with positions of power and responsibility. Since this is so it only follows that most wars and sundry "blunders", as you put it, are bound to be done by men.

Men go to war.

Men are cannon fodder. Are you suggesting that women don't start or engage in wars? Are you seriously attempting to spout that particularly noxious piece of mythology that if the world were led by women there'd be less war? God, I hope not. History shows us without equivocation that female leaders embrace war quite happily. One can go back as far as ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia/Sumeria to see this. And ever heard of Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Joan of Arc, the various Queens of England - shall I keep going or do you get the point? Ever notice, also, that whilst men are expected (i.e. forced) to go to war and kill and be killed, that women stay home and support the war effort in various ways. Know what a white feather means? Chiefly a phenomenon of Britain during WW1, white feathers were typically handed over by young women to men out of uniform during wartime, the implication being that the man concerned was a 'shirker' or a coward. It is disingenuous and, frankly, immoral, to ignore the role women play in the ethical and practical support of warfare.

Male construction crews continue to build up the overpopulated cities that destroy nature.

Yes, and every workday hour one construction worker in the U.S alone loses his life. Let's not forget that little snippet of information. But let's look at who the construction is for: do women constitute part of society or not? How much of this construction is for their benefit, or do women have no desires or material needs? Aren't women the one's having the babies - the multitude of babies - that bring about this overpopulation and its consequences? If women are so "green" and environmentally cognizant, why do they continue to require the material comforts thay so obviously want? Why do they continue to have, in many cases, multiple children? Why is up to 95% of the floor space of the average shopping mall dedicated to "women's needs? Why haven't women, whom you imply have a greater natural care for the world, sent all these stores broke due to lack of patronage? Please explain these matters to me.

All industrial and technological progress is the handy work of men,

Yes, next time you fall ill and require medication, keep this in mind; next time you feel hungry and go to the fridge for a snack, keep this in mind - shall I go on?

who are leaching the earth’s vital resources, and destroying many aesthetic creatures and habitats.

Society as a whole is doing that. You're attempt to divorce women from this dynamic is more than a little insane.

Man has become supremely stupid in his quest for creativity and progress. The earth has become a whore to be raped. Man is a rapist and molester of the earth.

Ah, yes, ya gotta love the loaded feminist lingo. But my point about your attempt to impugn men and mitigate the role of women in this still remains.

And yes, these are all things you know…. It maybe redundant, but repetition has a certain value.

It isn't redundant, it's disengenuous and incomplete.

Now let us look at woman’s behavior.

Well, no, let's engage in some standard social mythology...

Generally women are harmless,

You know, I don't even know what that statement means. Harmless in what sense? Harmless to whom? I've already refuted your implication that women are harmless to nature.

they’re biggest vice is they follow and imitate ignorant men, but generally speaking they are not as destructive as men because they’re intellects are not as clever.

On the contrary, women are very clever in an instinctive way. We call it cunning. How can one characterise as "harmless" a gender that by and large is responsible for the rearing of our children and the development of said children's values? If the world's values and methods are so screwed up, what role does the rearing of a generation by women play in this situation? Are women really as harmless as you think?

I say this is a strength, not a weakness. Clever men are destroying the vast beauty on this fragile planet.

Sure, for the benefit of female (and male) material needs. I challenge you to refute this.

The woman is like a fairy or sprite, she is a symbol of playful, yet childish neutrality.

That is pure mythology. Men are overtly aggressive and dynamic; women are passive aggressive and covertly dynamic. Women influence men to a very high degree. They are anything but "neutral" players in the scheme of things. It suits women to have this notion of their neutrality inculcated into social mythology because it means they don't have to take responsibility for anything.

So reviewing the sexes, both are incrediblely weak, but men are the ones that need to be intelligent more than the woman. She is not a problem.

I daresay you would have a hard time finding one husband in a thousand who would agree with that last comment.

If men mature, women will follow like children.

Is that what we want, women who are like children?

But the biggest threat on our planet are insecure men that like to invent things, kill things, and make zillions of dollars doing it.

Not to mention the women standing behind them, egging them on......

Moving on to a related subject…

Religious confession is incredibly important for a follower of truth. However why are we afraid to confess folly with other men? Why do we attack each other so brutally? I think we are afraid because we do not wish to appear inferior in the eyes of others because we are all striving to be the “top dog sage.” And our masculine pride overpowers our feminine yearning for true friendship and brotherhood.

Men and women are competitive in different spheres. Women yearn for relation but that's not the same as friendship or brotherhood. Haven't you noticed how many systems of brotherhood and fellowship there are in the world - systems created by men? Do I need to list them? Men come together in fellowship on a conceptual level. It is concepts that bind them. Women come together on an emotional level. Women need and crave companionship, not because they care about others but because they lack the capacity for psychological and emotional independence. Women need the immediacy of "other", even if it's just a dog. If you want to see women attempting a meeting of minds check out the dynamic of any school tuckshop or any P&C meeting. Remember when I said, in another thread: "be afeared; be very afeared"? Well , that applies here too :)

Because female fellowship is built on emotional connections it is grounded in the immediate - it is therefore fickle. Female bonds do not survive separation because there's no conceptual bonding that can be taken away from the meeting. I don't see how the female form of friendship and brotherhood is going to make the world a better place. Ever hear what women say about each other when their backs are turned? At least you know where you stand with men - they don't wait for a turned back - they tell it to your face.

If there is true friendship, it is a journey of suffering, which requires an openness and a certain vulnerability or powerlessness between men. This is a feminine force, not masculine.

It is also bullshit. There is no real vulnerability between women. These are just subtle power plays. You need a re-education in female psychology.

Intellectual battles are the result of a philosopher who has grown a little too masculine. He lacks the feminine energy.

What is inherently wrong with "intellectual battles"? It comes down to motivation, doesn't it?

Dialogue is much more effective than intellectual battles, but every message board I visit seems to be infested with dominant males who enjoy asserting and waving their holy erections in each others faces.

I'm always suspicious of women who see phallic symbolism everywhere. Philosophy is as much a battle as it is a dialogue. There's no reason why we can't have both. Again, it all comes down to motivation.

The masculine is important because it is needed to discern truth, and weld reason. It is a very powerful weapon.

Agreed.

However the feminine is important because it is required for any sort of humble self-deflating confessions of folly.

Pah. Men admit their follies all the time. They have to because women are forever pointing them out. Self-effacing behaviour by women is not what you think it is. Humility certainly has nothing to do with it. It is all about passivity, not wishing to appear proactive, overt or dominant because that then entails the greatest dread of any woman: being held responsible, or, perhaps more to the point - feeling responsible.

If the feminine is not present, a struggle for power and superiority is inevitable between men.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to be right, so long as it is based in the valuing of truth. Competitiveness drives people forward. The desire to conquer is absolutely essential to the person who wishes to become wise, because he must conquer his ingnorance to achieve that goal. Too much of the feminine just leaves everyone being so nice (seemingly) to each other that nothing gets done.

If a philosopher has grown a little too masculine, his comedy will lack compassion in that it will be based on the sadistic attack of others, which takes place in the “masculine intellectual battleground”

Comedy is always a sadistic attack on something. That's what makes it funny.

But if he has within him the feminine spirit, his comedy will be based on his own hypocritical follies, and wacky behaviors, which is much more whole, because it encourages all to confess, and our collective tragedy becomes a comedy where we all laugh at each other equally instead of sadistically focusing all attention on just one.

So, we all sit around laughing at how pathetic we all are. Ok, great. What comes after that?

I’m asking myself this question as well, but do we have the courage to lower our sword of truth, and our armor of masculine pride, and communicate as brothers instead of sage warriors determined to competitively outwit the other as a means to win the “top dog” gold medallion….?

You're conflating two things that don't have any necessary relationship. We don't have to lower our sword of truth. As I've said previously, it's all about motivation. If our motive is to divine truth then "top dog" egotistical competitiveness doesn't rear its ugly head that much. If I disagree with you about somehting and assert that you are wrong, does than automatically mean that I am engaging in "top dog" behaviour toward you?


Dan Rowden

[Ryan Rudolph]

You are right, I have made some harsh biased statements, I got a little carried way with this mythical conception of femininity, I can see now how ignorant it is, but let me continue if I may….

female leaders embrace war quite happily.

Yes, I agree, but do most women have the will to engage in war? There maybe a few exceptions, but the vast majority would not run into a battlefield with a loaded weapon. it is only man that has the will to plan and execute military battles.

If man wises up, the woman has no power over him. He will no longer submit to her weak desires for material things, and what not.

Why is up to 95% of the floor space of the average shopping mall dedicated to "women's needs?

Because men desire women to look sexual. If man didn’t care, and didn’t give her any sexually motivated attention, her motivation would die. If men didn’t have lofty personal preferences of a women’s appearance, it would change her perception slowly.

Lets not forget that a woman’s excessive vanity is due to a man’s obsessive worship of her sexual features. She is vain because men make her vain. They give her too much sexual attention, compliments, flattery, and all the rest.

She values it because it is the source all so much positive emotion and stimulation, which is mostly the cause of horny confused men.

next time you fall ill and require medication.

If man eats supremely healthy, organic food, and all the rest, he will rarely get sick. The abundance of medication is only due to the abundance of toxic food on the grocery shelves. Doctors would work much less in a world of intelligent people.

Society as a whole is doing that. You're attempt to divorce women from this dynamic is more than a little insane.

I realize that women are a part of it, they definitely contribute, but men are the gears, and without the gears, the machine crumbles.

women are very clever in an instinctive way.

The point that I’m trying to make is that I don’t think women have the inventiveness to create western civilization. If you study any industry, most progress has been achieved by clever men… but western civilization is not something to be proud of.

My point is that if men became collectively wise today, the world would transform because men are the driving force behind each industry.

I can clearly see that the revolution will be led by men, and hopefully women will catch on later.

I daresay you would have a hard time finding one husband in a thousand who would agree with that last comment.

I question whether a intelligent man entertains the idea of marriage in the first place, marriage is only option in an intelligent world, which isn’t the correct state, we are still growing….

[hsandman]

It is also bullshit. There is no real vulnerability between women. These are just subtle power plays. You need a re-education in female psychology.

No, Dan she is a just young girl flexing her mental muscles testing her boundries of power/superiority. what a cunning creature :)